We need more light rails

[Koolau]

Back in 2015, Connecticut built a bus-only road running between New Britain and Hartford. It was built over old railroad right of way and functions like a light rail system. The CTfastrak, as it is called, was touted as a way to relieve congestion on I-84, which passes through both cities, but as far as anyone can tell, it has not. Those 9.4 miles of road cost over $570 million to build. In 2019, pre-pandemic, it cost $22 million to operate per year and generated $3.9 million in fare revenue from slightly over 15,000 trips per day (assuming each rider takes two trips - to and from work -- that's 7500 riders per weekday.) Ridership declined during the pandemic, but has recovered somewhat to a daily average of about 7000 riders per weekday. And the fare was waived during that time, but has since been reinstituted. I don't have more recent data on the operating cost or the fare revenue, but I would expect the cost to be up and revenue to be down since 2019. If the construction cost is amortized over 20 years, that means the state taxpayers are paying about $27 per person per day just to get about 7000 people to and from work every weekday (0.2% of the state's population).

Yeah, sounds like someone didn't sharpen the pencil before coming up with this "solution" to a problem they apparently didn't understand.

In our case, and I have to be careful how I say this, I assume the main reason for the Light Rail... Nope! Better not.

 

[W2R]

I'm sure some other cities have great bus transportation systems, but I've always been impressed with ours. It's called THE BUS and I've alluded to it often.

I always loved THE BUS!!! Best transportation system I have ever seen, at least "back in the day". Haven't been on it since 2001, but back then one of its great attributes was that the elderly could ride free. What a great idea - - it kept some elderly from driving their cars so much (possibly dangerously), and helped them to keep within their budgets. My mother's CCRC had a THE BUS stop about 30 feet away (at Punahou & Wilder), and the bus came by probably every 10 minutes or so. She could go wherever she wanted without having to drive.

 

[TheWizard]

I love light rail and city metro systems in general.
I took the green line from Symphony station in the rain last night after Pops and connected out to my car at Alewife station.

Tomorrow, I may take the Orange line from Oak Grove into the Sox game at Fenway depending on rain.
We'll hit an Irish pub or Chinese place before the game without having to park twice...

 

[Koolau]

I always loved THE BUS!!! Best transportation system I have ever seen, at least "back in the day". Haven't been on it since 2001, but back then one of its great attributes was that the elderly could ride free. What a great idea - - it kept some elderly from driving their cars so much (possibly dangerously), and helped them to keep within their budgets. My mother's CCRC had a THE BUS stop about 30 feet away (at Punahou & Wilder), and the bus came by probably every 10 minutes or so. She could go wherever she wanted without having to drive.

IIRC, now folks past 65 are eligible for a bus pass for $45/year. With this pass,
kamaʻāina pay $1.25/ride (up to 2 1/2 hours with transfers) but the pass holder spends no more than $20 total in one month no matter how many times they ride.

That's no longer free, but it certainly is reasonable.

Back when we were tourists, we too rode THE BUS all over the Island. Back in 1975, the fare was $0.25/ride. And you could literally ride around the Island for that fare. I often think that we will eventually buy the pass when we can no longer drive. The savings over owning a car are immense - though I don't really ever want to give up the car. Still, if we have to give up driving, we are just across the street from a bus stop and there is a bus every 10 minutes or so. Life is good!

 

[explanade]

Yes. If we can force the proles into less time-efficient means of travel, the roads will be clear for us.

Well richer people (the non proles) tend to be older people, who are also being nudged off the roads.


Costs of operating vehicles tend to be increasing. Car prices are going up, fuel prices will over time and so are insurance premiums.

A lot of these proles are also uninsured so I'm all for getting them off the roads.

Also get older vehicles off the road.

Overall reliance on cars need to go down, not up.

 

[explanade]

Back in 2015, Connecticut built a bus-only road running between New Britain and Hartford. It was built over old railroad right of way and functions like a light rail system. The CTfastrak, as it is called, was touted as a way to relieve congestion on I-84, which passes through both cities, but as far as anyone can tell, it has not. Those 9.4 miles of road cost over $570 million to build. In 2019, pre-pandemic, it cost $22 million to operate per year and generated $3.9 million in fare revenue from slightly over 15,000 trips per day (assuming each rider takes two trips - to and from work -- that's 7500 riders per weekday.) Ridership declined during the pandemic, but has recovered somewhat to a daily average of about 7000 riders per weekday. And the fare was waived during that time, but has since been reinstituted. I don't have more recent data on the operating cost or the fare revenue, but I would expect the cost to be up and revenue to be down since 2019. If the construction cost is amortized over 20 years, that means the state taxpayers are paying about $27 per person per day just to get about 7000 people to and from work every weekday (0.2% of the state's population).

