August 24th Transportation Policy Board

I attended the August 24th transportation policy board to hear about the progress the ERA consultants had made so far on their economic study of light rail in Memphis. As I understand their charge, the consultants are going to study the economic impact of light rail development in Memphis and the surrounding region. To do this they needed a test corridor, something on the ground to run the numbers against. It would be too difficult to run an economic study without a specific light rail corridor due to the spacial characteristics of most economic factors. The economic impact of this corridor would then be compared to the economic impact of the same study area without a light rail line. By studying the economic impact with and without the corridor the consultants will be able to tell if the light rail corridor will have a positive, neutral or negative economic impact.

The two main economic indicators the consultants will be comparing are job growth and the gross regional product, a regional version of the gross national product. Using these indicators they should be able to tell which alternative is better economically for Memphis, light rail or no light rail. It is important to note that since the economic study is "site specific" the study is not saying whether or not light rail is good for Memphis only whether a light rail corridor at the locations studied is good economically for Memphis.

The next topic discussed at the meeting was the actual process of selecting the corridor for the study. The consultants evaluated four different corridors based on these five criteria: 1) potential ridership, 2) potential for creating transit oriented development (TOD) 3) right of way capacity 4) capital costs and 5) impact on existing businesses. The four corridors evaluated were: 1) Poplar corridor, 2) Summer Corridor, 3) Northern Corridor, similar to the corridor identified in the light rail Regional Rail Plan and 4) the CSX corridor. Based on the above five criterion the consultants choose the CSX corridor as their preferred corridor of study. They also said that at no additional charge they would study the Lamar Corridor as well due the fact that extensive research had already be completed for the corridor and that it had been selected as the preferred light rail corridor from Downtown to the Airport.

The consultants have already submitted two papers. The third paper will be case studies of what they call peer cities. The three main peer cities they selected were: 1) Baltimore, 2) Dallas and 3) Sacramento. From basic research from these studies they suggested targets or goals for the light rail line such as: 1) stations a mile apart, 2) 1000 trips per station per day, 3) 25% of the operating cost covered by fairs, and 4) a subsidy of around $2 to 4$ per trip. I have requested the consultants powerpoint and will post it here if they send it along to me.

After the initial presentation the questions from the public shifted the focus of the meeting to the Poplar Corridor. It was pointed out that all the major rail studies today have identified the Poplar Corridor as a prime, if not difficult, candidate for a light rail corridor. Those in the audience questioned why CSX was being studied when the Poplar Corridor holds the most promise. There was some discussion on the board and they decided to ask the consultants if they could come back with the price of adding the Poplar Corridor to the study.