The new Phoenix light rail system is emerging as one of the most successful new systems in the country. This is especially poignant for Tampa because in scale, project scope, and demographics, Phoenix represents the apogee of operating examples.
You Tube Video Collage of Phoenix Light Rail - by BrightonZach
Over the course of its first year the system has received high marks in community integration, stunning ridership figures, and respectful financial constraint (making tough decisions on long-term planning that do not inhibit the value of its starter-line status today). This is exactly what Hillsborough County is shooting for in its own implementation. A perfect balance of conservative control and benchmarking combined with progressive action and democratic freedom, the latter which may finally come to Hillsborough County in the form of a referendum. That all good stuff was achieved by such a strikingly similar auto-dependent culture is a great omen. A starter light rail system can be championed by civic conservatives (Mark Sharpe), and civic progressives (Ed Turanchik) to great outcome.
Of interesting note in the aforementioned link is a summary of how well the line did during a visit by Obama last May. The line held up to the tune of 50,000 passengers in one night - without issue. And things only got better from there. Overall the success of this line attracted ink from the New York Times which marveled over the system's ability to nearly succeed almost entirely based on weekend patronage. Our own precursor to light rail in Tampa, the Teco Line Streetcar, owes its success to these venues of service as well.
Both pieces I link to here embarrass anti-rail or anti-tax groups who are, as the Phoenix article notes, "muted" if not definitively silenced. Their arguments against community investment were loud, often intelligent (once one bought into the ideological premise that rail systems must 'pay for themselves' and that community investement is somehow inherently evil - points not firmly established by any means among rationale individuals), and grossly atypical. I will forever hype on how mechanical, unchanging, and how pre-web these attacks were formulated.
I worked on the Phoenix effort and created the advertising campaign to get light rail approval from the voters in 2000. Here is a link describing that campaign along with the commercials that helped to garner 65% of the vote. [user link]
I worked on the Phoenix effort and created the advertising campaign to get light rail approval from the voters in 2000. Here is a link describing that campaign along with the commercials that helped to garner 65% of the vote. [user link]
As a native Floridian stuck in Arizona , I beg you to PLEASE take a VERY close look at our light rail system and recognize all the design flaws ! It was a good idea but the routes are confusing and poorly designed. Also they did not put in crossing gates and we have very ignorant drivers here who are constantly getting hit by the train because they do not know or understand how the train/auto crossings work ! I hope my home state will do a better job !
Phoenix light rail is a glowing success as long as you don't care about being financially responsible. Currently, even with 'stunning' ridership, its capital costs were $75,000 per daily round trip rider. We could have saved 2/3 by just buying every rider a Prius, and could give them free gas each year and still save on the net operating loss.
When you build a rail system, here is what happens -- soon your other modes of transportation, particularly buses, go down the drain. Rail is so expensive it sucks all the oxygen out of the transit system, such that rich middle class folks get their nice clean choo choo but the poor lose their bus service. Look at Portland -- as their rail system has expanded their total transit ridership share of commuting across all modes has dropped. ecause there is only so much money for transit and rail is absolutely the most costly way to spend it.
Sorry Coyote, save for the topic matter I'm afraid I'm just not going to be much fodder for you. We're years past 'it's an expensive tax thing'.
We know that. We know rail like any capital project is expensive to execute and expensive to maintain - in dollars. But anyone who raises the math to me will wind up with the same big 'so what'. Community investment doesn't bother everyone the same way and different people see different value. There's no way you or I could supernaturally understand the net benefit for or against light rail. We must simply choose to believe and pick our sides.
If you believe that just because rail is expensive they aren't worthwhile, you need to explain every public vote that has gone for implementing and expanding rail systems around the world even though most operations are publicly subsidized.
Gotta run'em well, and, over time, integrate with a city, but LR is a carefree mobility solution in areas where people choose to support and pay for it.
Are you kidding? That kind of attitude to taxpayer cost is exactly why there is a tea party tax revolt sweeping the nation.
You did not respond to a single point raised by Coyote. Instead you say 'We must simply choose to believe and pick our sides.' I'm sorry, but light rail is not a religion (at least for most of us) and transportation issues are not something we should take on faith.
