Phoenix’s transit agency, Valley Metro, claims that its new light-rail line is a great success, but the Antiplanner is reserving judgment until we have actual data. In the meantime, news reports indicate that Valley Metro is failing to improve bus service as promised when voters agreed to increase the sales tax to support “roads and rail” in 2004.
Of course, the agency blames the problem on the economy. But, as the Coyote blog points out, this is disingenuous. Nearly half of transit’s share of the sales tax increase goes for light rail, and most of that goes to pay back the loans incurred to build the light rail.
Choose the Karaoke Songs of Your Choice Wait on Me, Wicked Games, You Ruin Me, The Veronicas, Amnesia, Animals, Break the online pharmacies viagra Rules, Comeback and Don’t Tell ‘Em are also the hot songs. Although ED is not life viagra without prescription threating, it can be extremely useful to improve overall wellbeing. They are loaded with sugar and caffeine is the subsequent most copious substance in them that, similar to alcohol, gives rise to water failure inside your body. buy levitra uk Instead they cialis order online should openly talk about the issue and redemption of securities and other financial instruments including the payment of income and dividends.
“Now, there is a 25% cut in the sales tax dollars from this sales tax increase,” says Coyote. “The half that went to rail can’t be touched. So the 25% cut results in a 0% cut in rail and a 50% cut in buses.” That’s probably something of an exaggeration, but it gets across a point frequently made by the Antiplanner: the high cost of rail makes transit systems especially vulnerable to recessions.
Phoenix may post an increase in ridership numbers for 2009, the year its light-rail line opened, yet see a decline in 2010 or 2011. Again, Valley Metro will blame this on the recession, but much of the problem can really be blamed on the high cost of rail transit.
But, uhhh, Krugman said, uhh, read the EIS study, durrrr.
Sorry, it’s just too hard to guess Dan’s answer to this light rail fiasco. I’m sure it will be something that completely exonerates the unfairly maligned light rail and places the blame where it belongs, on us evil, car driving, sprawl loving losers
Today’s post is a kind of salt on the wounds piece. Seeing as “don’t build the line in the first place” is no longer an option, I don’t really see any value in the post, other than to harp, bitch, and moan.
Are we saying that the city should cut it’s losses and discontinue light rail service (despite the massive capital investment)? If that’s the point, at least there’s a point (other than to harp, bitch and moan).
They should certainly cut rail “service”. It’s a terrible waste of money, in a time when other, far more useful services need that money more.
In Edinburgh, UK, they are trying to figure out how to pay for their light rail system. The latest, and very controversial option, is to link it to the bus service, so that buses cross-subsidise the light rail. Ironically, the light rail is replacing an existing bus service.
Replacing bus lines with light rail is part of the plan, because the buses have existing ridership they can steal and use to inflate the rail numbers.
Phoenix is so spread out that a trip linking the bus and light rail line is probably a two hour trip. Not a lot of potential there.
About half of the Phoenix light rail ridership is ASU students and staff who get to ride free as the light rail links several campus facilities.
Waste of money. Everyone knew this from the get-go, including the planners. But they had to have their way anyway.
Francis,
Were the buses fully deregulated in Edinburgh, or are they still run by district authorities/transport executives? I know that most bus services in England (outside of London) were deregulated, but don’t know whether this was extended to other parts of the UK.
MJ asked:
“Were the buses fully deregulated in Edinburgh, or are they still run by district authorities/transport executives?”
In Edinburgh, they are still owned and run by the city. The same is true of London also (run by TfL), and one or two other places.
When Scotland got devolved powers within the UK, Edinburgh became the capital of devolved Scotland. All other European capitals have light rail, so Edinburgh needed light rail too. The whole thing has been an exercise in how not to do light rail. The construction works, with roads dug up, have hurt businesses and caused congestion. What nobody seemed to anticipate is that Edinburgh has sub-surface cellars, which were found as they tried to built the route. The system was supposed to be three lines, but one stunted line is all that they have been able to build.
The only real surprise is that Antiplanner hasn’t pounced on Edinburgh, like a cat going for a mouse.
“Today’s post is a kind of salt on the wounds piece. Seeing as “don’t build the line in the first place†is no longer an option, I don’t really see any value in the post, other than to harp, bitch, and moan.
Are we saying that the city should cut it’s losses and discontinue light rail service (despite the massive capital investment)? If that’s the point, at least there’s a point (other than to harp, bitch and moan).” – Bennett
I don’t blame you for feeling that way. But it’s not just bitch and moan, it’s a warning for others looking to build rail projects.
Mothballing the line is an interesting option. I’m not sure how much they’d save since it wouldn’t do much to address the hundreds of millions in debt that quickly piled up to build the line.