Light Rail Boom

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast

^^That ridership still seems very low for a city "doing it right".

If 16,000 on a 14 mile line is "doing it right", what would be considered a failure? 12,000? 10,000? 8,000?

And if 16,000 is "successful", how would you describe a system like Calgary's C-Train, which is doing 280,000/day with 30 miles of route in a metro of less than 1.3 million and a downtown workforce of only about 130,000?

[seaskyfan]

Originally Posted by J. Will

If 16,000 on a 14 mile line is "doing it right", what would be considered a failure? 12,000? 10,000? 8,000?

And if 16,000 is "successful", how would you describe a system like Calgary's C-Train, which is doing 280,000/day with 30 miles of route in a metro of less than 1.3 million and a downtown workforce of only about 130,000?

"Success" and "Failure" are relative terms based on what the goals of the system/line/etc. were when it was approved. If Calgary's C-Train had a goal of 500,000/day and was only hitting 280,000/day if would be considered a failure.

The final jury on the Seattle line are the voters in the Sound Transit District who in November of 2008 approved an extensive expansion of the system based on Sound Transit's performance to date and projections for the light rail line. My sense is that voters remain pretty happy with the line - especially since visible construction on the University Link extension has started.

[mhays]

As I've already posted, Seattle's line is up to 22,000 per day, after consistently rising at least 5% per month.

[J. Will]

We were talking about Charlotte's ridership, not Seattle's.

[seaskyfan]

^ Charlotte's line is 9.6 miles. Seattle's is 14.6. I think that's where the confusion came from.

Regardless - from the article it looks like they exceeded their first year ridership goal, making them a "success" at least through that point.

[M II A II R II K]

Streetcar is sound strategy, not silly frill


Jul. 18, 2010



Read More: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...#ixzz0u61LJZWL

Charlotte's plans to build 1.4 miles of a 10-mile streetcar project with a $25 million federal grant and $12 million in city money has plenty of folks wondering if City Hall's gone mad. As Mayor Anthony Foxx said, with some understatement, "I know it's not without controversy." A lot of thinking goes like this: In a recession, why spend millions on a silly uptown frill when they're laying off teachers and closing libraries? It's easy to understand such a reaction. But government budgets make things more complex. Further, viewing a streetcar as just a people-mover uptown misses the bigger picture. It's a growth and development strategy. It's fiscally prudent in the long term and will have its most positive effect in areas outside uptown.

Let's start with teachers, libraries and other cuts. Recession-induced shortfalls have meant closed libraries and hundreds of school layoffs. Obviously, $12 million would ease that pain. And if the $12 million could be spent to pay teachers, we'd push for that. But the $12 million is in the city's capital budget. It can't help other governments with continuing costs. If the city rejected the $25 million grant and pocketed its $12 million, the federal millions wouldn't even ease the federal deficit but would go to another city. Not a penny of the $12 million would go to hire teachers - a state and county expense - or help county-funded libraries or parks. The city's long-term strategy is for a 10-mile streetcar from Beatties Ford Road out Central Avenue. The vision is to lure valuable development to west and east Charlotte, which have seen precious little of it recently. That, in turn, improves tax values in those areas - which long-term adds tax revenue to city and county budgets, thus helping schools and libraries.

Most other U.S. cities that have built streetcars or other rail transit have seen increasingly valuable development. A Portland, Ore., streetcar open since 2001 lured 4 million square feet of high-density development, a 2005 study found. A Seattle analysis of land values near its new streetcar, opened in 2007, found $68.4 million in increased property value. Charlotte itself offers a good illustration of how rail transit, as opposed to buses, lures development. That's because rails offer permanence, which gives developers and lenders confidence to invest. Even before Charlotte's voters OK'd a transit tax in 1998, a short trolley-ride project along a South Boulevard rail bed inspired redevelopment of Atherton Mill, the Lance Factory and other projects. As of April, development in Lynx station areas totaled more than $247 million.