So let me '...explain every public vote that has gone for implementing and expanding rail systems around the world even though most operations are publicly subsidized.' It is because the public was given wildly optimistic estimates of ridership and final costs. If the proponents of LR had not underestimated the costs, overestimated the revenue, and been honest about the costs of alternatives (like say, buses), I expect those votes would have gone the other way.
But this is what happens when you treat public issues like a religion, not a business decision.
I sympathize with you. I worry about out of control government spending as well but ignoring mass transit is like saying no new roads should be built. We need infrastructure and for better or worse it seems like that is something only government can do effectively.
Assuming that sub $3 gasoline will last once we get out of the recession is wishful thinking. As gasoline prices creep upward we will find ourselves much less mobile. Without building systems (like rail) which promotes more dense growth patterns we are going to be in a lot of trouble.
' Currently, even with 'stunning' ridership, its capital costs were $75,000 per daily round trip rider. '
Capital costs are expensive for rail. They are also darn expensive for interstates, expressways and anything else that requires the government to acquire land.
Now I agree we can't be reckless financially but largely that is exactly what we have done with respect to city planning. By not maintaining right of way we have entrenched an automobile dependent culture. The more we continue building in that mindset the more we'll suffer.
We will continue to see an urban renaissance all over the country but in order to make it more attractive we need the tools to make it work: rail, bus rapid transit, more police presence, denser zoning policies etc.
Keep in mind, having rail attracts people, which spurs development which increases revenues. Not all benefits can be seen at the fare box.
Wow, Dave. Faith-based investment. This is a sidestep of the issues I raised. Phoenix light rail cost $75,000 per daily rider to build plus 3/4 of the operating cost is subsidized. What imaginary benefits can you conjure to justify this?
Remember, this is $1.4 billion removed from private hands. Tell me how many jobs or what benefits would have been achieved by private people who originally controlled this capital before the government took it. Never once in a zillion articles have I ever seen an advocate of government investment or stimulus take into account the opportunity cost of the money spent.
To Joe's point, the capital cost for an interstate lane per user is an order of magnitude or more less than $75,000. It would have to be or we would have bankrupted ourselves. Tradeoffs guys, tradeoffs. Consider options. WHAT would private parties have been able to do with $1.4 billion. WHAT other, less expensive ways exist to move 17,000 people?
By the way, build rail and say goodbye to your bus service. It will be gutted within 10 years of building rail, as it has in Portland and is currently being gutted in SF. Bus routes that serve truly needy people are replaced with beautify but pricey trains for middle class commuters who wouldn't be caught dead on a bus.
'Community investment doesn't bother everyone the same way and different people see different value. There's no way you or I cold supernaturally understand the net benefit for or against light rail. We must simply choose to believe and pick our sides.'
I have a better idea -- if you believe in it, spend your own money on it and don't resort to using government force to take money for your pet project from those who don't share your passion.
Sorry, don't mean to spam but I am in an airport and just jamming out thoughts. Passenger rail is often justified as being sustainable. But high-speed rail relies, in fact demands, funding from millions of people to move thousands. In Phoenix, 5 million people pay for the rail transit of 18,000 people. If running trains requires draining resources from millions of people just to move thousands, how is it sustainable?
I have a better idea -- if you believe in it, spend your own money on it and don't resort to using government force to take money for your pet project from those who don't share your passion.
I have a better idea: Let's leave it to Democracy. I'm assuming you have no latent hatred of a system that invites the whimsical input and ruddering of everyday people who don't share your superior business and social sense, right?
I for one don't think people are fooled into light rail. There's way too much information out there. Don't play the 'unheard victim'. Did you know your arguments were advertised at the outset of many light rail votes like in Charlotte and of course in Phoenix? Dallas, Seattle? Your opinions were not suppressed and they were no less unreachable than those of proponents. I'm assuming somewhere you had a website. People heard your arguments and surely many were influenced by them. They heard, weighed, and yet...
...and transportation issues are not something we should take on faith.
Well, Captain.
You mock the abstract basis of my argument by hitting back with rock-hard speculation. By your own admission you merely expect that if this sordid 'lie' to the intellectual peasantry - which from your prince-like elevation is so clearly beneath your divine plinth - as you so derive it, were replaced by 'truth', why, the Light Rail demons would curl and hiss back into the earth's inferno.
