[PRCo] Re: OT------Buffalo---Says---NO..........

[John Swindler]

Interesting  "spin" in these articles to make the local people think that 
light rail is expensive and that the NFTA and political representatives are 
actually acting responsible and working for the public welfare.

What 'upper management' (local city politicians) probably really want is to 
open up Main St. to automobiles, but light rail line is in the way.

Nowhere do I see a comparision of the cost per vehicle hour nor cost per 
passenger for light rail and bus at NFTA.

According to FTA's 1998 National Transit Database,  its $68.60 per vehicle 
hour for bus and $188.43 for light rail.  It's also $38.33 for 
demand-response.

By comparison, San Diego Trolley is $95.67 per vehicle hour.  And most 
multi-modal transit systems come in at around $80 per vehicle hour for 
buses.  So allocation of joint expenses (administration, for instance) is 
suspect.

But as for cost for each passenger carried, bus is $2.54, rail is $1.94 
while the cost is $23.93 for each demand response rider.

Sounds to me like light rail is the most efficient public transit service in 
the Buffalo area.  The light rail line accounts for 10 percent of the 
vehicle hours of service operated by NFTA, but generates about 25 percent of 
the passengers.  (25,018 daily weekday riders on light rail; 69,550 weekday 
bus riders).

Maybe what the local politicians really want is to shift the NFTA's
riders to private automobiles, and thereby avoid a local subsidy of $23 
million per year that goes to support public transit.