Portland, Ore., saw development zoom along its streetcar route. STEVEN NEHL/THE OREGONIAN






The city plans to use three replica vintage streetcars it already owns, such as this, to save $8 million on its streetcar project. 2004 OBSERVER FILE PHOTO - TODD SUMLIN

[M II A II R II K]

St. Louis’ Loop District Gets Endorsement from Feds with Grant for Streetcar


July 26th, 2010

Yonah Freemark



Read More: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...for-streetcar/

St. Louis’ successful bid for a $25 million grant to partially fund the construction of a new streetcar line in the city’s Loop district is being hailed in the local press as the latest achievement of a man who has in just a few of decades taken what was once a downtrodden street and transformed it into one of the city’s most active commercial areas. Joe Edwards — the “mayor” of the Delmar Loop — started a restaurant, then restored a concert hall, then opened a hotel and a bowling alley, and recently he has been the primary proponent of this rail project.

From that perspective, it makes sense that of the nine streetcar systems* the federal government has funded this year (thanks to the TIGER and Urban Circulator grants), only St. Louis will be constructing a line outside of its downtown. The rest, including Fort Worth, whose project I described earlier this month, will have their new street-running trains in the center-city.

But the Loop, which straddles the City of St. Louis and University City (both in St. Louis County), is as vital as the downtowns of many smaller cities, and it’s arguably only indirectly served by rapid transit. Its heart is roughly a half-mile from the Delmar and University City Metrolink light rail stations; Mr. Edwards will clearly see his business improve by having streetcars run in front of his enterprises, to and from the rapid transit stations and to the Missouri History Museum in Forest Park.

New “trolley lines” will connect to two light rail stations and activate region’s most urban district outside of downtown.

[M II A II R II K]

Light Rail Weight Loss


Aug 28, 2010

By Lyra Manning

Read More: http://www.foxcharlotte.com/news/hea...101735873.html

CHARLOTTE, NC - Increasing ridership while decreasing your waistline. CATS is preparing a campaign to highlight a recent study – a study that shows you can drop a few pounds and keep weight off by riding the light rail.

This summer, The Journal of Preventative Medicine published a study on Charlotte’s Lynx Light Rail. Their research found riding the blue line led to an average weight loss of around 6 ½ pounds, and that Light Rail users are 81% less likely to be obese over time. Researchers say that’s because walking to and from your stop is part of a more physically active lifestyle.

“We plan to highlight that more and more during the year and try to find some health partners to co-promote with – the benefits of public transit from a health perspective,” said Olaf Kinard, Director of Marketing for CATS.

[M II A II R II K]

Atlanta, Cincinnati ask for TIGER streetcar grants


September 10th, 2010

Read More: http://newurbannetwork.com/article/a...r-grants-13117

Atlanta is making another bid for federal TIGER funds to build a streetcar line. Having failed last February to win $298 million in federal stimulus funds for a 9.7-mile streetcar system, the City and the Georgia Transit Connector initiative asked this August for $52 million for a line considerably shorter: 2.6 miles. The City and the downtown development district would chip in $10 million each toward the $72 million cost.

- The eventual goal of the streetcar is to complement existing MARTA rail service by providing quick, comfortable trips between various MARTA stations and in some cases take passengers to their homes, offices, or other destinations.

- Meanwhile, Cincinnati is also pursuing TIGER funding for a streetcar line. The blog UrbanCincy reports that a route has been chosen for the Cincinnati Streetcar, which is planned to connect downtown to uptown neighborhoods. The Vine Street route, shown in map, will save $20 million in capital costs compared to the alternative, the city says.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by J. Will

If 16,000 on a 14 mile line is "doing it right", what would be considered a failure? 12,000? 10,000? 8,000?

And if 16,000 is "successful", how would you describe a system like Calgary's C-Train, which is doing 280,000/day with 30 miles of route in a metro of less than 1.3 million and a downtown workforce of only about 130,000?

I would explain Calgary's success in a few ways... one of them is : 1981. That was the date that LRT was first opened.

30 years later... Calgary has great ridership. This in no way denigrates Calgary, but Calgary has had an entire generation grow up with the LRT. In addition, they have, over the years, concentrated office growth in 1 sq. km. (0.39 sq. mi. ) downtown, increased parking to very high levels, made extensive park and rides...

In addition, compare Calgary of 1981 to Calgary of today. The city has been built around the LRT, to some extent. They made the decision not bring the highways into the downtown core...

Now look at Seattle. It has a great bus transit culture already. However, it doesn't have the advantage of preserving row for rail. it's two biggest employers are in the suburbs, it still has cheap parking, multiple freeways go right downtown. Look at the Alaskan Way viaduct. They could just tear that baby down and prevent that highway from being a direct link to downtown. Better yet, use its reconstruction money to built a few more rail links.

