FACT SHEET No 100
May 2000
| | Light Rail Transit Association - UK Development Group FACT SHEET No 100 |
May 2000 |
INTRODUCTION
This Fact Sheet, number 100 in the LRTA DEVELOPMENT GROUP series, is a synopsis of RAIL FACTS SHEET No 14. produced by the Australian Railway Association inc. (ARA) (1). Because fast accessible mobility is required to overcome increasing urban sprawl and road congestion, major cities around the world have found that to meet the demand by continued road building is no longer a sustainable solution.
"Southern California learned a costly lesson that investing billions in more roads and freeways doesn't eliminate congestion" (2).
ARA DISCLAIMER
Although the RAIL FACTS SHEET No 14. is accurate at the time of publication, the ARA gives no warranties and disclaims all responsibility for any errors in the information whether caused by negligence or otherwise. The ARA accepts no liability of any nature arising from any persons or companies acting on the information provided or information given.
URBAN RAIL SYSTEMS - MORE EFFICIENT THAN FREEWAYS
Major North American cities are building or expanding urban rail systems as a more economical, efficient and environmental form of mass transit than freeways. The "GO" TRANSIT commuter trains into the outer suburbs of Toronto for example have removed the need to build 6, six lane freeways. Automobile trips into Toronto's central area remain at 1960's levels. The US City of Portland has reaped significant benefits from its light rail system, it removed an estimated need for eight 42-storey car parks in the city centre and two additional lanes on every highway into the centre.
URBAN RAIL - ECONOMIC BENEFITS
Investing in a transit project produces benefits which include reduced needs and costs for road construction and parking lots, reduced congestion and pollution as well as reduced accident costs and additional tax revenue. The American Public Transit Association (APTA) estimates that the benefits are worth USD5.2 billion to the US economy, for instance, every USD1 invested in urban rail provides a USD4 return. As for property values, in Dallas anything adjacent to a station has increased by 25% since the system was introduced. Portland had a similar experience by attracting over USD1.3 billion in commercial, retail and residential development around one of its light rail lines.
BUSWAYS - NOT THE ANSWER Having only half the passenger capacity per hour of a light rail system, busways are poor substitutes and more expensive. The Canadian City of Ottawa, with an extensive busway network, has found that converting an under used freight railway to light rail would cost less than 10% of the cost of another busway.
SOME BRIEF EXAMPLES OF URBAN RAIL
New and existing rail services around Los Angeles now carry 8% of the commuter load.
50% of the commuters on Dallas's rail system are new to public transport.
Half of the light rail patronage in Portland is new to public transport.
75% of Vancouver's commuter rail users were previously single occupancy car commuters.
In 1997/98, total patronage on UK's light rail services increased by 7%.
In the first year of operation, St. Louis's light rail patronage was nearly double the projected figure.
GO TRANSIT has absorbed most of the growth in peak-period trips into Toronto's Central Area since 1975.
ARA CONCLUSION
Urban rail systems have been proved to be effective in enticing commuters out of their cars. Similar trends are being seen in Australia, except for Adelaide. This is put down to a lack of investment and an absence of integrated land-use/transport planning. Overseas experience has shown that building more roads such as Adelaide's Southern Expressway - is not a long-term solution to traffic congestion.
REFERENCES