In Search of a City: Light Rail – Why Not Columbus?
In yet another rebuke to Columbus’ unwillingness to invest in light rail, The Columbus Dispatch reported on Sunday that Phoenix’s first rail line is an “unexpected success”, with a headline that reads, “Weekend riders turn downtown into destination.” Projected to carry 26,000 people per day immediately after beginning operations, the line is averaging 33,000 people per day.
Phoenix is not alone. All 13 cities that have built light rail lines since the mid-1980s have experienced higher-than-projected ridership. They include Charlotte, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, Minneapolis, Dallas, Denver and Sacramento. These are all automobile-oriented cities that sprawl in four directions. Each one has settled the age old argument in Columbus that light rail will not work here.
Sadly, the people of Columbus are not even permitted to vote on the issue. Only once has the business community allowed light rail on the ballot, in 1999. In that election, COTA was required to split its request for a half-cent sales tax into two quarter-cent ballot issues, one for permanent funding and one for ten year funding. COTA was not allowed to use the phrase “light rail” on the ten year funding issue. Confused voters approved permanent funding, unaware that they defeated light rail.
Would the last young professional to leave central Ohio please turn off the lights?
Tags: columbus, COTA, Downtown, Downtown Columbus, Public Transportation
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:54 am
Cleve,
To answer the question posed by the title of you post, the “why” is answered by some basic research available through Google. While the Dispatch ran a story from the AP (rather than “reported”), the story omitted any type of details. Fact number one is that a huge majorty of Phoenix’s train riders ride for “free”. Or should I say at taxpayers expense? Both the City and Arizona State University completely subsidize ridership for their workers and students, which represents a huge chunk of their daily riders. Without this taxpayer funded subsidy, ridership would plunge (as documebnted by the local newspaper).
Secondly, in every major city with rail, either fares are being raised, service cut, or taxes increased – or a combination of all three. Chicago. New York. San Fransico. In all of these cities the story is the same.
Thirdly, the “why” can be answered by looking at the costs, and the unions that control service. Both are spiraling out of control. New York city is a perfect example.
Please don’t jump in the quick sand just because the Dispatch ran a fluff story on light rail. The truth is, that although visiting a city and taking a trip or two is entertaining, light rail has proven to require massive tax payer subsidies, is used by very few people (in terms of mode split), and is provides little personal safety (Just today an alert was issued for “backpack” bombs on American public transit).
Car pools, hybrids, and van pooling are much cheaper and more flexible alternatives.
September 22nd, 2009 at 9:11 am
I am all for the new urbanism sweeping the rest of the country. However, I am deeply troubled by the lack of foresight this town exhibits. Yes, this project would have a price tag. However, the price we all pay for lack of decent urban initiatives is far greater. Light rail should be seen as another investment (as in one with a clear and obvious return), not just a boondoggle as the naysayers would have you believe. This post is a great refutation about those petty and ill-informed arguments. My biggest dismay in Central Ohio politics is a disturbingly vocal contingent that seems to wish failure on any decent venture just to reserve the right to say “I told you so.” Cynicism is rampant and a deeply entrenched foe. I have actually seen long diatribes against the Scioto Mile and the creation of Columbus Commons. I believe these are great projects that will bring greater livability to the Central Ohio economic engine that is downtown. We, the people that can envision a brighter future, have a duty to educate the population of what Columbus can be – if we can just overcome this urge to remain mediocre. The future belongs to the visionaries, and we’ve got to take it back from those who say otherwise.
September 22nd, 2009 at 9:36 am
Bart,
Who do you think pays for highways? The last time I checked, my Columbus, Franklin County, and even Ohio tax dollars subsidized use of the street system so people with cars could travel for free on area roads. The federal and state gasoline taxes pays for only a very narrow class of roadway expenses.
The non-user subsidies for highways not only support construction and maintenance. General taxes pay for the Highway Patrol, snow removal, Columbus Division of Police coverage, EMS runs for fatal and serious automobile accidents, and many other expenses.
Speaking of EMS runs, I find your comment about personal safety on transit to be interesting. Why don’t we compare the rate of injury and death on highways to the rate of injury and death on transit? If you were to do some basic research available through Google, you would understand that taking transit is considerably safer than driving a vehicle.
The need for subsidies for cars is so great that many states are discussing the addition of tolls on so called “freeways”. The fact that Phoenix, which is the epitomy of automobile dependency, is experiencing such huge and immediate public acceptance of light rail speaks volumes about the pent- up demand for alternatives to driving a personal vehicle. Until now, people in Phoenix had limited options to driving.
I seriously doubt that most riders travel without paying a fare (I could not find a site on the subject), but I am delighted to learn that university students and city employees can ride for free. I agree with you that people should google “Phoenix Light Rail”. There are many good articles about the system.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:52 am
Hi Cleve. I’m pretty sure I know who pays for highways. Most likely the masses of people who use them. Just this week, the Census Bureau released figures on American commuting habits (2008). Nationally, 5.4% of American commuters use public transit. I think even you would agree this is a small, small, mintority of people.
Does it make sense then to fund transit at the same rate or proportion as highways? Even in dreamy Portland, where billions of dollars have been pored into mass transit, only 7% of commuters use public transit. I think it is safe to say that investing more and more money into Columbus transit is not going to attract the masses. Let’s face it, you want the masses who want to and enjoy driving, to subsidize your light rail ambitions. Flying into a city for a week and riding a train certainly does not justify building light rail in Columbus. It is simply too much of a money pit, utilized by too few people.
Look at St. Louis, a city you also mentioned. They have had to reduce light rail service and raise fares. They cannot afford to operate their system. Voters rejected a sales tax increase earlier this year. Not to be detered, the transit agency is back on the ballot this Novemeber for another tax hike. I’m simply saying Columbus does not need these problems. I like the idea of a train, just not the problems that come with it.
Regarding safety, my point was personal safety. Obviously there are more accidents with cars – there are millions more of them subject to an accident than there are buses or trains. Do you know who sits next to you on transit? No. They could be a sexual preadator, a molestor, someone out on parole, etc. Even here in Columbus we have an example of personal safety concerns:
http://www2.nbc4i.com/cmh/news/crime/article/-CMH_2008_06_19_0013/5945/
Regarding Phoenix and the free rides, here is the article:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/traffic/lightrail/articles/2009/06/02/20090602subsidy0602.html
Sorry to dissent with you Cleve, but light rail is not in the best interests of this city. There is little to no congestion, and little to no money to afford building and operating this expensive project.
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Next time you are in Pittsburgh on a weekend ride the Light Rail and see how many folks are making downtown a destination.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:43 am
ASU students don’t ride for free. They pay a $40 per semester or $80 annual nominal fee:
http://uabf.asu.edu/node/1868
This is obviously not the full cost of the monthly transit passes (so it is subsidized), but it is a higher fee than OSU’s arrangement with COTA ($9 per quarter) and is comparable to many other U-pass programs.
September 24th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Thanks John. One should also note that this is a brand new fee. Prior to this, and stories lauding the ridership of the Phoenix rail lines are using data that includes when student ridership was completely free. City employees continue to ride for “free” (subsidized)
http://www.azcentral.com/news/traffic/lightrail/articles/2009/06/02/20090602subsidy0602.html
Bart
September 28th, 2009 at 7:34 am
I pay $80/month to park almost 3 blocks from my office and that is the cheapest within 5 blocks. I’d certainly pay that to ride to work AND be able to use the pass to go to other places around the city (sporting events, concerts, dining, airport). Never once have I felt unsafe riding the rail in other cities.