The train that saved Denver? Give me a break! Politico‘s Colin Woodard claims that the effects of new rail transit lines on Denver “have been measurable and surprising.” In fact, his article is all hype with hardly a touch of reality.
Let’s start with same basic “measurable” numbers. In 1990, before Denver built its first light-rail line, the decennial census found that 4.74 percent of the region’s commuters took transit to work. By 2014, the region had four light-rail lines, and the American Community Survey found that the percentage of commuters taking transit to work was all the way up to 4.76 percent.
Yes, that’s a measurable 0.02 percent increase in transit’s share of commuting. If it is a surprise, it is only that it wasn’t a decrease.
In 2004, when the region’s voters agreed to raise sales taxes to pay for six new rail lines, they were promised that part of the money would also be used to improve bus service. Instead, rail cost overruns forced a 19 percent decline in vehicle miles of bus service. The region is lucky that, so far, that hasn’t been reflected by a decline in bus ridership.
Here’s another measurable (but unsurprising) effect: when voters were asked to approve the rail lines, the transit agency told the system would cost $4.7 billion. As Woodard notes, the actual cost so far looks to be $7.6 billion.
The new rail line to the airport that opened last month was supposed to cost $350 million. In fact, it cost $1.2 billion. After adjusting for inflation, that’s well over twice as much as projected. We have no idea what first-year ridership will be, but we know that first-year ridership on Denver’s West line was less than 60 percent of the projections.
Denver’s rail construction, says Woodard, was “originally intended to unclog congested highways and defeat a stubborn brown smog that was as unhealthy as it was ugly.” Some people might have thought so, but actual plans written for the rail projects concluded that they would do almost nothing to relieve congestion and would actually make air pollution worse because Denver gets most of its electricity from burning fossil fuels. The most optimistic analysis projected that the new rail lines would take, at most, a half a percent of cars off the road and that the power plants would pollute more than those cars.
Restlessness, stress, lack of interest in sex, pamelaannschoolofdance.com cialis cost cannot help him and he must seek alternate medical treatment for this problem. It leads tadalafil online no prescription to Addiction Kamagra does not have any addictive properties. While in older people, it is mostly used to refer to pfizer viagra 50mg arterial diseases or atherosclerosis. Any type of invasive procedure such as a surgery or implanted embryo brings a certain risk of internal bleeding and infection. viagra prescription free Instead of relieving congestion and cleaning the air, Woodard continues, “the new rail system has proven that its greatest value is the remarkable changes in land use its stations have prompted, from revitalizing moribund neighborhoods, like the area around Union Station, to creating new communities.” Say what? Denver taxpayers spent $500 million rebuilding the area around Union Station. One of the new communities mentioned in the article, Stapleton, cost taxpayers another $400 million. These areas were “revitalized” by the taxpayer subsidies, not by the rail lines.
No money was spent subsidizing redevelopment along the West light-rail line. As a result, there has been virtually no redevelopment along that line. Redevelopment has taken place mainly, if not only, where tax-increment financing and other subsidies have supported it.
Ironically, the close of Woodard’s article reveals what is really going on in Denver. The metropolitan chamber of commerce organized “a great pact” between cities and businesses to “work together” to support “major collective investments” like rail lines and the new airport. That airport, for those who don’t remember, was a financial disaster, costing 50 percent more than projected, adding hours to everyone’s travel time because it was located so far out of town, and costing Denver one of its hub airlines when Continental left because it didn’t want to pay the increased landing fees required to pay for the airport.
The chamber-of-commerce types didn’t care about these things because so many of them made money from airport construction. Nor did the cities care about rail cost overruns as long as they all get an equal share of the take: the whole rail scheme was designed to send a rail line into every major suburb.
Woodard says the trains somehow managed to save Denver from “Houstonization.” That raises another measurable effect of Denver planning: housing costs twice as much as in Houston. According to Caldwell Banker, a 2,200-square-foot house in Houston costs $237,200. That same house in Denver? $542,575. Don’t even ask about Boulder, which is twice as expensive as Denver. The trains didn’t make housing expensive, but the same sort of collectivist planning that prompted the trains also drew the urban-growth boundaries that did make housing expensive.
“The ethics were,” says the CEO of Denver’s economic development corporation, “if you steal from someone else, you’re out of the family forever.” But by “stealing” he meant one city taking from another, not lying to and stealing from the taxpayers, which was perfectly fine.
In the end, the only things the trains saved Denver from were lower taxes and slightly cleaner air. If the region had not built the rail lines but spent a tenth of that money on things that would actually relieve congestion, it would have saved millions of hours of residents’ time per year. The region’s collectivist planning also saved Denver from having housing as affordable as Houston’s.
Politico‘s article is another case of an exuberant journalist reprinting the press releases of government bureaucrats eager to spread the message that Americans can’t be trusted with their own money and so it should be taken from them to be spent by the bureaucracies. When did the Left become shills for corporate welfare and bureaucratic bungling? Sadly, the “question authority” mentality that once characterized American journalists has been replaced by a collectivist view that promotes higher taxes and less personal freedom.
!!! Outstanding !!! Outrageous claims supported by hard facts !!! (Love the “collectivist” slant) Makes me want to do a remake of the movie: “The Music Man” only call it: “The Rail Transit and Smart Growth Man”. If only there was more time in the day.
The UGB around Denver? You mean the Rocky Mountains?
Agree that this is an outstanding article, a veritable Tour de Facts. Great, work Randal !
