M II A II R II K
Senior Member
Light Rail Boom Needs A Second Look
July 9, 2009
Alan Hoffman
Read More: http://citiwire.net/post/1090/
############################################
Touted coast to coast as the key to “transit-oriented development,†light rail systems are close to “accepted wisdom†as keys to 21st century metropolitan growth.
But it’s worth remembering that the Interstate Highway System, when first promulgated in the 1950s, was widely and uncritically hailed too. Sadly, we failed to take into count the price we’d ultimately pay as the massive roadways subsidized scattered development and simultaneously helped empty out many downtowns.
In short, there were winners and losers. Cities since have pumped many billions into reviving downtowns, but even to this day the phrase “inner city†still conjures unfavorable images of the bereft neighborhoods left behind to decay when the middle classes escaped to the fringes.
The spread phenomenon persists. The Cleveland metro region, for example, has about as many people as it did in the 1990s, but it’s expanded its urbanized footprint some 30 percent–mostly to overwhelmingly auto-dependent fringe areas.
It’s becoming clear the freeway-based system may not be sustainable. Metro-area auto congestion continues to worsen, urban sprawl continues unabated (while threatening some of our most productive farmland), concerns about greenhouse gas emissions are growing, and there’s the specter of steeply rising prices for “post-peak†oil.
But leaping to light rail could well trigger a new set of unintended consequences. In some locations, it may work well–it is a proven and popular transportation tool. But I’d argue it’s as mismatched to today’s American urban form as was the freeway-centric vision of the 1950s to the urban form of its day. And that we ignore this mismatch at our peril.
For good or for bad, the modern American city can be characterized mostly as a widely-scattered set of dispersed origins–essentially, where people live–and multiple destinations–those clusters of employment and retail where people travel to in a given day.
Light rail (and most bus rapid-transit systems) create, though, a “traditional†transit network, often likened to pearls-on-a-string. It’s a formula that works fine for relatively compact and dense cities. But when population is widely and often thinly dispersed, travel times often become excessive and even prohibitive. What’s more, the land area directly served by stations–that is, how far people are willing to walk–may be smaller than many think, particularly under the kinds of harsh environmental conditions most American cities will experience at least part of the year.
Depending on how rapidly energy prices price, real incomes may not be sufficient for many households to continue operating multiple motor vehicles. Yet if a high portion of suburban homes are nowhere near transit stations, and local transit systems (themselves cash-strapped) are unable to create enough bus feeder lines, neither the geography nor the economics of a rail-centered system may work.
Even for those with access to feeders, trips to destinations may be excessively lengthy, require too many transfers, and still not get people close enough at the end of the trip.
The end result? Pockets of affluence developed around light rail stations–but vast swaths of existing housing stock depressed in value because of transportation costs. These suburban zones can rapidly become the new slums, as declining values lead to deferred maintenance and families doubling or tripling up.
Does this mean that investments in transit are misguided? Hardly. Nor does it mean that there is anything wrong with rail-centered transit modes. What it does suggest, though, is that American metro regions, unlike their more densely packed European or Asian counterparts, have large swaths of suburban territory ill-fitted for rail.
Fortunately, there are other alternatives. Among the more promising are “Quickway†systems, such as the highly successful Busway network in Brisbane, Australia. Brisbane does have grade-separated runway for speedy, high quality bus service through its core. But it also permits a network of branching and express bus services, with routes fanning out to many neighborhoods, to provide service directly to key job sites inside the central system. Buses can move to and from the exclusive center city lanes from regular roads. The result? Many more people have access to effective rapid transit within a short walk of their home, trip times are often even faster than driving, many people get a “one-seat†ride, and operating subsidies are reduced or even eliminated (due to the gains in productivity that grade separation makes possible).
The best evidence for the strength of Brisbane’s model is in ridership, which has climbed 50 percent in just five years. It is also noteworthy that Brisbane’s strategy has produced gains in land value over a much larger land area than that typically associated with light rail (or even more traditional bus rapid transit lines).
The lessons are clear: regions need to think first not about rails versus buses but the kind of network will serve them best. The goal of a viable citistate-wide system should comes first and the preferred mode, fittingly, second.
