Will Light Rail be Enough?

Will Light Rail Be Enough? With traffic congestion what it is today, many cities are looking for solutions to remove single-occupancy vehicles from the roadways and still get people where they need to go. Seattle, Washington is no different. According to Sound Transit’s website, Light Rail was approved via voters and meant to provide transportation to a minimum of 75,000 passengers daily in King County, run 24 hours a day, and remove traffic congestion from the Puget Sound region. What once was a 21-mile Light Rail idea approved for $1 Million in 1996, is now a 14-mile Light Rail system for $2.4 Billion, and for just the first of many phases on this project running by summer 2009. By 2020, Sound Transit expects the system to be carrying more than 42,500 daily passengers (Sound Transit, 2009). By the time the entire Light Rail system is finally built in Puget Sound, it will not support the traffic volume that is needed for the day. This project has great potential, but it has been poorly managed, has become too costly, and will not resolve our traffic problems in the near future.
Light Rail History According to TrainWeb, LLC, Light Rail or Light Rail Transit is a form of urban rail public transportation that generally has a lower capacity and lower speed than heavy rail and metro systems, but higher capacity and higher speed than street-running tram systems. The term is typically used to refer to rail systems with rapid transit-style features that usually use electric rail cars operating mostly in private rights-of-way separated from other traffic but sometimes, if necessary, mixed with other traffic in city streets (TrainWeb, LLC, 1998). Modern Light Rail technology is highly flexible in how it can be used, and whether any given system is considered a true rapid transit system or not depends on its implementation. On the Light Rail Transit Authority website, they define many benefits of Light Rail systems including: no emissions at street level, many times safer than car travel, speed, avoids traffic congestion through segregation and priority, smooth and comfortable ride (no violent movements vertically, laterally, or backwards/forwards), compatible with pedestrian right-of-ways, high capacity transportation, more affordable mass transit, it’s reliable during snow or icy conditions, the versatility because it can run at high speeds on segregated and narrow passageways, it’s adaptable with steep gradients and tight curves, and capable of going underground, aboveground or on the surface, whichever makes best sense (Light Rail Transit Authority, 2009). Some of these benefits are not apparent upon implementation of a new Light Rail system, though they do become more evident as years pass. For example, BART, Bay Area Rapid Transit system, officially began construction in June 1964. It observed many obstacles over its development mostly stemming from funding concerns. According to the San Francisco BART District website, on September 11, 1972, the BART system began to operate as a revenue service (San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, 2009). The success of the BART system today outweighs the troubles incurred during development; commuters who today rely on this mode of transportation would agree that the cost was worth it. One such benefit to the community is that the Federal tax code allows the use of tax-free dollars to pay for transit commuting and parking costs through employer-sponsored programs. So providing pre-tax commuter benefits to employees can save payroll taxes for employers. These incentives help support the success of the BART system today. Boston’s Light Rail Transit system also has been beneficial to their community. It has proven that the cost to run the light rail one mile is $0.51 compared to the $0.71 it costs a bus to go the same distance (LightRailNow.Org, 2007). Boston still runs trolley services to compliment the Light Rail system and runs 24/7 for all citizens to utilize. They have developed specialized routes for the ones most travelled and added cars to accommodate the ridership needed for those heavy transit times. Per LightRailNow.Org, Salt Lake City’s new TRAX LRT, which opened in December 1999, has grown dramatically in popularity ever since inception. Riders have flocked onto the trains, total bus and rail ridership has surged 23% and vigorous expansion of the rail system is under way. TRAX's original line runs 15.0 miles from Delta Center in downtown Salt Lake City to the southern suburb of Sandy. Light Rail transit trains travel up to 55 mph, making the run in 38 minutes, and serving all 16 stations – at an average speed of about 24 mph (LightRailNow.org, 2007). The success of the initial line stimulated community enthusiasm for further extensions. All transit service involves a tradeoff between speed and frequency of stops. Services that stop frequently have lower overall speed, and are therefore less attractive for longer trips. Heavy rail, light rail, monorail, and Bus Rapid Transit are all forms of rapid transit — which generally signifies high speed and widely-spaced stops. Light Rails are a form of local transit, which makes strategic stops in central corridors throughout a city or region.
