From: "Friends of Transit" To: Subject: Facts to Dispel John Semmens' "Research" Date: Thursday, January 22, 2004 11:12 AM Blame the gas station ownersFriends, John Semmens, a state government worker by day and self-proclaimed Libertarian "Think-Tank" by night has been busy sending out his, also self-proclaimed, "Research" about Light Rail Transit. Well, in an effort to be sure you have information to counteract his rhetoric, below is information dispelling his "myths" about Light Rail Transit. Hope you find it helpful. You can also find similar information dispelling anti-transit myths on our website www.friendsoftransit.org The information on our homepage is courtesy of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). David Schwartz, Executive Director 10 Light Rail Myths De-Bunked Recently, the Goldwater Institute put out its list of reasons to oppose light rail. These 10 myths and opinions are ones used throughout the country over the past decade to oppose successful light rail projects. In the interest of setting the record straight and getting the facts on the table, here's a point-by-point review. Myth 10. "Light rail will cost more than projected" We fully expect to deliver a light rail system that we can afford, and one that meets the people's needs and expectations. The current $1.2 billion budget is in line with other light rail systems throughout the country and is verified through independent cost estimates. Additionally, there is extensive federal oversight of the budget to ensure that projections are realistic, since the federal government will be funding half the cost of the project. In fact, the Federal Transit Administration has awarded the project a highly recommended rating, due to its cost effectiveness. Valley Metro Rail's first construction contract came in slightly under budget, and there is every reason to believe future contracts will be on target, due to intense competition in the construction industry. Myth 9. "Few people will ride" The Valley's light rail system is expected to generate 26,000 boardings per day initially and 50,000 boardings per day by 2020. A 2002 study by the Maricopa Association of Governments showed that 57 percent of people would use light rail if it were convenient to their home or workplace. Light rail systems in other western cities, such as Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, Portland and Dallas, have been extremely popular; ridership has exceeded expectations and each city continues to add more extensions in response to community demand. Myth 8. "Light rail is not cost effective" Our project's cost effectiveness has earned it a Highly Recommended Rating from the Federal Transit Administration - one of only two rail projects in the country out of 59 seeking federal funding to receive the prestigious rating. It costs only $12.39 per year to get someone off Valley roadways and onto public transportation by building light rail. Light rail offers the same people-moving capacity as a freeway for up to 50 percent less. And light rail is much less disruptive to the community than a six-lane freeway through neighborhoods. As our Valley grows and we double in population over the next 30-40 years, we need transportation options like light rail that move people more efficiently. The truth is, light rail provides high capacity in heavily congested corridors. With the completion of the Loop 202, there will be no more new freeways built in the central Valley. While opponents like to use the cost to build a freeway through raw desert as a benchmark, a better comparison is how much it costs to build a mile of urban freeway ($100 million) versus a mile of light rail ($50 million). An even better question is whether you could build an urban freeway in the central Valley today. The answer? No way (see: Paradise Freeway). Myth 7. "Light rail will do little to help the environment" Light rail will be good for our air. Commuters dump thousands of pounds of toxins into our air every day. By reducing the number of cars on the road, light rail will eliminate more than 12 tons of pollution every day. It's one of the reasons the Environmental Protection Agency has endorsed our project. In a letter to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the agency gave the project's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) its highest environmental rating, saying that it was "highly supportive of the project goals to reduce vehicle miles traveled, reduce vehicle emissions and to provide expanded transportation choices," and added "We look forward to the implementation of this project." Light rail on its own won't eliminate our brown cloud (in fact, nothing on its own will), but it is an important step. Myth 6. "Light rail is not appropriate for low-density cities like Phoenix" In reality, Phoenix has the 11th highest population density in the United States - higher than Atlanta and greater Chicago - both of which have successful rail systems. According to a study by the Brookings Institute, Phoenix has 7.2 people per urbanized acre, while Chicago has 6 and Atlanta only has 2.8 people per acre. The study also showed that, as the Valley grows, it is using less land compared with population growth than most places. The Phoenix area's population grew 74 percent from 1982-97, but just 49 percent more land was developed. The corridors served by light rail - Central Avenue, ASU, Camelback - are extremely dense and contain many of the top destinations in the Valley. Myth 5. "Light rail does little to attract people to transit" The old adage, if you build it, they will come, rings true for public transportation. About half the riders on the Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail Transit Project are projected to be brand new transit riders. The Valley's light rail system is expected to increase the total number of public transit trips by approximately 