I love light rail and city metro systems in general.
I took the green line from Symphony station in the rain last night after Pops and connected out to my car at Alewife station.

Tomorrow, I may take the Orange line from Oak Grove into the Sox game at Fenway depending on rain.
We'll hit an Irish pub or Chinese place before the game without having to park twice...

Yeah, sounds like someone didn't sharpen the pencil before coming up with this "solution" to a problem they apparently didn't understand.

In our case, and I have to be careful how I say this, I assume the main reason for the Light Rail... Nope! Better not.

There must be some benefits to these systems if they keep building them.

When they propose them, are they citing studies which show these systems reducing car use, which leads to better outcomes for some regions?

Or are they pushing through these systems in spite of cases showing these systems don't make justifiable returns or some other benefits?

Why would they do that?

I still remember the monorail episode of The Simpsons. Did communities actually install monorail systems after Disneyland?

In those cases, the people who built monorails just hoodwinked communities repeatedly.

Is that what's going on? Why is Congress giving federal subsidies for these systems? Are they able to pass these subsidies despite case after case of these systems not providing benefits?

 

[Koolau]

Overall reliance on cars need to go down, not up.

How is that done? I've given one example of a State that is trying to get cars off the road by building a Light Rail (Well, that's what they said.) By any measure, the cost will be outrageous. It would have been much more efficient to add more busses and make bus ridership free or almost free (maybe $1/ride.) You can give a lot of bus rides for $15 Billion dollars.

 

[Gumby]

The way I see it, these type of systems are pushed vehemently by two particular groups. First and most obviously, whenever there is a huge trough of government money, there are always people who are eager to stick their snout in and gobble some of it. So the real estate developers, construction firms and union halls are always supporters. Second are the Robert Moses wannabes -- the urban planners and public intelligentsia who are convinced that the world would be a much better place if only they could have the force of government (and its money) to put their ideas into effect. These two groups are interested, concentrated, active, organized and great cultivators of politicians. Ordinary taxpayers, who are an amorphous, diffuse group of people not particularly informed or active, rarely stand a chance against them.

 

[TheWizard]

I think the more successful light rail/metro transit systems are the ones where they EXTEND an existing system by a few miles.
This has happened in the Boston area several times over past few decades.

Starting a whole new metro line from scratch may not be successful for quite a while...

 

[Koolau]

The way I see it, these type of systems are pushed vehemently by two particular groups. First and most obviously, whenever there is a huge trough of government money, there are always people who are eager to stick their snout in and gobble some of it. So the real estate developers, construction firms and union halls are always supporters. Second are the Robert Moses wannabes -- the urban planners and public intelligentsia who are convinced that the world would be a much better place if only they could have the force of government (and its money) to put their ideas into effect. These two groups are interested, concentrated, active, organized and great cultivators of politicians. Ordinary taxpayers, who are an amorphous, diffuse group of people not particularly informed or active, rarely stand a chance against them.

Thank you for stating elegantly what I hesitated to say explicitly. THE reason we have the rail - Nope still can't say it better than Gumby.

 

[jollystomper]

There must be some benefits to these systems if they keep building them.

When they propose them, are they citing studies which show these systems reducing car use, which leads to better outcomes for some regions?

Or are they pushing through these systems in spite of cases showing these systems don't make justifiable returns or some other benefits?

Why would they do that?

I still remember the monorail episode of The Simpsons. Did communities actually install monorail systems after Disneyland?

In those cases, the people who built monorails just hoodwinked communities repeatedly.

Is that what's going on? Why is Congress giving federal subsidies for these systems? Are they able to pass these subsidies despite case after case of these systems not providing benefits?

1. There are people who still know how to make money from these projects, even if said projects turn out to be of no benefit.

2. It can seem like a "noble" thing to do, that few will argue that, in concept and theory, it is a bad thing.

3. Usually the ones who start the ball rolling are not around when the cost explosions hit... there is little accountability (in my view) when the costs for these projects soar.