If you are interested in how the pliable media works with fake grassroots groups to advocate grouops, see this recent article: http://bit.ly/1TzWOqm
I think it is interesting that there are no rail lines anywhere near the bus corridor in Denver that is by far the busiest – the East Colfax corridor, which would bisect the white space in the east side inbetween the two other lines.
When I have been in Denver riding the light rail I have found the trains fairly empty, and with the exception of one line they seem to avoid anywhere people want to go. Union Station is quite a walk from the center of downtown Denver, which is why they need the “Free Downtown Mall” shuttle. Elsewhere lines follow freight railroad corridors or are along the side of a freeway, perhaps to save money, but as a result there are few destinations.
The densities of Houston and Denver seem to be similar at 3,600 people per square mile. Where is the urban growth boundary, besides the Rocky Mountains (and perhaps the Rocky Mountain Arsenal – potential cheap housing available on top of the heavy metal contamination)? Visitors to Denver will note plenty of underdeveloped land near the downtown area. Perhaps housing prices are higher in Denver because more people want to live in Denver…
That’s a rather strange choice of words by the CEO. He seems oblivious to the possibility of another interpretation emphasizing the fact that RTD has been running a scam on Denver-area taxpayers since its bait-and-switch act with the rail ballot question in 2004. That the fact that pork-barreling within the region to get these projects built seems entirely legitimate to him just emphasizes the civic boosterism mentality these folks are steeped in.
None of the original objectives identified in the plan’s original justification seem to have been achieved, so why not move the goalposts and claim that the rail extensions did something else worthwhile, namely redevelop Denver, despite the fact that there is little evidence of this either? The credulity of most journalists is just shocking these days.
I wouldn’t ascribe it to luck. Remember that when these new lines are built bus service is often re-routed to serve rail stations, thus forcing a transfer on some riders to reach their destination. As long as ridership is measured in terms of unlinked boardings this allows RTD to double-count the transfer as both a bus trip and a rail trip. It’s a good way to boost ridership numbers without actually attracting new customers, and one that is scarcely understood by the general public and media.
I can only hazard a guess. It’s my understanding that this part of town is more working-class, and not really one of the areas that is more likely to gentrify anytime soon, which could make it a lower priority for rail extensions. Accordingly, I would guess that the area has less political clout than some of the other parts of the region that have already been served.
The T-REX project, which included the southeast light rail extension, was prioritized due to the fact that it could piggyback on the bigger parts of the project, the widening of I-25. Given the large scope of this extension and how difficult it would have been to do at another time, it quickly jumped to the front of the queue.
Incidentally, I had a chance to stay in the Tech Center area near I-25 about 10 years ago, just as this project was getting underway. It’s a fascinating area, but it really seems to shut down after the end of normal business hours. I’d guess that the pattern of light rail ridership on the southeast line strongly reflects this.
Don’t let anyone here in Las Vegas see this piece. After a road trip (sponsored by a law firm representing light rail interests) to see the new University Line linking downtown Denver with the airport, they’re all hot to trot for getting one themselves. http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/denver-light-rail-approach-model-las-vegas-transit, the theory being, according to one editorial “Unlike expressway, light rail isn’t a potential road to ruin”. http://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/may/01/unlike-expressway-light-rail-isnt-a-potential-road/
Frank,
DRCOG has drawn a UGB around Denver which you can see in its Metrovision plans. Needless to say, the Rocky Mountains are not much of a boundary as they are only on one side and much of the land in the mountains is buildable in any case.
Thanks for the link.
@MJ
2004-2013 annual passenger miles on buses increased from ~345 million to ~401 million. Unlinked bus trips increased from 71.3 million to 76.3 million. Note while bus revenue miles are down to 35.5 million from 39.0 million, bus revenue hours have only declined to 2.607 million from 2.613 million. Bus operation costs scale by time more than by distance. Is the decline in bus miles from running different bus routes, or from worsening traffic?
http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/pubs/profiles/2004/agency_profiles/8006.pdf
http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/pubs/profiles/2013/agency_profiles/8006.pdf
@AP
“Instead, rail cost overruns forced a 19 percent decline in vehicle miles of bus service”
Over which years, and why is bus miles a better metric than bus hours? Bus hours seems to track costs better than bus miles.
East Colfax is gentrified to at least Monaco, 4.5 miles from downtown. You’d be hard pressed to find a single family house in that direction for less than $500K. West Colfax is lower-middle class and it has a light rail line all the way out to Golden. Plenty of $250K houses on West Colfax.
The main problem with running a rail line on or around East Colfax is the lack of space. Colfax itself is just a four lane road so one of the parallel streets would have to be cut down to accommodate a track. 14th Ave would be likely but I sure hope not:
If the number of passenger-miles increased by 16% but unlinked trips increased by only 7%, that suggests that average trip lengths were increasing. The average additional trip over that period was about 11 miles. I know that RTD operates some long-distance “regional” express routes. If those were expanded during that period it could account for some of the increase. RTD also offers some express services to DIA from various parts of the region. Increased ridership on those routes could also have contributed.
Congestion could account for some of the decline in bus miles, especially if more service were operated on peak-period express services that run on congested freeways in mixed traffic. Another factor is a change in the type of service operated. I noticed that the route-miles of light rail in Denver nearly tripled from 2004-2013. This probably meant that a number of former express and limited-stop services were rerouted to end at rail stations, and function more as local routes rather than serving the line-haul portion of trips. Operating in mixed traffic on arterials and making more frequent stops could lead to lower average speeds.