8.4 million annually. Because light rail operates on a fixed, non-movable route, it offers a sense of permanence to people who are uneasy about using public transportation. A 2002 study by the Maricopa Association of Governments showed that 57 percent of people would use light rail if it were convenient to their home or workplace. Myth 4. "Light rail does nothing to promote transit efficiency and little to promote economic development" One of the tests required by the Federal Transit Administration for a light rail project to be recommended for funding is that it be both cost effective and improve transit travel times. The Valley's project received a highly recommended rating for its cost effectiveness and will reduce transit travel times over bus service along the same corridor by 50 percent. Light rail has been shown to have positive economic benefits in other cities and can spur development, increase property values and boost retail sales. According to a 1998 study of Dallas' DART light rail system by the University of North Texas' Center for Economic Development and Research, after only a few years in service, Dallas gained as much in economic development as was spent to build its system - approximately $1 billion. Total retail sales jumped more than 12 percent in the Dallas Central Business District versus less than a 1 percent increase citywide one year after light rail operations began. Property values around light rail stations had a 50 percent greater increase in value than comparable properties in other areas without light rail and vacant land values appreciated five times faster around DART stations. Occupancy rates and rents also increased along the rail route. In Portland, private economic investments along the MAX light rail line have exceeded the cost of the project five-fold and residential properties within 500 meters of a light rail station fetch an average of 10.6 percent more than comparable properties farther away, according to a 1999 study by the research firm of Booz-Allen & Hamilton. And the city of St. Louis estimates that 15 percent of its downtown retail traffic is from its Metrolink light rail system. Most important is the long-term contribution light rail will make to our quality of life by providing the infrastructure needed to support a growing community and a thriving economy. For cities to remain competitive economically, and provide their citizens a good quality of life and thriving economy, a balanced transportation system is vital. Myth 3. "Light rail cannot compete with automobiles for speed and convenience" Light rail does not pretend to compete with the convenience and flexibility of automobile travel for every trip. However, what is most important to people is how fast, and how dependably, they can travel during rush hour. Light rail and automobile travel times are comparable during peak periods. And while automobile travel times will continue to degrade as congestion worsens, light rail travel times will stay the same forever - on opening day and 50 years down the road. And they are consistently reliable. Light rail travel times will be the same in the peak periods as in the off peak periods, the same on rainy days as on clear days and the same when there is an accident on road as when the road is clear. Plus, you can safely use your cell phone, read or sleep while commuting on a light rail vehicle. Myth 2. "Light rail is heavily subsidized at $12.39 per trip" The cost to build, operate and maintain light rail on a per trip basis is comparable to the automobile at about $7. Like our schools, libraries, police and fire departments, transportation is an important public service that improves the quality of life in our community. Every form of transportation in our Valley is subsidized, including our freeways. The current 20-year freeway tax is expected to cost local taxpayers $3.5 billion through 2005 and proposed at $8.5 billion for the 20 years following. This is in addition to federal gas taxes paid at the pump. People want all kinds of transportation options to get around, including light rail, buses and freeways. And recent transportation elections prove they are willing to tax themselves to pay for them. Myth 1. "There are plenty of better options" When asked how to allocate funding for transportation spending, voters overwhelming support a variety of transportation options. In a 2002 survey by the Maricopa Association of Governments, voters said they would allocate $100 of funding according to the following formula: $32 for freeways, $25 for street and roadways improvements, $22 for bus service improvements and $21 for light rail. The MAG plan is even more conservative than people asked for, with only $15 out of every $100 allocated to light rail. Our community knows that to address growth and congestion, we will need a lot of options to get from point A to point B - not just freeways. One of the options that the Goldwater Institute likes is "congestion pricing." This is a euphemism for toll roads or other schemes to charge people to drive during congested times. Toll roads have never achieved any level of acceptance in the Valley. Let's get beyond the ideological myths of the anti-transit crowd. The reality is, light rail transit is part of a toolkit of options for our congestion, air quality and quality-of-life issues. No one claims that light rail is THE answer, any more than we could seriously believe that freeways or streets alone are THE answer. Dependable light rail and bus are part of a larger strategy to provide different options for people to get around. We learned from the gas pipeline disruption in August that relying on any ONE source is a recipe for disaster. Combined with an improved bus system, HOV lanes and freeway enhancements, light rail will give us a diversity of travel options that are part of an entire package of transportation improvements.