Any useful statistics on light rail success? (Phoenix: fit in, lawyers)

[Voebe]

A decade ago, there was this article on the success of the light rail, mentioning weekend use as a substantial factor.

I'm curious: Are there any statistics more recently about whether it's been a success, NOT in terms of how many people are riding, but in terms of whether there are fewer cars on the road, fewer cars being purchased, reduced traffic, or reduced pollution?

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/us/20rail.html

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by Voebe

A decade ago, there was this article on the success of the light rail, mentioning weekend use as a substantial factor.

I'm curious: Are there any statistics more recently about whether it's been a success, NOT in terms of how many people are riding, but in terms of whether there are fewer cars on the road, fewer cars being purchased, reduced traffic, or reduced pollution?

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/us/20rail.html

My guess is no, because there is simply no way to control for all the variables involved. We've got another thread where people are complaining about local traffic becoming worse. At first glance, that might suggest light rail is a failure according to your criterion. What that doesn't tell us, however, if is traffic would be even worse than it already is if Phoenix had not invested in expansion of public transit, both bus and rail. More importantly, it assumes that the measure of light rail's success is reduced road congestion. That might be one benefit of public transit, but it's not the only one and probably not even the primary one. Ridership should be the primary measurement, followed by development along the corridor.

[KurtAZ]

Originally Posted by Voebe

fewer cars on the road, fewer cars being purchased, reduced traffic, or reduced pollution?

My guess would be none of that is happening while the costs to the taxpayer for light rail is climbing. But hey...at least light rail accidents have opened a whole new area of revenue for accident lawyers.

[DatBoiLavoi]

Voebe,

From what I have seen most people use Uber/lyft instead of the light rail as it's cheap and convienent. I'm 29, and most of my friends of a similar age. I can't remember a single time when any of us used the light rail to go out on the weekend or really anytime. I think the last time I used the light rail was when it first opened.

[Sno0909]

I do not know of one person that uses the light rail. And I mean that very literally. Not one person. I know that doesn't mean much in a metro of so many people, but you would think statistical probability would suggest I at least know one person if this thing was such a success.

[Maroon197]

It’s weird that the New York Times hasn’t updated it’s article based on the opinions, guesses, and anecdotes of city data posters.

Anyway, thankfully roads and road construction/maintenance are free, subsidized gas is paid for by magic fairies, and the roadways of phoenix are patrolled by zero cost volunteer law enforcement officers. I’d hate to think my tax dollars were paying for someone else’s commute.

[AZ Manager]

Originally Posted by Voebe

A decade ago, there was this article on the success of the light rail, mentioning weekend use as a substantial factor.

I'm curious: Are there any statistics more recently about whether it's been a success, NOT in terms of how many people are riding, but in terms of whether there are fewer cars on the road, fewer cars being purchased, reduced traffic, or reduced pollution?

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/us/20rail.html

Those specific metrics are hard to get. There's a pretty in-depth article about it from last year over on AZ Central, possible pay wall because they don't like ad money, sorry. I'll cut the major points out just in case. The article is huge so you should read it in full if you are actually interested in the rail.

I think the most telling issue is ridership exceeded expectations yet it still cannot even come remotely close to sustaining itself.

Mixed results
Ridership:

The rail system almost immediately exceeded its target ridership numbers, and today has an average weekday ridership of about 50,000, a number Valley Metro didn't expect to reach until 2020.

But during the past fiscal year, light-rail ridership slipped by about 725,000 riders.

Investment:

Valley Metro estimates $11 billion in private and public investment has sprouted within a half mile of the light-rail line since 2008.

But some experts say a less-expensive public investment could have spurred similar results.

Side effects:

Valley leaders say light rail is responsible for luring the Super Bowl, NCAA Final Four and other mega-events.

But along 19th Avenue, the newest stretch of light rail in Phoenix, neighbors say the rail has also lured crime. Police calls near the new light-rail platforms increased 37 percent after the rail system opened.

https://www.azcentral.com/amp/2144400002

In addition to the $2 billion construction cost of the existing line, federal, state and local tax dollars subsidize about 72 percent of the light rail's $43 million annual operation cost.

https://www.azcentral.com/amp/2144400002

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by AZ Manager

I think the most telling issue is ridership exceeded expectations yet it still cannot even come remotely close to sustaining itself.

Just like almost every rail network, bus system, or road anywhere in the country, as well as most of the world. All transportation is subsidized -- often by government, sometimes by venture capital in the case of Uber and Lyft. In terms of farebox recovery, the percent of operating costs funded by ticket sales, Valley Metro ranks near the average for U.S. transit systems.

[AZ Manager]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

Just like almost every rail network, bus system, or road anywhere in the country, as well as most of the world. All transportation is subsidized -- often by government, sometimes by venture capital in the case of Uber and Lyft. In terms of farebox recovery, the percent of operating costs funded by ticket sales, Valley Metro ranks near the average for U.S. transit systems.

Uber and Lyft operate at a loss because they are fighting for market share. If they don't turn a profit in the next 10 years or less they will be shut down, the same will never be said for public transit.

NY subways pay for about 75% of their operating costs, Chicago is around 50%, Seattle bus fares cover 31%, and the worst is around 11%. The national ratio is 35% give or take depending on year. The Phoenix light rail is quite a bit below average, not the average.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by AZ Manager

Uber and Lyft operate at a loss because they are fighting for market share. If they don't turn a profit in the next 10 years or less they will be shut down, the same will never be said for public transit.

NY subways pay for about 75% of their operating costs, Chicago is around 50%, Seattle bus fares cover 31%, and the worst is around 11%. The national ratio is 35% give or take depending on year. The Phoenix light rail is quite a bit below average, not the average.

Public transit should not be shut down because it's an essential public service. The scariest aspect of the Uber / Lyft bubble is that some elected officials have used the existence of those companies, along with the prospect of autonomous vehicles, to justify reduced investment in public transit. If Uber and Lyft collapse and go away, there may be collateral damage beyond the companies themselves.

In terms of farebox recovery, the exact number varies from year to year, but over a decade of operation, Valley Metro has often reported numbers in the 35% range:

https://www.valleymetro.org/transit-performance-reports