Measuring ‘Effectiveness’ of Newer Light Rail

							Measuring „Effectiveness‟ of
Newer Light Rail Transit Systems
in the United States

             Jason B. Greenberg
      School of Urban and Public Affairs
           University of Louisville
Definition of Light Rail
   “Light Rail is a mode of urban
    transportation utilizing predominantly
    reserved but not necessarily grade-
    separated rights-of-way. Electrically
    propelled rail vehicles operate singly or
    in trains. LRT provides a wide range of
    passenger capabilities and performance
    characteristics at moderate costs.”
   De Leuw et al., 1976
Rise, Fall, Rise
   1917: 45,000 miles of streetcar and
    interurban lines
   1977: Only eight cities with 300 miles of
    lines, but only 125 would be called LRT
    (Light rail transit)
   2004: 21 cities with close to 600 miles
    of lines – most of the addition is LRT
   Schumann, J. and F. E. Loetterle (2003)
U.S. “New Starts”
(LRT Lines opened since1980)
   San Diego (1981)        Denver (1994)
   Buffalo (1984)          Dallas (1996)
   Portland (1986)         Salt Lake City
   Sacramento (1987)        (1999)
   San Jose (1987)         Jersey City (1999)
   Los Angeles (1990)      Tacoma (2003)
   Baltimore (1992)        Houston (2004)
   St. Louis (1993)        Minneapolis (2004)
Other cities?
Some U.S. urban areas have added
  heritage trolley lines, including Tampa
  and Memphis. These lines tend to be
  tourism-oriented.
A new diesel-powered light rail line
  recently opened between Camden and
  Trenton, New Jersey (part of the
  Philadelphia CMSA).
U.S. „New Starts‟ Process
(since 1984)
   Step 1: Alternatives Analysis – Light rail
    would be chosen as the L.P.A.
   Step 2: Preliminary Engineering
   Step 3: Final design
   Step 4: Construction begins
   FTA rates each step of the project with an
    overall “highly recommended,”
    “recommended,” or “not recommended”
   In order to receive federal funding, New Start
    project must be approved by the FTA
Why is Light Rail So Popular?

Supporters say light rail:
 Is cost-effective compared with new heavy rail
  systems (and no new heavy rail systems have been
  proposed recently) +
 Responds to urban sprawl, traffic congestion +

 Helps revitalize CBD‟s =

 Effective transit mode



   Result: LRT is an effective added benefit to the
    community.
Result of LRT Popularity:
   Numerous other metropolitan areas in
    the U.S. have light rail transit plans,
    proposals, or final designs.
Critics of LRT New Starts:
   Costly to build +
   High cost operation +
   Actual ridership has not met projected
    ridership =
   Inefficient, ineffective transit mode

   Also: LRT “oversold” to community by transit
    agencies and supporters
Given that there are both supporters and critics
of LRT, is there a way of measuring its
effectiveness?

   The Federal Transit Administration
    does!
   The FTA performance measures are:
     Service efficiency
     Cost effectiveness

     Service effectiveness

    Note: The data come from the transit
      agencies; their costs and ridership are the
      variables used.
Service efficiency:
   Measure:
       Operating expense per vehicle revenue
        mile
       Operating expense per vehicle revenue
        hour
Cost effectiveness:
   Measure:
       Operating expense per passenger mile
       Operating expense per unlinked passenger
        trip
Service effectiveness:
   Measure:
       Unlinked passenger trips per vehicle
        revenue mile
       Unlinked passenger trips per vehicle
        revenue hour
What can FTA Performance
Measures allow?
   Comparisons among transit modes
    since LRT data are presented with bus,
    trolley-bus, heavy rail, commuter rail,
    demand response, vanpool, automatic
    guideways, ferries, etc.
   Comparisons among New Start LRT
    systems
Mode comparisons (2002 data):
Please note that LRT data include systems in operation before
1980.

   Operating expense per vehicle revenue mile:
LRT: $13.00; Bus $6.80; Heavy rail $7.10; Commuter rail $11.60
   Operating expense per vehicle revenue hour:
LRT: $199.10; Bus $86.20; Heavy rail $143.00; Commuter rail $366.80
   Operating expense per passenger mile:
LRT: $0.50; Bus $0.60; Heavy rail $0.30; Commuter rail $0.30
   Operating expense per unlinked trip:
LRT: $2.30; Bus $2.40; Heavy rail $1.60; Commuter rail $7.20
   Unlinked passenger trips per vehicle revenue mile:
LRT: 5.6; Bus 2.8; Heavy rail 4.5; Commuter rail 1.6
   Unlinked passenger trips per vehicle revenue hour:
LRT: 86.1; Bus 36.1; Heavy rail 90.1; Commuter rail 50.7
More fun…comparing New Starts‟
Effectiveness (2002 data)
   City            Cost effectiveness*      Service effectiveness**
   Baltimore                  $3.64                           54.94
   Buffalo                    $2.54                           81.98
   Dallas                     $3.27                           63.93
   Denver                     $1.82                           63.17
   Los Angeles                $2.57                          131.59
   Portland                   $1.99                           83.82
   Sacramento                 $2.83                           82.37
   St. Louis                  $2.32                           83.12
   Salt Lake City             $2.30                           49.63
   San Diego                  $1.47                           69.03
   San Jose                   $6.88                           46.95
   * = Operating expense per unlinked passenger trip;
    ** Unlinked passenger trips per vehicle revenue hour.
Problems with data:
   Data for this presentation was for only one year;
   Data compares only other forms of public transit;
   Data for Jersey City (Hudson-Bergen LRT) can‟t be
    included because New Jersey Transit combines its
    figures with Newark Subway (circa 1935);
   Data do not include other measures that may
    determine effectiveness of LRT:
       Public (and private) support of LRT;
       Redevelopment of CBD and other commercial and residential
        areas along LRT Route(s)
       Effect on private transportation (i.e. how many cars taken
        off streets and highways by LRT riders)
       Effect on environment (pollution levels, etc.)
Someone else‟s* recent conclusions
regarding LRT new starts and their
relative effectiveness:
   “LRT implementation has helped several
    communities expand public transit use;
    however, it has not resulted in dramatic
    changes in the role that public transit plays
    in the regional mobility in the respective
    communities. While LRT is playing an
    important role in expanding opportunities for
    transit use, even LRT system development is
    a lengthy process with no assurance of
    substantial increases in transit ridership.”
   *Polzin, S. and O. Page (2003)