Maryland Governor Larry Hogan announced Thursday that he was cancelling Baltimore’s Red light-rail line while approving suburban Washington’s Purple Line. However, that approval comes with a caveat that could still mean the wasteful transit project will never be built.
The latest cost estimate for the Purple Line is nearly $2.5 billion for a project that, if done with buses, would cost less than 2 percent as much. The Purple Line finance plan calls for the federal government to put up $900 million, the state to immediately add $738 million, and then for the state to borrow another $810 million.
Instead, Governor Hogan says Maryland will contribute only $168 million to the project, and that local governments–meaning, mainly, Montgomery County but also Prince Georges County–will have to come up with the rest. It isn’t clear from press reports whether Hogan is willing to commit Maryland taxpayers to repay $810 million worth of loans, but it is clear that local taxpayers will have to pay at least half a billion dollars more than they were expecting.
Local Purple Line advocates claim that the line will pay for itself by increasing property values along the route and therefore property tax revenues. In fact, this is a zero-sum game: any increases along the route would be matched by decreases in property values elsewhere in the county. But, from the rhetoric, it seems likely that they want to use tax-increment financing–which takes all of the tax revenues from increased property values–to pay the counties shares of the Purple Line. But that may not be enough to cover the cost, especially if the state won’t help pay back the $810 million in loans.
So it is possible that the Purple Line will never get built. That would be a win for Maryland taxpayers; a win for commuters, because the Purple Line is predicted to increase traffic congestion; and a win for transit riders, because the Purple Line is so expensive it will almost certain force Maryland Transit to cut bus service.
If you experience pain or irritation, you may need to avoid some types of fruit. cipla cialis online It improves testosterone and enhances the supply of blood flow to the legs, many complications cheap viagra http://www.learningworksca.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/016-USC-Rossier-Are-Community-Colleges-Making-Good-Placement-Decisions.pdf like cramping, numbness, weakness in the legs can be seen. These learningworksca.org cialis without prescription chambers are filled with a spongy tissue called tunica albuginea. viagra cheap price Regular intake of vitamin C is helpful to avoid sperm agglutination or clumping. Speaking of light rail, yesterday in the comments Ari Ofsevit disputed my numbers regarding the Phoenix light rail. Here are the actual numbers from the National Transit Database Historic Time Series. The only calculated numbers in the table below are the average fares per bus rider, which are adjusted for inflation to 2013 dollars.
F.Y. Bus trips LR trips Bus+Rail Trips Bus VRM Bus Fares /Trip
2000 37,547,097 0 37,547,097 16,809,492
2001 38,360,004 0 38,360,004 19,791,619
2002 41,706,300 0 41,706,300 19,334,622 0.72
2003 50,973,729 0 50,973,729 25,046,851 0.79
2004 51,675,488 0 51,675,488 25,282,817 0.86
2005 58,672,089 0 58,672,089 27,211,266 0.73
2006 62,270,122 0 62,270,122 27,415,767 0.70
2007 63,644,303 0 63,644,303 28,331,921 0.71
2008 70,177,682 0 70,177,682 32,749,942 0.60
2009 70,304,518 5,580,857 75,885,375 34,143,739 0.65
2010 54,315,802 12,112,733 66,428,535 32,299,319 0.88
2011 53,845,279 12,793,529 66,638,808 29,243,156 0.87
2012 56,531,733 13,553,490 70,085,223 28,790,218 0.82
2013 60,379,519 14,286,093 74,665,612 28,084,043 0.82
Thanks to declining bus fares and increasing bus vehicle revenue miles (VRM) of service, trips grew rapidly for Phoenix-area buses (including Glendale, Scottsdale, and Tempe buses) between 2000 and 2008. Trips peaked in fiscal year 2009, the year the light-rail line opened. Since then, for every light-rail rider the system has gained, it has lost more than one bus rider. Part of the reason for the decline is the recession, but the 47 percent increase in average bus fares from 2008 to 2010 and the 18 percent decrease in bus service between 2009 and 2013 were major contributors.
Recessions are inevitable, and rail systems are more vulnerable to recessions because of the huge amount of money that must be spent servicing the debt and, later, maintaining the rail lines. If Phoenix hadn’t borrowed a half a billion dollars or so to build the light rail, it probably wouldn’t have needed to cut bus service or raise fares. As I mentioned before, the sad result of light rail for Phoenix transit has been a 9 percent decline in per capita ridership and a 15 percent decline in per-worker ridership.
Ofsevit is correct that light-rail operating costs per rider are lower than for buses. But when capital and maintenance costs are added, they are higher. Moreover, comparing the Phoenix-Tempe light-rail line with the average bus in the region is apples-to-oranges. Though Valley Metro offers over 100 bus lines, just 11 carry half of all the region’s transit rides. If it hadn’t been replaced by light rail, the Phoenix-Tempe bus probably would have been one of those. The cost per rider for those lines would be very low, and some might even have made a profit.
This pattern–light rail opens, bus fares increase, bus service declines, overall ridership declines or loses market share–has been repeated in many urban areas including Denver, Portland, San Jose, and (for heavy rail) Atlanta and San Francisco. It is likely to happen in Maryland if it builds the Purple Line, which by itself is a good enough reason not to build it.
The only problem is that the data shows combined bus and rail ridership recovered in 2013 to be greater than any year before rail opened – which suggests that rail attracted additional passengers. Also,
transitboy,
Except that ridership was rapidly increasing before rail opened. It might have been much higher in 2013 were it not for the negative effects of rail.
The only problem is that the data shows combined bus and rail ridership recovered in 2013 to be greater than any year before rail opened – which suggests that rail attracted additional passengers.
That’s highly debatable, and has been covered elsewhere.
Baltimore Sun: Hogan says no to Red Line, yes to Purple
Baltimore Sun: With Red Line canceled, $288 million may be gone
Baltimore Sun op-ed: Hogan, Rawlings-Blake blow opportunity born in unrest
Baltimore Sun: In West Baltimore, frustration over Red Line’s demise
Washington Post: Hogan: Maryland will move forward on Purple Line, with counties’ help
Washington Post: How Republican Gov. Larry Hogan made his first big mass transit decision
WTOP Radio: Prince George’s County Exec: No new money for Purple Line
Thanks MJ, that blog entry had a title that was contradicted by the evidence. You can’t say total ridership goes up when statistics show that it has. You could say it would go up more without rail, but you need to have some kind of persuasive argument. Part of the problem is that the light rail opened during the recession so it is difficult to determine whether a reduction in bus service hours was due to the recession or to help pay for the rail operations. I can report that Valley Metro dutifully operates empty buses every 30 minutes all day in front of my sister’s house.
What is interesting is that Phoenix continues to invest in express bus service even as it builds light rail – A new bus route is opening even as the light rail extension is opening.
Thanks MJ, that blog entry had a title that was contradicted by the evidence. You can’t say total ridership goes up when statistics show that it has.
The author was trying to establish a counterfactual for what would have happened in the absence of light rail. Phoenix’s ridership was increasing for quite a while, largely due to strong population growth. This even continued through the worst years of the recession. It then leveled off for several years after 2009, when Phoenix LRT opened. This represents a structural break from the previous dozen or so years.
The causes aren’t entirely clear, and don’t have time right now to look at what happened to service supply (bus and rail) in the region during that period, but this evidence at least lends some support to the claim that LRT at the very least had no impact on ridership and possibly had a dampening effect. So, as I said above, it’s debatable.