Can Light Rail Carry the Load?

Packed with tourists and Mexican laborers, the San Diego Trolley ushered in a new era for light rail in California when its boxy red cars began running between downtown and the international border in 1981.

The street car revival has spread to Sacramento, San Jose, and Los Angeles, where transit officials this summer plan to open their third -- the 14-mile Gold Line from downtown Los Angeles to Pasadena. Other regions are eager to sign on, including traffic-choked Orange County, where Irvine voters will decide Tuesday whether to be part of an 11-mile, $1.4-billion starter line -- one of the most expensive in the nation.

Such light-rail systems are critical to meet California’s growing transportation needs, many transit experts say, because modern street cars take less space than new freeways and can haul more people faster than buses. They predict white-collar workers will abandon their cars to be whisked to the office as well as the theater when light rail becomes more available.

But 22 years after the San Diego Trolley’s inaugural run, the promise of light rail has yet to materialize in California. Although the San Diego line has expanded and is a success by most measures, light-rail performance in the three other regions is mixed despite an outlay of $3 billion in public funds for construction and hundreds of millions of dollars in annual subsidies to operate them.

“There are good examples of light rail, but our track record is not that good,” said Robert Cervero, a professor of city and regional planning at UC Berkeley.

Light rail is different from subways and railroads such as Metrolink, the Bay Area Rapid Transit system or the Metro Red Line in Los Angeles. Modern trolleys use smaller cars, go slower, and make more stops.

Though cheaper to build than subways, light-rail costs usually exceed projections, sometimes dramatically so.

A 1982 estimate to build the 22-mile Blue Line from Long Beach to Los Angeles was $192 million; at completion in 1990, it cost taxpayers $877 million. The 20-mile Green Line along the Century Freeway in Los Angeles County cost $980 million, more than three times the original estimate. Sacramento County’s 20.6-mile “RT” system was estimated at $117 million in 1981. It cost $176 million by its 1987 completion.

The Gold Line has been built by a construction authority created by state lawmakers, who demanded it be finished for $725 million. But the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which will run it, is adding rail cars and extras, pushing the total closer to $900 million.

Predictions Are Off

Ridership also has varied from original predictions.

The Sacramento line, for example, has about 30,000 “boardings” each weekday, far below projections of 50,000. The Los Angeles Green Line -- called “the train to nowhere” by some because it stops short of Los Angeles International Airport and serves neither shopping nor tourist destinations -- has about 29,000 boardings each weekday, less than a third of the forecast.

In contrast, the San Diego Trolley and the Los Angeles Blue Line, each with more than 70,000 boardings per weekday, either meet or surpass original forecasts. Gold Line ridership is expected to be 30,000 per weekday, doubling in 20 years.

Many riders say they prefer the comfort and speed of light rail to bus service. But some studies show that transit’s share of commuters has increased little, if at all, despite the investment in modern street cars. Research suggests that many light-rail riders simply switched from the buses the trolley lines replaced.

In Los Angeles County on an average weekday, 1.5 million people use municipal buses, the subway and two light-rail lines operated by the MTA. Before transit officials raised the 50-cent fare two decades ago, 1.8 million rode buses.

Light rail’s mixed record has some experts and academics asking if the lines are worth such enormous investments. Innovative or expanded use of buses can provide a cheaper alternative, they say, especially in sprawling suburban areas.

“If the goal is to move as many people as possible as far as you can per dollar spent, light rail is not effective,” said Jim Moore, director of USC’s transportation engineering program.

Jonathan E.D. Richmond, a Massachusetts consultant and former Harvard University research fellow, said when similar service is compared, express buses require less subsidy.

Richmond studied an express route along Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles and the Blue Line. He found the operating subsidies per passenger for light rail were at least double those of the rapid bus line. The U.S. General Accounting Office concluded in September 2001 that capital costs for express-style bus service ranged from $200,000 a mile on existing streets to $55 million a mile for roads built exclusively for buses. Light-rail systems cost $12.4 million to $118.8 million a mile.

Transit advocates say it’s premature to judge light rail’s performance because most California systems are in their infancies and have yet to benefit from being part of a broad rail network. High-density housing and commercial centers are being built near trolley lines, which could boost ridership. Advocates also say mounting traffic congestion and an aging population will increase demand.

“In time, we could see this turn around,” Cervero said. “Little villages are blossoming around transit centers. Demographics are changing. There’s the highway crunch. A confluence of events is occurring in favor of light rail’s future.”

San Diego illustrates their point: The now 47-mile system serves an area of about 2.8 million people and links an array of major destinations -- the U.S.-Mexico border, a revitalized downtown, one of the state’s most visited parks, densely populated blue-collar neighborhoods, shopping centers, hotels and the San Diego stadium.