Sound Transit Light Rail The analyses and planning stages of the Sound Transit Light Rail program has been poorly managed. It has taken too many years to gather information and provide a strategy to make this program functional. Per Harkness who studied the aspects of the Sound Transit Light Rail planning process, the alternatives analysis and environmental impact study justified the choice for rail over bus in Seattle. One major concern is that the final environmental impact study (FEIS) done for this project was completed in 1993; however, the Light Rail system was not operational until July 2009. Within 16 years, many different factors can affect the success of a project of this magnitude, including alternative transit systems support, right-of-ways, real estate purchases and permits. The one thing the FEIS did not include was the impacts to traffic congestion and this was the primary reason for developing a new transit system in the Puget Sound region. Sound Transit is still struggling with locations to build the rails to incorporate outlying cities, and has received continual opposition on their strategies during elections. Per William Middleton, a “dean” of authors on electrical traction, “As of April 2006, only 30% of the design process has been achieved by Puget Sound Transit Consultants (PSTC) including facilities, project management, project control and engineering support” (Middleton, 2006). Meanwhile, taxpayers are paying the bill for these consultants to continue discussing their options while never producing what was promised. According to Harkness, Sound Transit never acknowledged publicly that Light Rail wouldn’t reduce congestion until December 2000 (Harkness, 2005). Although this is a major community project, PSTC should be approximately 60% through the design phase and have a better understanding of where the rails will be placed and how much it will cost. Sound Transit has abused the planning process to promote this Light Rail system. They biased key studies by masking key information issued to the public and promoting a robust rail alternative against a deliberately hobbling transit bus system. Harkness indicates if Sound Transit utilized the Light Rail funds to improve arterials, HOV programs (car and van pool) and bus enhancements, then our transportation problems would have been progressing by now. Or if the number of people car or van pooling to work could be increased by five percent using employer incentives, it would take the same number of cars off the road as would the 21mile Light Rail system (Harkness, 2005). Analyzing available options are crucial to any project, but very ineffective if never applied or applied differently than originally planned. Sound Transit’s Light Rail has many appeals to the superficial observer. It promises fast effortless trips bypassing congestion. Some believe it is cleaner for the environment and will reduce energy consumption. They can recruit current bus operators to run the Light Rail system which generates more jobs. Light rail is one of those items that the less you know about it, the more you will like it. Sound Transit’s biggest problem is that it costs too much and provides too little in return. This option was sold by indicating that it would solve Seattle’s traffic congestion, yet Sound Transit’s own studies prove that link would have almost no effect (Sound Transit, 2009). Harkness shows that the traffic reduction effects of Link’s 14-mile initial segment would be wiped out within 45 days of its opening by the normal growth trend in regional traffic, therefore all benefits will be short-lived. The effects Light Rail could have on environmental issues like air pollution or energy use are proportional to its impact on traffic and therefore miniscule by comparison (Harkness, 2005). When these benefits were later exposed, City of Seattle began referring to this project as providing the taxpayers “a choice” in commuting options. Although the Light Rail system will provide advancement for the bus operators, less bus routes will be needed when this Light Rail begins to prosper, and therefore several bus drivers will lose their jobs. Progression of this project has also been hindered by neglect of the most influential strategy - marketing. Marketing has been under-utilized for this project except during election times and then, they are only soliciting for additional funds not the importance or benefits this program will provide the community. According to Allison and Martinez, management should develop a strategy to market to users of this new commuting option, stressing the upcoming expansions to the outlying cities (Allison & Martinez, 2009). Linblom, Puget Sound’s transportation journalist, points out that auditors recommended to Sound Transit that contractors should be paid on performance milestones (Lindblom, 2007). This approach was not utilized and construction on the Martin Luther King Way South corridor took at least one year longer than originally planned. This hurt many businesses which closed shop because they could not sustain during the construction phase of the Light Rail project, but the remaining businesses are excited about possibly attracting more customers now that it is operational. The Rainier Valley neighborhood is hoping to become an integral part of the City of Seattle since it is so easy to get to now using Light Rail. It is expected that more people will want to live in the neighborhood to benefit from the Light Rail stations available to this community. It has been beneficial for developers who are now buying land to place mixed-use residential developments along the corridor of the Light Rail system. Although the profits may not be seen immediately, inevitably, the Light Rail system will benefit the neighborhoods they reside in. A Marketing specialist, Cardell, indicates that Sound Transit should utilize techniques like Direct Response Advertising (solicit information and get responses from the public), AIDA (Attention, Interest, Desire and Action), and emphasize benefits to our community (Cardell, 2007). If the community is kept abreast of the project status and benefits, taxpayers would be more likely to support additional funds needed to keep this project moving forward. Sound Transit does not seem to want the publicity perhaps because it draws attention to the shortcomings of their project. Lindblom says a state audit found that the agency has spent $5 million to cover "unnecessary" costs and fines while building its light-rail line from Seattle to Tukwila (Lindblom, 2007). Many of these costs were due to several sites in the Rainier Valley that had soil contaminations which caused $3.5 million in cleanup costs after construction began. This publicity hindered Sound Transit in further elections but could have benefitted them by showing they did right by cleaning up the sites. This wasn’t announced by Sound Transit but instead discovered in audits. With the discovery via audits, it gave taxpayers cause for concern on where