Subject: Refuting light rail opposition #2 Date: 9/23/00 9:47 AM Received: 9/23/00 12:27 PM From: NAWDRy@aol.com To: NAWDRy@aol.com As we noted in an earlier posting, light rail opponent Jim Skaggs, nominal head of the anti-transit group ROAD (Reclaim Our Allocated Dollars), has been presenting a number of claims and arguments which apparently went unanswered or inadequately answered. Light Rail Progress has been asked to respond to these points, which have been recorded and forward by Barbara McMillin. Since these are issues which may well be raised by light rail opponents in virtually any city, we're sending this information to our entire list. Earlier, we provided responses to an initial set of Skaggs's claims and arguments. The second set is discussed below. LRP 00/09/23 **************************** CLAIM: "Austin doesn't have sufficient density in comparison to other cities that have rail (the only areas that had ... 20 people per acre density which is what you need is the UT area and the UT apartment area off Riverside)" FACT: Several US cities with successful light systems have density comparable to Austin's. Here's a comparison of Austin's city population density (persons per square mile), with that of several cities operating light rail installed within the last 4 decades, taken from 1990 Census data: Pop. Sq. Mi. Persons/sq mi Austin 465,622 217.8 2138.1 Dallas 1,006,877 342.4 2940.6 Fort Worth 447,619 281.1 1592.5 Salt Lake City 159,936 109.0 1467.0 Denver 467,610 153.3 3050.7 Here are a couple of cities where installation of new light rail systems is under way: Pop. Sq. Mi. Persons/sq mi Tacoma 176,664 48.0 3676.9 Phoenix 983,403 419.9 2342.0 Here are several cities which, like Austin, are seriously considering installing new LRT systems: Pop. Sq. Mi. Persons/sq mi Kansas City 435,146 11.5 1396.8 Cincinnati 364,040 77.2 4714.1 Louisville 269,063 62.1 4331.9 Indianapolis 731,327 361.7 2022.1 Orlando 164,693 67.3 2448.4 Norfolk 261,229 53.8 4859.3 Finally, it's worth including in this comparison Atlanta's "heavy" rapid rail system system, which is comfortably successful as the second-lowest-cost mover of people (per passenger-mile) in North America (the San Diego Trolley is first, with very slightly lower cost). Amazingly, Atlanta's urban density of about 2990 persons/sq mi - enough to justify HEAVY rail - is in the ball park of Austin's density of 2138. Pop. Sq. Mi. Persons/sq mi Atlanta 394,017 131.8 2989.9 Clearly, Austin's population density is well within the range of a number of peer cities either operating, constructing, or seriously considering the installation of light rail. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CLAIM: "redevelopment occurred in Dallas because it would have occurred anyway along Central Expressway..." FACT: Much of the redevelopment has occurred downtown and in Oak Cliff, far from the Central Expressway - downtown's spectacular West End restaurant district redevelopment, for example, which rehabilitated a blighted old industrial area, and is nowhere near the Central Expressway. And if the Central Expressway was such a development catalyst, why did all the development wait for DART's light rail before it started? Typical of the new, rail-oriented development is the new neighborhood sprouting up arounf DART's Mockingbird station, described in the 'Dallas Morning News' of 27 August 2000 (in an article titled "A new neighborhood - Lofts making an urban nest out of Mockingbird Lane"). Here's an excerpt: >> For the first time in its 50 years as a Dallas landmark on Mockingbird Lane, Campisi's Egyptian Room finds itself in a new role: a real neighborhood restaurant. Throughout its history at the location, the area has been strictly a busy commercial district. For decades, the Dr Pepper bottling plant was directly across the street. The nearest apartments were across Central Expressway, and the closest homes were in the "M Streets" off Lower Greenville Avenue. Now, a 449-unit, art-deco apartment complex has replaced the Dr Pepper plant, and 211 loft apartments are expected to open next year a block away at the DART station on Mockingbird. "It's great to watch a real neighborhood go in here,'' said restaurant owner Corky Campisi. "When people move in, I give them a flier and free dinner and say, 'Welcome to the neighborhood.'" The Mockingbird area just east of Central Expressway is now officially booming. The Phoenix apartment building opened in December and is already more than 90 percent occupied, according to leasing agents. The Mockingbird Station lofts – which will house apartments as well as restaurants, a movie theater, a coffee shop and clothing stores – is pre-leasing lofts and retail space. And the formerly vacant Hiltop Inn has reopened as the Hotel Santa Fe. The result is a new, crowded urban center, where residents can walk to the train station, a grocery store, restaurants, and, if they want, across the expressway to SMU and its sparkling new stadium. The parking lots for Mockingbird's DART station are usually full, and the number of people getting on and off the light-rail train each weekday has increased by 100 since March, up to 2,240, according to transit authority statistics. "Obviously some of that is because of The Phoenix, and we expect that to only pick up when Mockingbird Station opens," said DART spokesman Morgan Lyons. "The light rail has certainly helped the area. It just makes it so much easier to do all kinds of things." Access to the light-rail station is definitely a draw for the area, say residents, but there are other incentives as well: close proximity to downtown, access to SMU, existing retail and the promise of new shops and restaurants. << --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CLAIM: [light rail] "is just like the streetcars Austin used to have. ([Skaggs] shows a postcard from the past with streetcar on Congress Avenue)..." FACT: Well, it should be pretty clear that modern light rail is not old-time streetcars - the ROAD people are just making fools of themselves with that claim. But - Hey! Oldtime streetcars are supposed to be bad? So why has New Orleans kept its historic St. Charles line in operation, running trolleys built in the 1920s? Why has New Orleans opened its historic Riverfront line, running even more historic trolleys? And why are they putting their Canal St. line back into operation? Would Skaggs and his ROAD crew wag their fingers at San Francisco for keeping historic cable cars and trolleys? >From Seattle to Memphis to Detroit, cities are finding the public LOVES the old trolleys - they're a huge tourist attraction and a money-maker! