Light Rail Blues - Part Five

Okay, I have finally gotten around to writing Part Five of this series. I really don't think there is a need to recap the other parts of the series. If you've gotten this far, you know what I said in parts one through four. If you're not familiar with what I've said, and you're really really interested, just go to the archives and read those posts.

As readers of this series can tell, I am not in love with the Light Rail system that Phoenix is getting. Among other things, I think it has design flaws that render it a less than optimal system. I want to discuss this, and contrast it with my preferred design.

For example, the placement of the rails in the middle of city streets means that it will have to compete with already existing traffic, and change traffic flow patterns in the neighborhoods that it transits. I have stated that because of this, travel on the Light Rail system will not be any faster than travel on the city bus. With the rails in the middle of the street, the Light Rail will be competing for space with other traffic, and will have to flow along at roughly the same speed, as it will use the same grade-level intersections, and therefore must respect the traffic lights. However, during rush hour, since it has it's own dedicated corridor, it won't be subject to slowdowns simply because of traffic volume. I am guessing that because of this, transit times along the Light Rail path will be fairly consistent, regardless of the time of day. But one must still consider what will happen when a train comes upon an intersection that is not clear due to blockage by cars that have not cleared the intersection between traffic light cycles. We've all seen cars enter an intersection late in the green part of the light, or even yellow, but not exit it before the red because of stalled traffic. This leads to gridlock, and unless this bad driving habit is somehow changed, the Light Rail will be subject to the same gridlock.

So the light rail trains will have to compete with automotive traffic, which is already a mess during rush hour. So let's, just for fun, throw in the mix the fact that Phoenix appears to be the red-light running capital of America. Do you think that this bad habit that many drivers have will tend to negatively impact the Light Rail system? I sure do. I'm wondering how many trains and cars will collide with each other due to the negligence of drivers, or even train operators. I feel fairly confident in guaranteeing that this number will not ever be zero, except, of course, prior to the first collision.

Another effect of placement of the rails in the middle of the street relates to passenger access. With the rails in the middle of the street, so, too, will be the stops. Passengers entering or exiting the system will have to cross the path of automotive traffic to use the system. I personally don't feel very comfortable while crossing streets in the Phoenix Metro area, and I am a very careful pedestrian. I always wait for the the appropriate crossing signal, look both ways before starting to cross, remain aware of potential danger while crossing, move as quickly as I can, and still feel like I'm taking my life into my own hands when I do it. So what? Well, I see people crossing in an unsafe manner all the time, and wonder how they can do it. Yes, I know that the law grants pedestrians the right of way in crosswalks, but let's face facts: the laws of physics grants cars the "right of mass" in any car-pedestrian collision, with the usual result people that the pedestrian is usually injured, many times fatally. How many people will become maimed or killed by automotive traffic (due to pedestrian negligence, granted, but it still must be considered) while trying to enter or exit a train stop? Or what about people who habitually cross the street between intersections? Look for pedestrian-train collisions to be a less than rare occurrence in the future.

But what are some of the other effects of the design characteristics of a rail system? To start with, because it is a rail system, once in place, it is inflexible. It goes where it goes, even if, at some time in the future, ridership patterns change. If a bus route experiences a change in ridership, it can be discontinued, modified as to specific path, or even expanded or reduced (by increasing or decreasing the frequency of buses along the route), allowing the system to take advantage of the changed preferences of its patrons. Certainly the frequency of trains along the Light Rail path can be changed, if need be. But the path cannot be changed. It starts "here" and goes "there." If the patrons of the system demonstrate that they want a different "here" and "there", well, too bad. It is where it is, and it goes where it goes. Make no mistake, if ridership increases, the frequency of the trains will most certainly increase. But if ridership falls, even to practically nil, it won't, in all likelihood, be abandoned. To much money will have been invested in the system.

Also, as I stated in a previous part of this series, specific traffic patterns along the Light Rail route will be altered because of raised traffic barriers separating the train from automotive traffic. Left turns and street-crossing access will be severely impacted by these barriers. In some places already the distance between these access points has increased to up to half a mile, from the previous stretch of a block or so. This won't be good for traffic flow at all. If you've ever seen the intersection of Main Street and Roosevelt, in Mesa, lately, you'll know what I mean. At any time of the day, traffic piles up to turn left, or make U-turns to access the other side of the street, creating a hazard. During rush hour, the situation is positively nuts!