Give Seattle time, it will take time to build rail culture. Building to the University is a critical step.

[Policy Wonk]

The circumstances in Calgary are almost impossible to replicate and mostly an accident of geography and history. You can't fairly judge very many cities against Calgary. Downtown Calgary is dense because it is completely boxed in by the river and railroad and existing development on either side of those boundaries.

Had the CPR been built on the north side of the river or much further south downtown Calgary would look very different.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Now look at Seattle. It has a great bus transit culture already. However, it doesn't have the advantage of preserving row for rail. it's two biggest employers are in the suburbs, it still has cheap parking, multiple freeways go right downtown. Look at the Alaskan Way viaduct. They could just tear that baby down and prevent that highway from being a direct link to downtown. Better yet, use its reconstruction money to built a few more rail links.

Give Seattle time, it will take time to build rail culture. Building to the University is a critical step.

As a Seattlite, I won't claim that having big suburban employers is an excuse for anything. Aside from Calgary and a few others which are way above us, we have very healthy percentage of our job base Downtown.

But your points are still valid. Calgary has had 29 years of added density, etc. along its LR. Seattle put our light rail through a low-density part of town, with only one small park-n-ride on the whole line. I'd guess 40% of the line is through industrial areas, one with a couple stations near downtown (one has some offices nearby and the other has stadiums nearby), and one that's probably three miles with no stations. Regarding the low-density residential/commercial along MLK Way, that's fine because the density will come, at least around the stations, and it'll be a system built around density rather than the drive-n-ride model.

I used to worry about ridership. Now I worry about capacity. Due to a tunnel extension using a stub tunnel that's important for current train operations, trains are limited to two cars until 2015. Since trains share the tunnel with buses they can't run any more than 7.5 minute headways at peak times. There are already capacity issues sometimes...in the three or four times I've ridden at rush hour, the worst was "Tokyo minus the pusher guys" (sharing the tunnel with buses also results in a couple minutes of delay sometimes, due to the buses, for example wheelchairs...the time I'm referring to was a case like that). Anyway, in a few years when a lot of TODs have completed, the economy gets better, etc., it might be a crush. Relief will come in 2015 when the trains can add a third car, and then in 2016 when the University extension will kick the buses out of the tunnel (I think that's the plan) and run trains more often, while also extending the trains to four cars if warranted.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Light Rail Weight Loss


Aug 28, 2010

By Lyra Manning

Read More: http://www.foxcharlotte.com/news/hea...101735873.html

So I guess that means that buses and heavy rail = weight gain

[miketoronto]

This is from the report on Calgary's LRT. As you can see the ridership was high on the first line.

http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/Ca...RB_revised.pdf

"The initial 12.9 km (7.7 mi) south LRT line, extending from Anderson Road to
downtown, opened for revenue service in 1981 May, on schedule and within budget, and
soon achieved its forecast ridership target of 40,000 boarding passengers per day."

[Nexis4Jersey]

Here's what my state has planned , yes i did include other things beside LRT. But you get the point. The LRT will be used to bridge the gaps in the Regional rail network. Also service the Urban parts on the state.

Newark / Harrison

7 New NJT Regional Rail lines
3 New Amtrak Services
1-2 New PATH lines
2 Streetcar lines
4-5 New light Rail lines


Elizabeth

2-3 New Light Rail lines
3 New NJT Regional Rail lines
No Amtrak Service
Reconstructed Midtown Station

Paterson

1-3 Light Rail lines
2 New NJT / Metro North Regional Rail lines
Reconstructed Station