Save your anti-tax sermon for the chapel of right-wing radio. That's the range upon which the 'tax revolt' you 'believe' is sweeping the nation lives and, thankfully, keeps.
Before you retort anything, you'd better be prepared to explain why you think we are better off treating anything public like a business. Plus, while you are at it, apologize for confusing a zealot's bluster for reality.
'Remember, this is $1.4 billion removed from private hands. Tell me how many jobs or what benefits would have been achieved by private people who originally controlled this capital before the government took it.'
That's true but imagine this instead. By taking 1.4B and investing it in rail it spurs development around the line. Property values go up. By doing that you raise money in taxes. That occurs as a direct result of you spending 1.4B.
I am not suggesting that we build light rail, heavy rail, monorails or anything else just anywhere but limiting yourself to thinking for today doesn't help prepare for tomorrow. When gasoline is $5 or $6 dollars a gallon, we'll need an alternative.
What's the best alternative? Studies suggest that rail is cheaper to operate than bus rapid transit.
Democracy is not a substitute for functioning markets. Markets allow people to express the intensity of their preferences through the price system. In elections, individuals only get to cast one vote, which is weighted the same as all other individuals. And typically they voting to spend other people's money, not their own, which means they are less inclined to be good stewards of resources.
Where referenda are not allowed, individuals must also vote for a candidate, rather than being able to express their views on a particular issue. Candidates must take positions on a variety of issues, many of which do not agree with voters. To call this either representative or democratic is a serious misnomer.
@Anon - it sort of begs the question. Can we vote ourselves socialist/communist or into a fascist dictatorship? And if we can't, at what point, and by whom, is it appropriate to interrupt the process. Otherwise what you say may be true, but only where our democracy says it is. That's what anti-tax, anti-government types can't seem to get a grip on. The choice is either live with the vote, or, find some buddies to move into the mountains with and decide some 'dang gum thing' is gonna be done about it, 'just wait', on every issue that doesn't go the preferred way.
Turns out capitalist markets don't even need to be 'free' to be viable, as China is demonstrating. We don't even debate their success any more. Or, when we do, the best shot we come up with is that their prosperity won't last because of their oppressive human rights tactics. They aren't a democracy.
Dave, China is one of the worst market systems... pleaseee don't bring them up. If you look into it a bit more, you will find that they have done everything which we have that led up to our 'bubble bursts' and even more. They have artifically set themselves up and have a hugeeee downfall coming their way. Just to let you know. I do agree unbridled capitalism can be bad, but just don't look to China as an example. People are voting for it, and I do respect their decision, but it seems like Coyote and Grandpa are just trying to change the mind of voters. Anyways... even with you points, the fact we are in a recession also adds to the fact we just don't need it now. The jobs point hardly counts as it is just a bunch of temporary jobs... but again, everyone has their voice, and its what you choose to want to know. Right?
Someone mentioned net benefit. Here are the big ones, that can be confirmed. High speed rail will have but one Bay area stop next to Marion St. Transit Station. This creates a hardship to the tune of $30m annually from Orlando bound,tourist money that will cease to pass through the bay. Orlando will have high speed rail stops at their airport, downtown and Disney, so why bother with Tampa at all. Another large direct monetary contribution of light rail would be uhh... nothing. Talk of property values, employment, use income, and traffic alleviations are pure predictions, with the exception of short term local construction profit and earnings. Whats-worse, the first phase proposal, is not North, South, East or West Tampa, the airport, or a Pinellas connection. New Tampa/USF? Huh? Loved the concept, but city govt. missed the 'mass usefulness' boat, A G A I N !! Addressing only one neighborhoods rush hour issue, -not. More suburban grins, and giggles. The trolley X 10+.
I don't follow Coyote's logic (or math - I come up with $82,352 (1.4 billion / 17,000 riders)). So using the same logic if we build a highway for $2 billion and only 10,000 cars drove on it a day, the cost would be $200,000? Does he ignore that we will use it tomorrow, the rest of the year, and the next 20 years? Cost are capitalized over the life of an asset - not on day one.
Another point I'd like to make is that the discussion of alternate forms of transportation is about a choice between A or B. That is, do we built light rail for $2 billion or widen I-4 and I-275 for $2 billion. Something will have to been done sooner or later. We will end up spending money on transportation. How it is allocated is what we should be discussing.
