Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This blog post assumes transit running well below capacity, at least part of the time. A train holding only 22 passengers (the number cited in the blog post) may very well use more energy per passenger than transporting 22 people via car. Fortunately, this not the case in Phoenix. When trains run nearly full, as they do most of the time in Phoenix (even night and weekends due to event crowds), then the author's point is no longer applicable. One of the great successes of light rail in Phoenix is the even utilization of the system throughout the day and the week. Because we have a mix of people commuting to work, going to school, and attending events, we don't have the same peaks and valleys in ridership as many other rail systems.
Buses, however, are another story. There are some bus routes in Central Phoenix that are consistently busy. There are others in more suburban areas that run with numbers as low as those cited in the blog post. In planning bus networks, there's a always a tension between providing the most service on the routes with the highest ridership and providing a network of routes so that no one is ever more than a certain distance from a bus route that runs at a certain frequency. I think the plan being voted on strikes a good balance on bus service. It calls for increasing frequency on high-volume routes, but leaves service levels as they are on routes with lighter passenger loads.
This blog post assumes transit running well below capacity, at least part of the time. A train holding only 22 passengers (the number cited in the blog post) may very well use more energy per passenger than transporting 22 people via car. Fortunately, this not the case in Phoenix. When trains run nearly full, as they do most of the time in Phoenix (even night and weekends due to event crowds), then the author's point is no longer applicable. One of the great successes of light rail in Phoenix is the even utilization of the system throughout the day and the week. Because we have a mix of people commuting to work, going to school, and attending events, we don't have the same peaks and valleys in ridership as many other rail systems.
Buses, however, are another story. There are some bus routes in Central Phoenix that are consistently busy. There are others in more suburban areas that run with numbers as low as those cited in the blog post. In planning bus networks, there's a always a tension between providing the most service on the routes with the highest ridership and providing a network of routes so that no one is ever more than a certain distance from a bus route that runs at a certain frequency. I think the plan being voted on strikes a good balance on bus service. It calls for increasing frequency on high-volume routes, but leaves service levels as they are on routes with lighter passenger loads.
Right, it's all based on ridership and of course that will fluctuate between cities but overall in the large cities he cites, on average, it appears it's not a very efficient transportation method based on the "green" factor. Given the light rail I would guess runs 24 hours a day(please correct me if I'm wrong) in Phoenix, and there's not always events like sports downtown everyday, there still has to be some gaps in ridership.
Right, it's all based on ridership and of course that will fluctuate between cities but overall in the large cities he cites, on average, it appears it's not a very efficient transportation method based on the "green" factor. Given the light rail I would guess runs 24 hours a day(please correct me if I'm wrong) in Phoenix, and there's not always events like sports downtown everyday, there still has to be some gaps in ridership.
You can also click on the "Rail Ridership" only tab to see the average daily ridership.
I would love to see a stat showing cost per each rider.
No, it doesn't run 24 hours. It runs from around 4 AM until around 11 PM Sunday through Thursday, around 4 AM until around 2 AM Friday & Saturday. Very few rail transit systems in the US run 24/7, and that level of service would not be appropriate for Phoenix at this point in the city's development. Of course there are gaps, but they're rare compared to those in many other cities. The trains I took to weekend events both yesterday and today were as full as those I take to and from work during the week.
Cost per rider is the fallback argument for light rail opponents who were proven wrong about their predictions of low ridership. I don't know the number, but I know that a similar figure for transport by car would have to factor in not only vehicle & gas costs, but also the costs of road construction, land allocated to parking, traffic enforcement, and emergency response for motor vehicle collisions, as well as many other factors that are hard to measure and often ignored in "buy everyone a Prius" arguments.
No, it doesn't run 24 hours. It runs from around 4 AM until around 11 PM Sunday through Thursday, around 4 AM until around 2 AM Friday & Saturday. Very few rail transit systems in the US run 24/7, and that level of service would not be appropriate for Phoenix at this point in the city's development. Of course there are gaps, but they're rare. The trains I took to weekend events both yesterday and today were as full as those I take to and from work during the week.
Cost per rider is the fallback argument for light rail opponents who were proven wrong about their predictions of low ridership. I don't know the number, but I know that a similar figure for transport by car would have to factor in not only vehicle & gas costs, but also the cost of land for parking, the cost of traffic enforcement and emergency response for motor vehicle collisions, and many other factors that are hard to measure and often ignored in "buy everyone a Prius" arguments.
Thanks for the info.
I'm certainly not against public transportation of any flavor but I'm all for the numbers, in terms of what's cost effective, not just ridership figures alone as it doesn't tell us the other side of the equation. And what's cost effective isn't always straight across the board in all areas of a metro area, let alone a city.