4. No one wants to admit they made a mistake - "the conditions were not right", but "we should still proceed for the future benefit" .

 

[explanade]

1. There are people who still know how to make money from these projects, even if said projects turn out to be of no benefit.

2. It can seem like a "noble" thing to do, that few will argue that, in concept and theory, it is a bad thing.

3. Usually the ones who start the ball rolling are not around when the cost explosions hit... there is little accountability (in my view) when the costs for these projects soar.

4. No one wants to admit they made a mistake - "the conditions were not right", but "we should still proceed for the future benefit" .

But if there are clear cut cases of these projects losing money, not returning enough benefits, it should be easier to oppose them, especially when it comes to funding decisions, from local/state, where they have to get funding decisions made (bonds, increases in various local taxes and surcharges) to the federal level where Congress is appropriating subsidies.

 

[Koolau]

1. There are people who still know how to make money from these projects, even if said projects turn out to be of no benefit.

2. It can seem like a "noble" thing to do, that few will argue that, in concept and theory, it is a bad thing.

3. Usually the ones who start the ball rolling are not around when the cost explosions hit... there is little accountability (in my view) when the costs for these projects soar.

4. No one wants to admit they made a mistake - "the conditions were not right", but "we should still proceed for the future benefit" .

Well said.

What is it they say? Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.

In our case, from the time the rail was proposed until the last phase is complete will be over 20 years. By then, the big pushers of the project will all be rich and/or dead and blame will fall on small fry that can't seem to keep the rail running right. It's an age old story.

 

[explanade]

OK quick Googling, this study has reviewed other studies on light rail systems in the UK, Europe and North America.

Recent international research has reinforced the links between transport investment and improved economic performance (Banister, 2011, Banister and Thurstain-Goodwin, 2011, Eddington, 2006a, Eddington, 2006b, Hensher et al., 2012, Ibeas et al., 2012, Knowles, 2012, Lakshmanan, 2011). There is substantial evidence that transport plays a critical role in facilitating city region competitiveness, and that locations with poor quality transport are at a competitive disadvantage (Banister and Berechman, 2001, Shaw and Docherty, 2014).

Public officials have demonstrated support for transit investment by recounting the economic, social and environmental benefits it may bring (Adler, 1987, SACTRA, 1999, Taylor and Samples, 2002). Citing wider economic incentives, the importance of transport connections within and external to a city, is valued in terms of accessibility, frequency and reliability of service, as well as its ability to act as a catalyst for inward investment, improvements in labour market performance, and an overall enhancement of city centre quality of life (Eddington, 2006a, Eddington, 2006b, SACTRA, 1999). Improving the level and quality of internal and external connectivity is therefore considered to be critical for improving city performance (Docherty et al., 2009). This paper provides a critical insight on the wider economic impacts of light rail transit (LRT) on cities across the globe; an often positive economic rationale that public and private organisations have often used to justify investment in light rail.

Most cities with successful post-industrial economies, and populations above 300,000,3 are able to deliver new light rail and/or heavy rail schemes as well as smaller investments designed to reduce road and rail bottlenecks. Such urban rail investment can also help to regenerate Central Business Districts (CBDs), boost employment, land and property prices, and improve the quality of the city environment (Babalik-Sutcliffe, 2002, Cervero and Duncan, 2002, Hass-Klau et al., 2004). While these may be considered gains from an economic perspective, they may have major social implications as Grengs (2004) has argued, however, analysis of the social impacts are beyond the scope of this paper.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien...ail can help cities attract inward investment.

They do have caveats about geography.

This study is about Denmark and cites that LRT are often chosen over bus network expansion or BRT in spite of poor relative ROI:

Despite the seemingly poorer socio-economic return of LRT in cost benefit analyses (CBA) compared to bus rapid transit (BRT) systems, LRT solutions are often chosen over BRT.

Several studies show that the decisions to build such systems have not primarily been based on the socio-economic feasibility of the systems. Rather, they are often justified in terms of the branding value and positive image for public transportation, as well as the perceived ability to reduce road congestion and stimulate urban development. Drawing on Actor Network Theory (ANT), the paper analyses how LRT systems have been applied in a Danish context and the role that the CBA has played in this process. The results show that conventional socio-economic factors in CBA, such as travel time savings, play a relatively minor role compared to the larger urban transformation visions that LRT projects are embedded in.

https://nordregio.org/publications/...se-studies-of-light-rail-planning-in-denmark/

So apparently, policy makers believe that LRT can enhance development or redevelopment of a region, not just improve congestion and general transport.