So allow me to recap my complaints regarding the design of the Light Rail system: 1. The trains won't really move any faster than the bus, or other traffic, except possibly during rush hour; 2. Collisions between cars and trains will occur; 3. Collisions between people and trains will occur; 4. Routes, once in place, are inflexible. 5. Existing traffic patterns will be negatively, and in some places, severely impacted.

So, what if we started from scratch? What if we agreed that, because of the traffic situation he in Phoenix, we decided that something had to be done? What would we do? Would we just throw something together, and applaud ourselves because we had done something which had to be done? Or would we take a more thoughtful approach, and critically examine the problem, and come up with an optimal system? Well, of course, from here on out, everything I say is just "spit balling," because we have what we have, and that's all there is to it. However, that does not mean that after the first line is completed that we must continue on, and expand the system according to the same basic design. Things can be done differently in the future, because I agree, something has to be done.

Now I'll grant you, once your design of choice becomes a rail system, your decision as to where to place the rails comes down to three choices: 1. Underground, as in a subway; 2. Grade-level, as we are getting here in Phoenix; and 3. Above ground level, as in the elevated train in Chicago. Each design has it's merits and it's flaws. A subway, because of all the excavation, cost significantly more than a grade-level or elevated system. I presume an elevated system costs less than a subway, but probably more than a grade-level system, and it may be esthetically unpleasing. I'm sure a grade-level system is much less expensive, but it has negative impacts such as those I've discussed. Would it have been a better option to pay more for a subway, or put up with the esthetic effects of an El? Would the costs have outweighed the benefits? Who knows.

Now I suspect that a grade-level system was cchose primarily due to cost factors, but esthetics probably also played a part. So with this in mind, rather than builing a light rail system, with it's problems, why wasn't the option of expanding the bus system chosen? Now, as I've stated previously, I'm no real fan of the bus system. But really, given it's operational limits, is the Light Rail system really superior to the bus in any great way? I don't think so. Not only does it shares the same streets, and move at about the same speeds, but it is inflexible as to route, and deeply impacts traffic patterns around it.

Why not just expand the bus system? Trains need operators like buses do, so would expanding the bus system have a greater employee cost over the train, for the sme given volume of ridership? Probably not to any great degree. Buses cost less than trains, so additional capacity for the bus system from a capital standpoint must be cheaper than the Light Rail system. Sure, a two-car train may carry more people, but what about the extended two-unit buses that I've seen tooling around certain parts of our city?

My bottom line is this; if the Light Rail system really can't accomplish it's task any better than the bus, why pay so much more for it? I say stick with the bus. But update the design. Here's where we get to the part where I fulfill my promise to show you my idea of a system that might have been better.

A couple of decades ago I had the oppotunity to stay in Vancouver, British Columbia, for a few days. I was up there for the 1984 World's Exposition. When not actually at the Expo site, I spent quite a bit of time moving around Vancouver itself, which, by the way, is a very pretty city. I got around by bus. But these weren't ordinary buses. They were electric. But they did not run on battery power. Along each side of the road along a bus line, there was an over-head electric line, just like you'll see over the Light Rail path. On top of each bus was a device that reached up to the electric line, enabling the bus to draw electric power. This device was not static; it had the ability to swivel in several dimensions, which allowed the bus to not negotiate curves and turn corners, but also change lanes, which enabled the buses to make both right and left hand turns. The ability to change lanes also allow the buses to bypass any obstacles in its path, and so the buses had the potential to move very quickly. The interior of the buses were similar to those we have in Phoenix. It seemed to be a very capable system.

At the very least, Vancouver's bus system was cheaper than the Light Rail to build, probably less costly to maintain, was more flexible, and didn't have near the negative impact on traffic that I'm prediting the Light Rail will have. It did the same job our Light Rail system is supossed to do, but it probably cost far less. I don't believe our Light Rail will out perform Vancouver's then-extant bus system. Too bad we didn't buy something similar.

This is my idea of a better way of doing things. If "more expensive" does not out perform "cheaper", I say go with cheaper everytime. It may not be as sexy, or look as pretty, but the money left over will compensate for this.

Thanks for paying attention. I've pretty much exhausted what I have to say about the Light Rail system. My little rant has grown into a big rant. It won't change things. We're still going to get the Light Rail system. But maybe when it comes time to expand it, the powers that be will put in a little more time considering a more optimal solution for our transportation problem.

Sincerely,

The Cab Guy