their taxes were going. Sound Transit continues to be very discreet with announcements for the projects progression ever since. Another problem with this program is that taxpayers are still waiting for what was initially promised. Lindblom indicates that Sound Transit was unable to complete what was promised to voters in 1996 which was a line from the University District to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport by 2006 for only $3.6 billion. (Estimates are now $2.7 billion for Westlake Center to the airport by 2009, plus $1.8 billion, including inflation and short-term financing, for a 3-mile tunnel to Husky Stadium by 2016. Initially discussed stations have also been dropped) (Lindblom, 2007). Taxpayers have rejected several initiatives regarding funding for this project since its inception in 1996 because their dollars have not been utilized properly. Sound Transit chose to persuade the taxpayers to approve the Light Rail system by presenting illogical processes for remedying our traffic congestion. The options that were evaluated in the 1993 FEIS included a baseline or do nothing scenario called “No Build”. Next there was an extensive system of express buses operating on HOV lanes called the TSM alternative. This scenario was estimated at $4.7 billion. A second bus option called the Transitway/TSM alternative, costing $5.5 billion was proposed that included using exclusive busways in lieu of HOV lanes. Finally there was the hybrid rail/bus alternative that was estimated at $11.5 billion for 125-miles of rapid rail separated from right-of-way. This alternative included much of the TSM improvements except for those that would compete with rail. These alternatives are like comparing apples to oranges since they are varied greatly in cost and benefit to the communities they would serve. Based on the selective information provided to the media, taxpayers chose what they believed to be the most logical system which was the hybrid rail/bus alternative. Sound Transit has not wanted to do an alternative analysis for Link so they have maintained that the 1993 FEIS for rapid rail was really about Light Rail. As the consumers have found out since, the Light Rail is not what was estimated for $11.5 billion. The major reason the Light Rail system will be ineffective is because the time schedules for this program will be limited for commuters, traffic hindrances will occur, and the outer-most communities will not be serviced. The Light Rail currently runs for 20 hours Monday through Saturday and 18 hours on Sunday; however, the Rainier Valley stations have signs posted saying 2-Hour or 4-Hour Parking Only. How does this help daily commuters who put in eight hour days? This does not help remedy traffic congestion issues. The Light Rail also needs to work in conjunction with our Metro Bus routes (City of Seattle, 2009). Without the Metro bus system in place, Light Rail will not be effective because they have their stations placed in less travelled areas of King County with limited parking areas for commuters. For example, the Tukwila Station holds 233 parking spaces at the Park & Ride for commuters, however, they expect 1,400 riders to use this station daily (Sound Transit, 2009). These numbers just don’t add up. Per Harkness, Link’s central control system and extensive tunneling make it vulnerable to power outages and terrorism (Harkness, 2005). There may be delays while waiting for a bus to exit the Westlake corridor so the Light Rail can utilize the tunnel. The Light Rail will also hinder the flow of street traffic with 29 crossings at city intersections from Seattle to Tukwila (University of California, 2007). In its first month of operation, the Light Rail system had an electrical system failure in the tunnel and traffic blocked when it hit a pedestrian. Neither of these acts could have been prevented, but the impacts to traffic flow were hours of delay, providing additional buses for transporting Light Rail commuters which added to road congestion, and many hours of handling these problems by Sound Transit staff. How many events of delay are acceptable? Trains ran relatively smooth in their first few days, but some other hiccups did occur. Some ticket machines froze on patrons but were later restarted. Lindblom states that the Tukwila Station saw lines for tickets because they only have two machines and they were occupied with staffers walking the patrons through how to use them. The elevator at Tukwila Station went out of order late afternoon and the supervisor was yelling which platform train conductors should be using. It does seem to be catching on for bike riders though (Lindblom, 2009). It had 92,000 boardings on its first weekend, with most people trying it for entertainment and curiosity because the fare was free. The free ride ended Monday morning in time for commuters. Currently Light Rail has four cars, each can hold up to 200 people. Although they haven’t reached capacity since that first weekend, they do hit approximately 70% seats full during peak hours. According to Scott Gutierrez, Journalist for The Seattle P.I., Sound Transit expects ridership to reach an average of 21,000 daily boardings by year’s end (Gutierrez, 2009). Every new project has complications and Sound Transit was quick at remedying the problems they incurred at the onset. The Light Rail runs parallel to the I-5 corridor at the same areas where most of our major current congestion occurs (i.e., Southcenter hill). With the Light Rail being visible to freeway drivers, this has been distracting to drivers as they watch the train pass by. It has been in operation since July 18, 2009, and in that time the highest commuter count was 12,000 riders per day (Lindblom, 2009). This is not a true reflection of fares paid since ridership is currently tracked by a sensor on the trains, not by ticket sales, so a passenger can get off and then get back on with the same ticket if in the allotted time frame allowed by their fare. The completed rail from Tacoma to Everett is not expected to be completed until 2030; since it has taken 11 years to produce a 15 mile project, the remaining 30 miles will most definitely take more time and money. Sound Transit is continually modifying their approach (i.e., where to build and alternative options) to develop this Light Rail system, and they did not have enough funding to even complete the first phase, so the expansion project could easily take three times as long as expected. With inflation costs, it most definitely will exceed taxpayer’s expectations. Planning a project of this capacity does not happen easily as it requires permits, environmental impact studies and analysis of engineering. These things take time and can easily delay a simple project like constructing a building for over a year. This is not effective for the outlying cities of Seattle who will continue waiting to have Light Rail services available to them, and therefore, still getting in their cars and driving to their destinations.