The first study seems to cite other studies which support this idea of greater development and economic growth as a result of improved LRT infrastructure.

 

[explanade]

Want to add one other thing. Post-pandemic, some cities are facing challenges to restructure their economic planning, sort of reboot their business model, because of the increase in demand from workers to WFH, particularly white-collar workers who are often in high demand professions.

So San Francisco is dealing with high vacancy in commercial real estate or office space now and seeing declining revenues.

Some said that SF isn't facing some big existential crisis like Detroit did a decade or more ago.

But they obviously have to rethink budgets and city planning if this WFH trend is sustained for decades.

There's BART and Caltrain but otherwise, commuting to San Francisco for work for those who live outside the city is not a pleasant experience.

And real estate prices in the city were sky high before the pandemic, not sure how much they've changed since the pandemic and the high interest rates we've seen in the last 1-2 years.

I don't know if better transport options into and out of San Francisco would help stop or reverse this WFH trend.

But the city may have to redefine itself as it was reliant on workers in highly-paid professions coming into the city daily.

 

[jollystomper]

But if there are clear cut cases of these projects losing money, not returning enough benefits, it should be easier to oppose them, especially when it comes to funding decisions, from local/state, where they have to get funding decisions made (bonds, increases in various local taxes and surcharges) to the federal level where Congress is appropriating subsidies.

Not really, because memories are short, and the folks who make money off of them - regardless of the outcome - have a powerful lobby and political "investments". Hard questions are not asked when new projects come to light - the "hope" that someday, somehow, their will be a successful project is still there - and many want to claim that success if it happens.

 

[jollystomper]

OK quick Googling, this study has reviewed other studies on light rail systems in the UK, Europe and North America.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0966692315001659#:~:text=Light%20rail%20systems%20improve%20accessibility,increase%20land%20and%20property%20values.&text=Light%20rail%20alone%20is%20rarely,for%20regeneration%20and%20economic%20change.&text=Economic%20impacts%20of%20light%20rail%20are%20enhanced%20if,ordinated%20with%20land%20use%20planning.&text=Light%20rail%20can%20help%20cities%20attract%20inward%20investment.

They do have caveats about geography.

This study is about Denmark and cites that LRT are often chosen over bus network expansion or BRT in spite of poor relative ROI:



https://nordregio.org/publications/...se-studies-of-light-rail-planning-in-denmark/

So apparently, policy makers believe that LRT can enhance development or redevelopment of a region, not just improve congestion and general transport.

The first study seems to cite other studies which support this idea of greater development and economic growth as a result of improved LRT infrastructure.

One of the things you have to ask is, "what were the road/travel conditions like, in those areas where light rail succeeded, before light rail was introduced?"

The U.S. has probably the best interconnected roads of any country in the world (remember we are talking connectivity, not overall quality). The focus has been to build roads to support vehicular traffic. If the road connectivity is in place, it can become more difficult to try to displace that with light rail except in areas of very high density. I believe that is part of the challenge.

 

[Koolau]

OK quick Googling, this study has reviewed other studies on light rail systems in the UK, Europe and North America.



https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien...ail can help cities attract inward investment.

They do have caveats about geography.

This study is about Denmark and cites that LRT are often chosen over bus network expansion or BRT in spite of poor relative ROI:



https://nordregio.org/publications/...se-studies-of-light-rail-planning-in-denmark/

So apparently, policy makers believe that LRT can enhance development or redevelopment of a region, not just improve congestion and general transport.

The first study seems to cite other studies which support this idea of greater development and economic growth as a result of improved LRT infrastructure.

Well, reading the word salad, it appears that Light Rail might improve development (whatever that means in this case) in some cities. Okay. I'd like to see the data.

BUT, I guarantee that Light Rail at a cost of $10K/man, woman, child in the population, is good for no one but the folks who got payed (in some fashion) for building the thing. Even if it w*rks perfectly, amortizing the building cost over 20 years will likely cost $17/ride IF 1) The ridership lives up to the 120,000 daily riders estimated 2) The locomotives don't use any electricity 3) No maintenance is performed on the equipment, tracks, stations, infrastructure 4) All the employees w*rk for free 5) Oh, and the lenders of the $15 Billion don't expect to be paid any interest.