############################################
July 9, 2009
Alan Hoffman
Read More: http://citiwire.net/post/1090/
############################################
Touted coast to coast as the key to “transit-oriented development,†light rail systems are close to “accepted wisdom†as keys to 21st century metropolitan growth.
But it’s worth remembering that the Interstate Highway System, when first promulgated in the 1950s, was widely and uncritically hailed too. Sadly, we failed to take into count the price we’d ultimately pay as the massive roadways subsidized scattered development and simultaneously helped empty out many downtowns.
In short, there were winners and losers. Cities since have pumped many billions into reviving downtowns, but even to this day the phrase “inner city†still conjures unfavorable images of the bereft neighborhoods left behind to decay when the middle classes escaped to the fringes.
The spread phenomenon persists. The Cleveland metro region, for example, has about as many people as it did in the 1990s, but it’s expanded its urbanized footprint some 30 percent–mostly to overwhelmingly auto-dependent fringe areas.
It’s becoming clear the freeway-based system may not be sustainable. Metro-area auto congestion continues to worsen, urban sprawl continues unabated (while threatening some of our most productive farmland), concerns about greenhouse gas emissions are growing, and there’s the specter of steeply rising prices for “post-peak†oil.
But leaping to light rail could well trigger a new set of unintended consequences. In some locations, it may work well–it is a proven and popular transportation tool. But I’d argue it’s as mismatched to today’s American urban form as was the freeway-centric vision of the 1950s to the urban form of its day. And that we ignore this mismatch at our peril.
For good or for bad, the modern American city can be characterized mostly as a widely-scattered set of dispersed origins–essentially, where people live–and multiple destinations–those clusters of employment and retail where people travel to in a given day.
Light rail (and most bus rapid-transit systems) create, though, a “traditional†transit network, often likened to pearls-on-a-string. It’s a formula that works fine for relatively compact and dense cities. But when population is widely and often thinly dispersed, travel times often become excessive and even prohibitive. What’s more, the land area directly served by stations–that is, how far people are willing to walk–may be smaller than many think, particularly under the kinds of harsh environmental conditions most American cities will experience at least part of the year.
Depending on how rapidly energy prices price, real incomes may not be sufficient for many households to continue operating multiple motor vehicles. Yet if a high portion of suburban homes are nowhere near transit stations, and local transit systems (themselves cash-strapped) are unable to create enough bus feeder lines, neither the geography nor the economics of a rail-centered system may work.
Even for those with access to feeders, trips to destinations may be excessively lengthy, require too many transfers, and still not get people close enough at the end of the trip.
The end result? Pockets of affluence developed around light rail stations–but vast swaths of existing housing stock depressed in value because of transportation costs. These suburban zones can rapidly become the new slums, as declining values lead to deferred maintenance and families doubling or tripling up.
Does this mean that investments in transit are misguided? Hardly. Nor does it mean that there is anything wrong with rail-centered transit modes. What it does suggest, though, is that American metro regions, unlike their more densely packed European or Asian counterparts, have large swaths of suburban territory ill-fitted for rail.
Fortunately, there are other alternatives. Among the more promising are “Quickway†systems, such as the highly successful Busway network in Brisbane, Australia. Brisbane does have grade-separated runway for speedy, high quality bus service through its core. But it also permits a network of branching and express bus services, with routes fanning out to many neighborhoods, to provide service directly to key job sites inside the central system. Buses can move to and from the exclusive center city lanes from regular roads. The result? Many more people have access to effective rapid transit within a short walk of their home, trip times are often even faster than driving, many people get a “one-seat†ride, and operating subsidies are reduced or even eliminated (due to the gains in productivity that grade separation makes possible).
The best evidence for the strength of Brisbane’s model is in ridership, which has climbed 50 percent in just five years. It is also noteworthy that Brisbane’s strategy has produced gains in land value over a much larger land area than that typically associated with light rail (or even more traditional bus rapid transit lines).
The lessons are clear: regions need to think first not about rails versus buses but the kind of network will serve them best. The goal of a viable citistate-wide system should comes first and the preferred mode, fittingly, second.
############################################