“I wasn’t a transit rider until about a year ago,” said Robert Ahrensberg, a San Diego County probation officer who parks his car for free at a Mission Valley transit station and rides the trolley for the last part of his rush-hour commute to the Civic Center. “I wish I would have been a whole lot sooner.”

San Diego’s network cost about $750 million to build, or $16 million a mile. The initial 15.9-mile segment between downtown and the border, which uses an existing railroad right of way, cost about $7 million a mile.

Since county transit leaders created the nonprofit San Diego Trolley Inc., the operation has had a no-frills, pragmatic philosophy. Stations are spartan. Staffing is minimal. No federal funds are used.

Today, the system carries 25 million riders a year. Fares pay about 60% of operating costs, a far higher rate than many bus routes, including express lines.

“If you put the right pieces of the puzzle together, the right things can happen,” said Peter Tereschuck, San Diego Trolley president and general manager. He conceded it has drawn few white-collar workers so far. Construction costs have escalated during a recent expansion, and ridership, though healthy, has not always grown as fast as predicted.

If San Diego is considered the best performing light-rail line in the state, Santa Clara County’s may be the worst.

Troubled Line

Before the county committed to light rail in the mid- to late 1970s, Santa Clara transit advocates promised it would lure nearly 30% of motorists -- mostly middle-class commuters. Fares would cover 85% of operating costs, and trolleys would average 25 to 30 mph.

After almost 27 years of planning and $1 billion, ridership on Santa Clara’s 30.5-mile system peaked three years ago at about 30,000 boardings per weekday, not the 41,200 predicted. Average speeds are about 15 mph, and fares have covered no more than 35% of operating costs.

The first 20 miles of the line and a transit mall in downtown San Jose cost more than $640 million when completed in 1991, not the $189.7 million estimated in the early 1980s.

“Light rail is not a time-saver, but there is less wear and tear on my car. It’s a trade-off I can live with,” said Kent Owen while commuting home to San Jose from his Silicon Valley computer networking firm. “But I don’t think light rail works in a car culture. Everyone drives here.”

When the Silicon Valley leg opened in 1999, ridership on the 8-mile segment reached 6,000 to 6,500 boardings each weekday six years ahead of projections. Builders were adding high-density housing nearby.

Two years later, the high-tech downturn devastated the San Jose area and sales tax revenue used for transit plunged. Overall light-rail ridership dropped by a third to about 20,000 boardings daily. That’s only slightly more than one of the county’s busy bus routes, which costs about 60% less to operate and maintain a year than the entire trolley line.

With the Valley Transportation Authority facing a potential $200-million deficit in years ahead, transit officials plan to reduce the shortfall to $70 million by cutting both bus and rail service up to 40%. Some Santa Clara County transit officials say that the line doesn’t serve the San Jose airport; that it creeps through the downtown at 5 to 8 mph; and that the area’s 1.7-million people are too dispersed to make light rail practical.

“We have invested a billion dollars and we don’t want to pull the plug carelessly, but how long do we carry the light-rail system if it is not serving the needs of the people?” asked San Jose Vice Mayor Pat Dando, who has been a VTA board member for two years. “All of this will be hashed out in the next three to four months. I’m not ready to throw in the towel yet.”

Orange County transit planners hope to avoid such problems with the proposed CenterLine project -- a partly elevated 11.4-mile system through Irvine, Costa Mesa and Santa Ana at an estimated cost of $1.4 billion. Planners project 21,000 boardings each weekday in the first year, increasing to 32,000 within 15 years. But CenterLine’s fate is unclear if Irvine voters reject it Tuesday. Opponents cite the potential disruption of Irvine neighborhoods and question whether public funds should be spent to supplant a tiny fraction of the millions of vehicle trips made daily in the county. Better, they say, to spend the money on road improvements and expanded bus service, including expresses and neighborhood shuttles.

“It is horrendous we are thinking about light rail given those numbers,” said Michael G. McNally, a professor at UC Irvine’s transportation institute. “We’ve been directing a large amount of resources to attracting choice riders to transit. This is not better for the masses.”

Proponents see it as the next Blue Line or San Diego Trolley. With 2.8 million people, Orange County has population and job densities along the proposed route that are equal to or greater than San Diego’s. Orange County, however, lacks the urban core and international border that have been key to the San Diego Trolley’s success.

CenterLine would start at Santa Ana’s train station, also a hub for buses, and move west to the city’s Civic Center. It would go south on Bristol Street through dense residential and business areas to South Coast Plaza, then to John Wayne Airport and the Irvine Business Complex, before ending at UCI.

A comparable bus rapid transit system with exclusive roadways, county transit officials say, would shave only 10% from CenterLine’s cost, and be slower and less comfortable to use.

“Which is better, a 747 or a Cessna? It depends on where you want to go,” said Arthur T. Leahy, OCTA’s chief executive officer. “If you’re going into heavily congested Los Angeles, you want a 747. If you are going to Oceanside, a Cessna will do. We need the 747.”