Light Rail Blues - Part Three

In Part One of this series I examined why it was the the Phoenix Metropolitan area came to have a Light Rail system. Part Two examined the flaws in the execution of the Plan. Here in Part Three I wish to demonstrate that I am not opposed to a mass transit system, per se, and would use a good, useful system. (I realize that in Part Two I said I would describe a better system, but decided that would be a fairly large task, so I decided to break into more manageable parts. Here in Part Three I'll define some terms, and describe the circumstances under which I would use a transit system. In the next installment of this series I'll give you some of my ideas for a better system).

First, allow me to explain to you what I perceive to be the differences and similarities between a transit system, a mass transit system, and a rapid transit system.

To me, a transit system consists of one or more modes of transportation combined with a systematic network of routes, enabling a percentage of the population of an area to move around that area, without having to possess or employ their own private means of movement.

Such as system might involve public and private ownership of any part of the system, and/or public or private management of the system. Modes of transportation could include, but not necessarily be limited to, buses, light rail, subways, elevated trains, and even minibuses or vans. A network of routes could include regular, scheduled service along various corridors, available to whomever might show up at a station or stop. But, it could also include ad hoc , point-to-point, service for various-sized, coherent groups that travel in concert at specified times. This last sentence is really just a long-winded description of something we've already heard of: carpools and vanpools.

I was non-specific as to the percentage of the population to be moved. It is conceivable that it could range from a tiny fraction of the population, to a quite sizable majority, depending upon the perceived utility of the system to the population it serves.

Mixed private and public ownership or management of such as system is not a radical idea. Here in the Phoenix area, various governmental agencies own some of the modes of transportation, while some of the management and operation of the system is accomplished by private companies who have contracted to provide such services. Oversight and planning for our system is the purview of committee made up of representatives from the governments of the various municipalities served by the system.

I define mass transit as a system designed to move a significantly large portion of the population, and may even be the primary, or close secondary, method of getting people where they are going. The New York subway is my idea of a mass transit system.

A rapid transit system is clearly what it implies: a way to get people from here to there in a rapid fashion, but excludes personal operation of the mode of movement. Thus, the New York City subway system would qualify as such, because to my understanding, it is probably the quickest way to move around in that city. San Francisco has it's Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system, which implies that it is relatively speedy. Personal cars and the like are excluded from this definition.

To my way of thinking, how a population, and how much of a population, utilizes any transit system is a function of several factors, including, but not limited to, coverage (does it get me where I want to go?), convenience (can I go pretty much when I want to?), ease of use (are access points within reasonable walking distances?), and value (does the cost compensate me for any lifestyle compromises I might have to make?).

Value is a particular sticking point: it doesn't matter how low the fare is if I don't think the system will serve my needs. For example, I used the bus just two days ago to accomplish a particular task. My personal car was at the taxi base, where I had left it after picking up a cab that I expected to keep on a fairly permanent, 24 hour per day basis. Not wanting to leave my car at the base unattended, I parked the cab at my house, walked about 75 feet to a bus stop, and got on a bus. The trip, which was about twelve miles, took one transfer and about 75 minutes, not counting the initial 20 minute wait for the first bus. I had to walk about half a mile to the taxi base, which took an additional ten minutes. A cab ride would have cost about $24.00 and taken, at most, 15 minutes. On a one time basis, I thought the $1.25 fare was a huge bargain, even at the cost of over an extra hour of my time, which worked out to five times as much time as it would have taken in my car, or by cab.

However, if I had to make that same commute, every day, twice a day, five days a week, for as long as I was employed, if I had another option, such as using my personal automobile, I wouldn't use the bus. In my mind, the extra time expended would far outweigh any money saved over using my car, even after factoring in all the costs of private car ownership.

But let's make some adjustments. Suppose the time could be reduced by, say, 60 percent, making the transit time approximately 30 minutes. Now because a faster system would probably have higher capital and operational costs, let's suppose that the fare was increased by 400 percent, making it five dollars. Now we're entering the realm where it really does make sense to for me use the transit system. The fare would be a total of fifty dollars per week. I'm pretty certain I could recoup that in reduced fuel, maintenance and insurance costs, or at least come pretty close. And now I'd view the time on the bus, or train, or whatever, as a benefit, not a burden: a relatively short time to relax on my way to and from work, rather than a tension filled period of "fighting traffic."

So have I demonstrated that I am in favor of having a useful transit system available, and would use that system if it served my needs? Well, I hope I have. And honestly, I think that many people, certainly not all, or even majority, but a lot, think the way I do. Will a significant population served by the Light Rail system really use it? I don't think so. But I might be wrong. We'll see.

So, the bottom line is that Light Rail is indeed a transit system. But, based on what I said in Part Two, I do not think it can be described as a mass- or rapid-transit system.

What about you? Are you waiting with baited breath for the debut of the train? Or are you, like me, yawning from a lack anticipation?

Next time I'll describe a system that I think might have been a better choice.

Sincerely

The Cab Guy