Monday, January 22, 2007

Why is Light Rail so Damn Sexy?

A common argument that I hear against light rail is that it costs too much to construct and operate. "Why not just use buses?" is a common question raise when light rail is brought up. Buses are cheaper to run and operate and do not require the large capital costs of light rail. Buses are able to respond to new and different demand patterns because their routes can be changed at little or no cost. Light rail just doesn't make economic sense when compared to buses, or so the arguments goes.

Here is the problem, at least in Memphis, people just won't ride the bus. Why? It may have to do with problems with the bus routes and stops, or the scheduling, or the fare, or even the buses used. My guess is that the problem is as much one of perception as having to do with real problems that keeps people from riding. I have heard people call MATA buses unsafe and dirty. When pressed further these individuals often state that they don't use the bus or used it once and decided to never use it again. Do these perceptions match reality? Are buses in Memphis unsafe? Are they unclean? I did a quick search on the Commercial Appeal and didn't find anything to suggest MATA buses are unsafe. I rode the bus for a week while my car was in the shop and didn't find it to be unclean. Perhaps MATA's biggest problem is one of public perception.

Here is a thought experiment to help illustrate my point. Try imaging a transit system in Memphis where the buses are always on time, where the routes and bus stops are convenient, and the buses are new clean vehicles. Would this hypothetical Memphis have more ridership on the bus system? Probably, but would there be a drastic increase in ridership, probably not. Now imagine the same scenario with light rail instead of buses. Would ridership be higher under the light rail scenario?

For some reason there is just something different about riding a train. Why does bus transit have such a stigma associated with it while light rail come off with a squeaky clean image? Why is light rail so damn sexy?

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Monorails are even sexier!

And in a high congested corridor - like Poplar Ave. ... more practical.

Tim said...

There is a PBS special called Edens Lost and Found that case studies different cities sustainable development practices. The last episode was on Seattle A good bit of the program was devoted to the effort to expand the existing monorail system. The program suggested that monorail was cheaper and easier to install than light rail. I have always heard the opposite. But you are right Larry, monorail is even sexier than light rail.

Anonymous said...

The monorail itself is cheaper to install. What drives up the cost is the stations. The way to minimize that cost are private partnerships.

For example, I'm sure the Oak Court Mall would like to be a stop on a Poplar Corridor Monorail. Since a monorail is much quieter than light rail, it could actually pull into a stop on the second story inside of the mall. This would eliminate the need for MATA to pay for a elevators, etc. because they are already a part of the mall.

Labor is a huge portion of the operating costs. A monorail can show significant savings in operating costs by automation.

Elevate and automate.

Anonymous said...

Interesting topic. You should come be part of the discussion on light rail for Memphis at this website: http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=4228. I'm sure all of you could add to the discussion. We'd welcome it!