I'm certainly not against public transportation of any flavor but I'm all for the numbers, in terms of what's cost effective, not just ridership figures alone as it doesn't tell us the other side of the equation. And what's cost effective isn't always straight across the board in all areas of a metro area, let alone a city.
Basing ridership on a one legged unfinished LRT system is unrealistic. If you build it they will come.
Calgary Alberta has a four legged system and with a city of just 1.1 million gets 350 000 riders a day on the LRT alone. Never mind it's bus system.
I think the proper order of things would be to establish if the demand exists in the 1st place for said service/product, especially for a very expensive service like a LRT system.
Great news, it's high time the residents in the upper middle class sections of Phoenix like Desert Ridge, Ahwatukee, Arcadia and Norterra finally pay their "fair share" and help make Phoenix a vibrant, walkable, and respected world-class city.
I have news for you: light rail doesn't instantly make a city "world class". It definitely adds into the mix, but a true world class city has many other amenities, such as being a base for large corporations which create competitve jobs with high wages ... that is high on the list. Other things that make a city "world class" include a vibrant downtown with a skyline to be proud of, top rated museums, active nightlife, top notch restaurants other than the chains, high end shopping, pro sports teams, and a good mass transit system. All those things combined make a city "world class". With the light rail and better transit, Phoenix is still not what I consider to be "world class". It's definitely not a low class city, but not quite world class as of yet.
Many parts of Phoenix on the initial light rail line are in the same dilapidated shape (or worse) since the service began nearly seven years ago. West Camelback: lots of old abandoned buildings and vacant lots. North Central Avenue: no new development, and is still pretty dull at night. The Washington/Jefferson corridor east of downtown: still predominantly an unattractive industrial area and seedy businesses. Only downtown has seen a noticeable improvement with light rail. Otherwise, the idea that it sparks development is untrue because I have seen little or no evidence of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kent_moore
Since I am advocating for less carbon emission for better environment, I support mass transit in Phoenix.
I also support mass transit ... but let's be realistic. Does anybody remember Proposition 400 in 2004? That was the extension of the half cent sales tax which voters approved, and is allotted for additional freeways, as well as light rail. Basically, we are already being taxed on a county level for light rail. Do the proponents of this $30 billion spending package realize that if this passes, it will be double taxation for something that we already approved 11 years ago???
Also, as much as I hate to say it, we have to be realistic about WHO we are trusting to manage our tax money. Practically any time you trust gov't agencies to handle funding for transportation (or anything else for that matter), we hear the same tired out excuses, such as: "there's not enough money to complete the projects as initially exptected". This results in needless delays ... and then the same agencies will ask the public for more money to complete the project(s).
I think the proper order of things would be to establish if the demand exists in the 1st place for said service/product, especially for a very expensive service like a LRT system.
Your problem is you think public transit is a business. It's not! It's a public service just like the fire department or city waterworks. They don't make money, they never will. You can build transit or you can build roads. Are public roads a business?..do they make money? Public transit is a necessity in a big city. Phoenix is fortunate to have such a good road system but you can't build roads forever without alternatives.
Your problem is you think public transit is a business. It's not! It's a public service just like the fire department or city waterworks. They don't make money, they never will. You can build transit or you can build roads. Are public roads a business?..do they make money? Public transit is a necessity in a big city. Phoenix is fortunate to have such a good road system but you can't build roads forever without alternatives.
It's still in the public's interest to have something that's cost effective/useful to a large number of people for it's using public tax dollars(local and federal) to build. Just because it's a "public transit" doesn't mean it should be built if it's not cost effective(ie the cost per rider is out of whack with the cost of the entire project and the number of population served is small compared to cost). And your analogy of fire departments or city waterworks, trying to compare it to LRT, doesn't float. Waterworks and a fire department I would consider essential to any community. A LRT system is not an essential service for the health and safety of the public like a fire department or a city waterworks. And yes, roads are built with public funds also, but given we are a car culture, I think the cost/benefit ratio is high and is a good use of public funds for a large segment of the Phoenix metro population and beyond benefit/use them.
As for public transit being a necessity in a big city, I think buses have this covered well in the Phoenix metro. Personally, I think buses should be expanded if there's truly a need/demand for more public transportation before LRT is built/expanded, again, given the cost/benefit of it. Same end result, just a better way to spend funds based on the math I've seen. And Phoenix is not a NYC where there's blocks and blocks of everyone living on top of each other with high rise buildings and a very high population concentration in a small area. The Phoenix metro is more like a big sprawling suburb more than anything in my book with a spread out, almost suburban-like core. Different cities require different mass transit approaches, not just to go with what is "in" at the time. Following the herd/one size fits all approach just cause another city with different needs on another coast has one doesn't mean it's right for all cities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