My point. Some people really like the idea of Light Rail. If you don't do the math before you start, you can end up hating Light Rail. Of course, YMMV.

 

[FloridaJim57]

I live in St Pete, FL. It costs me more to AmTrak it to NYC than to fly. One trip takes about 90 minutes the other 24 hours. How can anyone explain that?

 

[Koolau]

I live in St Pete, FL. It costs me more to AmTrak it to NYC than to fly. One trip takes about 90 minutes the other 24 hours. How can anyone explain that?

What's hard to understand is how we still have cross-country trains (AmTrak.) Trains make a lot of sense for commuting but not for long distance travel. Having said that, I'm sure some folks love that kind of travel.

 

[folivier]

The alternatives to long distance train travel are flying or driving. Don't care to fly anymore, too crowded, too much drama, seats are horrible, etc. Driving is ok, our route isn't bad since we avoid Dallas area. And being retired the 3 days driving each way aren't a problem. I think I'd enjoy traveling on a train for this trip and could easily get to El Paso or Las Cruces from our [-]house[/-] condo. But there is no passenger train up north so that still puts us 580 miles left to drive to our cabin.
BTW I started this thread to talk about long distance train travel but wasn't clear when I titled it light rail. Oops.

 

[explanade]

You can fly into Zurich and then get on a train and be like 20 yards from a ski lift.

I don’t know if you can do that at the Rockies resorts. I know you can’t do that at Tahoe.

Of course Switzerland is a much smaller country but their rail network is still way more developed.

Crazy thing is, you can check the SBB app and see the next train, bus or boat near where you are and by the ticket and just board.

I’ve only once rented a car in Switzerland and that was mainly because it wasn’t easy to find rentals in Chamonix France so I picked up in Switzerland, drove across and then drove back and dropped off in Geneva.

Otherwise the Swiss transit system, both short and long distance is very well integrated and can be accessed by the official SBB app.

 

[Koolau]

The alternatives to long distance train travel are flying or driving. Don't care to fly anymore, too crowded, too much drama, seats are horrible, etc. Driving is ok, our route isn't bad since we avoid Dallas area. And being retired the 3 days driving each way aren't a problem. I think I'd enjoy traveling on a train for this trip and could easily get to El Paso or Las Cruces from our [-]house[/-] condo. But there is no passenger train up north so that still puts us 580 miles left to drive to our cabin.
BTW I started this thread to talk about long distance train travel but wasn't clear when I titled it light rail. Oops.

You can fly into Zurich and then get on a train and be like 20 yards from a ski lift.

I don’t know if you can do that at the Rockies resorts. I know you can’t do that at Tahoe.

Of course Switzerland is a much smaller country but their rail network is still way more developed.

Crazy thing is, you can check the SBB app and see the next train, bus or boat near where you are and by the ticket and just board.

I’ve only once rented a car in Switzerland and that was mainly because it wasn’t easy to find rentals in Chamonix France so I picked up in Switzerland, drove across and then drove back and dropped off in Geneva.

Otherwise the Swiss transit system, both short and long distance is very well integrated and can be accessed by the official SBB app.

The US doesn't really have a very extensive passenger rail network nor do they have priority over freight (my understanding so could be wrong.) Europe seems to have a great rail system. I've ridden both and see virtually no comparison. I don't even know why the US has AMTRAK. My last AMTRAK train trip was pretty much a nightmare. The train broke down and had frequent stops. We were late both directions. The club car windows got slimed with something prior to the trip, so the beautiful Rockies we traveled through were difficult to see (we were told there was no way to clean them until the next official train cleaning.)

The train rocked back and forth to the extent I was getting sea sick. Sleeping on a train is virtually impossible (for me.) The seats weren't that uncomfortable but for sleeping, they just did not w*rk for me.

I wish I could wave a magic wand and make us like Europe in terms of trains, but that would (in reality) cost trillions.

 

[Gumby]

Amtrak is great for the stretch between Boston and DC. Not so much for anywhere else.

 

[Koolau]

Amtrak is great for the stretch between Boston and DC. Not so much for anywhere else.

Yeah, I've done the stretch from NYC to DC and I honestly thought the train was going to derail just from the incredible rocking side to side. And it was late. Very late.