The Tide, Norfolk’s light-rail line, has been open to the public for ten years. As noted in this article in the Pilot, it opened 18 months late after a 60 percent cost overrun.
The Tide light rail in downtown Norfolk. Photo by Dean Covey, Virginia Department of Transportation.
The article claims the light-rail line carried its first million rides “five months ahead of original projections,” but that’s a transit agency lie. The original projections estimated that the rail line would carry 10,400 riders per weekday in its opening year. That would be about 1 million riders in less than four months. In fact, it carried less than half that, just 4,900 riders per weekday in its first year, and took eight months to reach 1 million riders.
In a typical transit-agency lie, Hampton Roads Transit later reduced that projection to 2,900 trips per weekday, and then claimed that was the “original” projection. This made it appear to anyone who didn’t look closely at the numbers that the line was doing well.
In fact, not only did it do poorly in its first year, it only went downhill from there. By 2019, seven years after it opened, ridership was down to 4,641 trips per weekday.
Despite this complete failure by every possible measure, Hampton Roads Transit wants to extend it by 2.2 miles to a local mall, which Norfolk planners want to convert — with the help of tax-increment financing and other subsidies — into a high-density, mixed-use development. Transit planners say it will take eight years to plan and build the light-rail line, which is insane in itself since they could start running a limited-stop bus there tomorrow.
If you’re curious to know just what sort of treatment also. http://www.donssite.com/levitra-2998 order cheap levitra Since buy cialis on line researchers consider over masturbation an addiction therefore different natural ways to ends over masturbation effects. It is enriched B12, iron and zinc. viagra cialis achat These days . , people choose to buy the generic drug is that you will be levitra price able to know it.
One of the major problems with urban planning is that planners are unable to learn from their mistakes or the mistakes of their peers in other cities. Instead, mistakes get locked in because the few people who benefit from those mistakes form stronger lobbying groups to keep the mistakes going than are formed by the many more people who are harmed, mainly because the benefits to the few are large while the cost to the many are individually small.
Light rail was a mistake from the beginning. As I’ve repeatedly noted before, it was rendered obsolete in 1927, when the first rear-engine buses were developed that were less expensive to buy and less expensive to operate than rail transit. Buses can also move far more people per hour than rail.
Norfolk light rail is particularly pathetic. In 2019, it carried an average of 12.4 people per 68-seat railcar (that is, 12.4 passenger-miles per vehicle-revenue mile), less than any other light-rail system in the country. Fares covered less than 14 percent of operating costs, not the lowest but well below the 22 percent average for light rail nationwide. These numbers are all from before the pandemic, but as of June, 2021, ridership was still 58 percent less than 2019 numbers, which means trains were emptier and fares covered even less of the cost of running the Tide.
Light rail never made sense in Norfolk. As one transit enthusiast observes, even light-rail advocates admit that it requires population densities of about 30 people per acre near the rail stations. Norfolk averages just 5.
The pandemic should make it clear to anyone who didn’t believe it before: people don’t want to live in high-density, mixed-use developments, which is why cities have to subsidize them. People don’t want to travel on slow mass transit lines that don’t go where they want to go, which is why transit fares cover less than a quarter of its costs. Helping poor people, relieving congestion, and saving the planet from climate change are all worthwhile aspirations, but don’t expect obsolete forms of transportation and housing to do it for you.
“As I’ve repeatedly noted before, it [light rail]
was rendered obsolete in 1927,”
You have repeatedly noted this, and you are repeatedly wrong. Light rail has a defined place in the transport hierarchy. The skill in selecting the correct transport type for the circumstance at hand.
“As one transit enthusiast observes, even light-rail advocates admit that it requires population densities of about 30 people per acre near the rail stations. Norfolk averages just 5.”
For that type, walk-to-rail. For other approaches, the required population will vary.
“The skill in selecting the correct transport type for the circumstance at hand.”
Has that skill been demonstrated? Many places that would have been better suited with expanded bus service clamored for light rail because it shiny civic jewelry.
”
Light rail has a defined place in the transport hierarchy.
” ~FrancisKIng2
If by “hierarchy” you actually mean MUSEUM, then yes.
Money is a proxy for resources. Norfolk’s LRT is burning through resources with almost nothing to show in return. 95% complete waste.
FrancisKing,
The people who have defined light-rail’s place in the transportation hierarchy are the people who are building and running it. If there were a substitute that could do everything light rail does as well or better at a lower cost, then light rail would be obsolete. We have that substitute: it is called buses. Just because transit planners want to build expensive projects doesn’t mean they aren’t obsolete.
“The people who have defined light-rail’s place in the transportation hierarchy are the people who are building and running it.”
Oh Antiplanner! That savours very strongly of bitterness! Light rail is a genuine transport technology which is clearly superior to buses in quality terms. The question is whether there are sufficient customers to make it financially sufficient. Many large cities, amongst them London, Karlsruhe and Manchester have had a lot of success with light rail. I am curious to know if you believe yourself to be better qualified then these experts.
The problem is one of quality planning – ironically, the very thing that you claim you are opposed to. You can calculate the passenger flow very easily – population x proportion travelling in a peak hour x modal share for transit / two directions / number of routes / vehicles per hour. This should give a ballpark number which you can benchmark against existing services. For Bath, UK, where I live, my number is 100,000 x 10% x 10% / 2 / 6 / 4 = 21 passengers per vehicle, about right for buses. You can check this by first running a bus service along the route. Best of all, get a private company to decide – they tend to be more careful with spending their own money. Surprise! First, a private transit company, runs buses in Bath, not light rail, even though they could build light rail themselves. I’d be quite happy if the bus company stopped taking drivers off of ‘disposable services’ when they run short of drivers.
In what way is light rail better than busses? The romantic clickety clack of the wheels on the rails?
Obsolete:
no longer in general use; fallen into disuse:
outmoded in design, style, or construction: an obsolete locomotive.
Let’s see. What percentage is passenger rail of all travel? Minuscule, you say? It’s no longer in general use? It’s outmoded?
Yes.