Conclusion
The potential is great for this Light Rail system but to wait for another 30 years before it is running, will it truly aid this regions needs? In conclusion, although the Light Rail will make a minimal improvement when running in 2009, Sound Transit has not been able to accomplish what is needed for traffic flow today. Our traffic problems are due to the transportation department’s failure to act on items that have been approved. If this project provided sufficient transit times, was properly managed, and actually serviced all of our communities, Light Rail could be very beneficial to King County. Light Rail will fail to provide a transit system to accommodate the needs of this region unless its limitations are accompanied by bus systems, trains and carpool programs. To paraphrase Winston Churchill: Never in the region’s history will so many have paid so much, to benefit so few.

References
Allison, M. & Martinez, A. (2009, July 17). Seattle Times Retail Report Column: Light rail boosts some businesses, hurts others. Seattle Times, The (WA). Retrieved July 21, 2009, from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/retailreport/2009485751_retailreport17.html.
Cardell, C. (2007). Chris Cardell Marketing and Advertising Strategy. Special Report ‘Why most advertising does not work – 10 essential strategies to ensure that your advertising is a success’. Retrieved August 12, 2009 from http://www.cardellmedia.com/marketing2.html.
City of Seattle (2009, October). Seattle Channel Sound Transit: Link Light Rail in-depth. Retrieved July 15, 2009 from http://www.seattlechannel.org/issues/soundTransit.asp.
Gutierrez, S. (2009, July 20). Crowds down but riders still taking light rail. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The (WA). Retrieved August 5, 2009 from http://www.seattlepi.com/transportation/408297_lightrail21.html.
Harkness, Ph.D., R. C. (2005, January). Global Telematics. How Sound Transit (Seattle, Washington) abused the planning process to promote Light Rail Transit. Retrieved August 14, 2009 from http://www.globaltelematics.com/pitf/harkness.htm.
Harkness, Ph.D., R. C. (2005, April 25). Global Telematics. Sound Transit long-range plan update. Retrieved August 14, 2009 from http://globaltelematics.com/pitf/harkness-ladenburg.pdf.
LightRailNow.org (2007). Boston: Light Rail Transit Overview. Retrieved August 18, 2009 from http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_bos001.htm.
LightRailNow.org (2007). Salt Lake City: Light Rail’s a Hit. Retrieved August 18, 2009 from http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_slc001.htm.
Light Rail Transit Authority (2009). What is Light Rail? Retrieved August 18, 2009 from http://www.lrta.org/explain.html.
Lindblom, M. (2007, October 4). Seattle Times: Audit finds improvements but "unnecessary" costs in Sound Transit Light Rail. Seattle Times, The (WA). Retrieved July 16, 2009 from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003925008_websoundtransit04m.html.
Lindblom, M. (2009, July 21). Light-rail trains run smoothly, if not to capacity, on first day. Seattle Times, The (WA). Retrieved July 21, 2009 from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009503977_websoundtransit20m.html.
Lindblom, M. (2009, July 30). Light rail averaging 12,000 riders per weekday so far. Seattle Times, The (WA). Retrieved August 18, 2009 from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009570527_webstridership31m.html.
Middleton, W. D. (2006, April). Sound Transit builds for LRT. Railway Age, 207(4), 43-45. Retrieved August 5, 2009, from Business Source Premier database.
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (2009). A History of BART: The Concept is Born. Retrieved August 18, 2009 from http://www.bart.gov/about/history/index.aspx.
Sound Transit (2009). Sound Transit - Projects and Plans site. Retrieved July 16, 2009, from http://www.soundtransit.org/x14.xml.
University of California (2007). King County Central Link Light Rail startup, best practices Light Rail grade crossings. Retrieved July 16, 2009 from http://www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu/railroad06downloads/jenkins.pdf.
TrainWeb, LLC (1998, August). How does commuter rail differ from light rail and heavy rail? www.TrainWeb.org. Retrieved August 5, 2009
http://www.trainweb.org/kenrail/Rail_mode_defined.html.