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CLAIM: "light rail is not heavy rail like San Francisco, New York, Chicago ... light rail will have unsightly overhead wires..." Are trolley wires more "unsightly" than ... street lights? Traffic lights? Elevated freeways? Look at the photos of light rail on websites like LightRailNow/Progress: http://www.lightrailnow.org/progerss YOU decide. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CLAIM: "all rail does is move bus riders to rail, that most riders were former bus riders, and that a small percentage ... new ones ..." FACT: Light rail ridership does initially include many former bus riders - the FTA mandates that light rail absorb and build on previous bus transit ridership in the given corridor. These riders therefore get faster, safer, more conmfortable, and more reliable service. However, a major portion of the ridership on new light rail lines consists of new riders, most of whom are attracted from automobiles. In Dallas, about 40% of riders on DART's LRT system formerly used automobiles; in St. Louis, the figure is about 70%. For Austin, about 50% are projected to be attracted from previous automobile travel in the corridors served. However, that's ridership on new lines. Once the service is established and mature, more and more riders can be considered to be attracted from automobiles. LRT largely stops the "hemorhaging" of (bus) riders to cars - rail tends to retain riders to a much greater extent than do buses. Thus, after a number of years, virtually all the riders on a light rail line could be considered as persons who, one way or another, would be using the crowded roadway system if the LRT service wasn't there (look at the results of the LA strike). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CLAIM: "the reason rail has former bus riders is that the bus routes have been eliminated..." FACT: Existing bus routes are almost never eliminated. Instead, they may be re-routed somewhat to provide better crosstown and/or neighborhood-access service, and to feed light rail and other heavy-volume "spine" routes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CLAIM: "all rail is doing is moving people who used to ride buses and ... we will spend $3 billion for bus riders to ride rail..." FACT: See response above to the allegation that all rail riders are former bus riders. Skaggs and other ROAD Warriors keep "growing" their claim of how much light rail will cost - much like Pinocchio's nose. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CLAIM: "bus riders don't like rail because they have to spend more time than before because of the added step of catching the bus to get to the rail station before catching the train..." For the vast majority of bus riders in the corridor, access to LRT will be the same as to the previous bus service. For those who have been transferring, the connection will be even better and faster. For the minority of past riders who may face a new need to transfer from bus to rail, even then the trip may be as fast, or even faster, because the light rail service is faster. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CLAIM: "riders don't wear coats or ties or carry briefcases..." FACT: Is Skaggs trying to claim that LRT doesn't attract more affluent, middleclass, business riders? Of course it does - as anyone riding a in LRT train in Dallas, St. Louis, Denver, San Diego, Portland, or in any other LRT city knows. The ROAD Warriors seem to be arguing at cross-purposes on this issue - some (like Max Nofziger) claimning the LRT trains will be populated only by rich, suburban, "techies", and others (like Skaggs) portraying a poor and rather seedy ridership for whom lavish transit expenditures would be a waste. In reality, LRT has proven it attracts the transit-dependent AND riders with somewhat higher incomes. This issue is discussed on the Light Rail Progress website: http://www.lightrailnow.org/progress Click on Myths, then on the story "Light Rail and Lower- Income Transit Riders". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CLAIM: "the expense of rail is not justified because it moves so few people..." FACT: Light rail has passed a difficult benefit-cost test in qualifying for federal funding. The FTA's "cost per new rider" index is a stringent mandatory hurdle which is highly disfavorable to rail. For example, it doesn't allow the agency to consider the ridership-generating impact of new development clustered around the rail stations, nor does it permit planners to take into account the special factors which particularly attract people to rail rather than bus service. Nevertheless, CapMetro's rail plan has PASSED that extremely difficult test. Passing a benefit-cost analysis like this, as Metro's rail plan has done, means that light rail is projected to have sufficient ridership - including NEW riders - as well as overall benefits to justify the expense.