Jersey City

1-4 New Light Rail lines
1 New PATH line
No NJT Regional Rail lines

Trenton

1 New Light Rail line
No New NJT Regional Rail lines
Moving of the current Light Rail station into the main station area

New Brunswick


1 New Light Rail line
1 New NJT Regional Rail line
Reconstructed Station

Camden / Cherry Hill

1 New NJT Regional Rail line
2 New Light Rail lines
No Amtrak Service

Hackensack

1 New Light Rail line

Passaic

1 New Light Rail line

Dover

3 New NJT Regional Rail lines
Future Amtrak Service?

Atlantic City

1 New NJT Regional Rail line

Philpsburg / Easton

2 New NJT Regional Rail lines
Future Amtrak Service

Hawthorne

3 New NJT Regional Rail lines
1 New Light Rail line

North Bergen

3 New Light Rail lines

Secaucus

1-2 New Light Rail lines
5 New NJT Regional Rail lines

Hoboken

1 New PATH line
8 New NJT Regional Rail lines
Future Amtrak Service
2-3 New Light Rail lines
refurbished Ferryport

Bound Brook

3 New NJT Regional Rail lines
1 New Light Rail line

South Amboy

2 New NJT Regional Rail lines
1 New Light Rail line

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

This is from the report on Calgary's LRT. As you can see the ridership was high on the first line.

http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/Ca...RB_revised.pdf

"The initial 12.9 km (7.7 mi) south LRT line, extending from Anderson Road to
downtown, opened for revenue service in 1981 May, on schedule and within budget, and
soon achieved its forecast ridership target of 40,000 boarding passengers per day."

Cool. Thanks! I was looking for data for when it opened. Though I admit I'm curious to know what "soon" means in that report, it brings up a good point, that it met ridership forecasts. It took the Millennium Line in Vancouver several years to meet ridership forecasts, Canada Line is pretty much on target now, I don't know about the Expo line.

I'm always interested to see how a city reacts to its initial line. No one REALLY knows what to expect, how people will use or not use the new line... will it really attract riders etc.

You have slow starts like the Las Vegas Monorail, which is a victim of high fares and inconvenient location, fast starts like the Canada Line, which had established bus ridership.

One thing that I notice, and it seems obvious but should be said... is that it's all about time and cost. If the line is as fast as the car, or not much slower, people will take it. If it's slow, people would pay considerably more and take their car.

This time/value consideration was apparent when I was talking to a co-worker. She has two options on her way home. $3 with toll, or no toll. When traffic's bad and the toll route will save her an hour, she pays. Clearly, she feels ( as many do ) that paying extra for convenience and time savings is worth it.

This unfortunately is not good for many of the LRT implementations, as running at grade for a lot of the journey and ends up being a slow ride.

This would even apply to grade-separated systems that stop frequently, run at slow speeds, are infrequent or any combination of these.

[mhays]

Depends. Parking cost/availability is another factor. People who don't have cars are another factor. Tourists who often don't have cars are still another.

It also depends on what types of mode shares you're talking about as well. If you count how many people from a 1/2 mile station radius, and only people whose destinations are near other stations, the standards needed to get a 20% share are very different than the standards needed for a 50% share for example, and disincentives like parking are probably involved with the 50% figure.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

The circumstances in Calgary are almost impossible to replicate and mostly an accident of geography and history. You can't fairly judge very many cities against Calgary. Downtown Calgary is dense because it is completely boxed in by the river and railroad and existing development on either side of those boundaries.

Had the CPR been built on the north side of the river or much further south downtown Calgary would look very different.

Another huge factor is that historically the oil and gas industry preferred to locate within walking distance of the EUB (Energy Utilities Board), the Provincial government department that allocates drilling permits. The industries that supported oil and gas, such as engineering, banking, finance, accouting, insurance, legal etc. consequently located close to their client base. Calgary really is unique and planning has far less to do with than geography and history.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by Doug

Another huge factor is that historically the oil and gas industry preferred to locate within walking distance of the EUB (Energy Utilities Board), the Provincial government department that allocates drilling permits. The industries that supported oil and gas, such as engineering, banking, finance, accouting, insurance, legal etc. consequently located close to their client base. Calgary really is unique and planning has far less to do with than geography and history.

Seattle's downtown however does have more jobs in it than downtown Calgary. So low downtown employment levels can not be used to justify why a line would have lower usage in Seattle compared to say Calgary.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Seattle's downtown however does have more jobs in it than downtown Calgary. So low downtown employment levels can not be used to justify why a line would have lower usage in Seattle compared to say Calgary.

Calgary's lines have had decades to establish themselves with the public, Seattle's light rail just a year. Also, Seattle has the Sounder commuter rail, and Washington State ferries, besides the usual buses, to get commuters to and from downtown. It's really not fair to compare transit effectiveness between cities using different types of transit vehicles, or with different combinations of transit vehicles.