John




>From: "Edward H. Lybarger" <twg at pulsenet.com>
>Reply-To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
>Subject: [PRCo] Re: OT------Buffalo---Says---NO..........
>Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 21:24:48 -0400
>
>
>They have 25,000 daily riders and are crying?  Are the numbers inflated are
>or they inept?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
>[mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org]On Behalf Of Jim
>Holland
>Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 8:57 PM
>To: -*-> James B. Holland <-*-
>Subject: [PRCo] OT------Buffalo---Says---NO..........
>
>
>
>Good Morning!!
>
>         I had asked here before about rail in Buffalo because I had
>heard that what exists is struggling to exist and may actually be
>abandoned.   And since many on this list are much closer, I thought
>someone might know.   While abandonment is not the topic, expansion of
>the system is a definite  NO  according to the following article and
>editorial are from the Buffalo (NY) News which I just received:::::::
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Prospects dim for extension of Metro Rail line
>
>By SHARON LINSTEDT
>News Staff Reporter
>9/20/01
>
>         Buffalo's 6.4-mile light-rail transit line won't be growing any
>timesoon, if ever.
>
>         None of four proposed extensions of the line meets federal
>transportation criteria for funding, according to a study commissioned
>by the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority to assess the
>cost-effectiveness of extending the 16-year-old line.
>
>         "The bottom line is, we'd be putting good money after bad," said
>NFTA Chairman Luiz R. Kahl. "It's a tough decision, and we know we're
>going to be criticized, but we can only do what we can afford to do, and
>we can't justify spending the kind of money it will take to extend the
>line."
>
>         With cost estimates for four proposed extensions ranging from
>$445.1 million to $584.5 million, the NFTA says it would have to find at
>least $222 million in local funds to make a serious pitch to federal
>transportation officials.
>
>         Erie County Executive Joel A. Giambra and Buffalo Mayor Anthony
>M. Masiello have expressed no interest in contributing any local dollars
>to a rail-extension effort, according to Kahl.
>
>         New corridors to Amherst, the Southtowns, Tonawanda/Niagara
>Falls and Buffalo Niagara International Airport were reviewed using the
>government's rating system, with the conclusion that only an airport
>line had any hope of passing muster with the agency, and even its scores
>were extremely low.
>
>         "When you look at all the factors - the costs, potential
>ridership, chances for local funding, and all the rest - we'd have no
>credibility in making a request to the feds. We can't justify it," said
>NFTA Executive Director Lawrence M. Meckler.
>
>         When the Metro Rail system was built in the mid-1980s, the
>federal government picked up 80 percent of the costs, with the state
>chipping in the balance of construction costs. The U.S. Department of
>Transportation has totally overhauled its procedures for evaluating and
>funding light-rail start-ups and extensions, requiring, among other
>things, that localities pick up 50 percent of the tab for construction.
>
>         The study, conducted by Parsons Brinkerhoff, Quade & Douglas of
>New York, used the recently implemented federal cost-effectiveness
>criteria to evaluate four potential extention routes.
>
>         Despite the resulting moratorium on rail extension, Kahl called
>the situation "dynamic" and subject to change, especially if the local
>population increases or major new employment trends takes place.
>
>         "This isn't the final word on this. We'll revisit this in
>another five to 10 years as part of our overall transit strategy, and
>who knows?  Things change," Kahl said.
>
>         The NFTA's report is bad news for E. Edward Deutschman, chairman
>of the Citizens Regional Transit Corp., a group that advocates extending
>the Metro Rail line. Deutschman questioned the study's findings,
>particularly the price tags placed on the various extension options.
>
>         "Those cost estimates are hard to believe," Deutschman said.
>"Parsons Brinkerhoff is known for going for the biggest bucks on
>construction.  Their involvement led to a lot of needless expenses on
>the existing line, so I'm not all that surprised."
>
>         The citizens group will continue with its effort to rally
>support for expansion of rail service, according to Deutschman, with
>focus on the airport option.
>
>         "We'll keep the pot boiling," Deutschman said. "That is a
>corridor that makes so much sense. We see a lot of potential in reaching
>out to riders in Cheektowaga, Lancaster and even Clarence."
>
>         Deutschman said other studies found that taking the rail system
>to that area would not only provide a convenient new way to reach the
>airport, but could attract about 16,000 new daily riders to the system.
>
>         While the NFTA has taken extension plans off the track for the
>near future, its money problems related to the light-rail system have
>not been solved. The study says the line is reaching "midlife" and is in
>need of upgrades to everything from rail cars to tracks, improvements
>and replacements that will increase the cost of operating and
>maintaining the line to more than $1 billion in the next decade.
>
>         The growing costs of operating the rather limited rail system
>raise the potential that it could be shut down and mothballed sometime
>in the future.
>
>         "If things don't change for the better, if ridership slips
>further as our costs increase, we may decide to just shut it down," Kahl
>said. "But for now, we're committed to running it and making it the best
>light-rail system it can be."
>
>         As light-rail systems go, Buffalo's Metro Rail line compares
>favorably with its peers, according to the study. With about 25,000
>riders per day, the system has the country's third-highest number of
>passenger trips per mile, out of 17 light-rail systems now operating in
>the nation.
>
>         The review also found that compared with other systems, Metro
>Rail is at the average in local funding, and uses the funds about as
>efficiently as other systems.
>
>
>A dose of reality
>9/23/01
>
>         Having commissioned a study that confirmed what many suspected -
>it makes no fiscal sense to expand the light-rail transit system - the
>Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority is moving responsibly in
>exploring innovative alternatives to meet customer needs.
>
>         NFTA officials recently broke the news that their study found an
>extension would be too costly, ranging from $445.1 million to $584.85
>million for four proposed extensions. Considering that about half of
>that cost would have to come from local governments that can barely
>afford the services they provide now, the reality is that this community
>simply can't afford to extend the line.
>
>         Expected or not, that's still disappointing. A line that
>stretched beyond the 6.4 miles into the suburbs would have benefited the
>community. But NFTA Chairman Luiz R. Kahl had it right when he said it
>would be putting good money after bad. It makes sense to curtail any
>plans, at this time, to extend the Metro Rail. Kahl did leave the door
>open for a future extension, acknowledging that things change.
>
>         In the meantime, the reality is that this community's mass
>transit needs will have to be met by buses. NFTA officials are already
>moving in that direction. Included in those plans is MetroLink, which
>uses smaller, 24-seat buses that are linked with fixed-route bus
>service. The NFTA also plans to evaluate express buses, schedule
>modifications, employment shuttles and community circulators to blend
>with the current light-rail system.
>
>         The light-rail system was built upon high expectations that were
>never met, from the anticipated expansion into the suburbs to the
>population figures that have dimmed over the years. And it's unlikely
>that the current 25,000 per-day passenger count is going to grow
>significantly.
>
>         In retrospect, this community never should have accepted a
>system that was reduced below what already was a bare minimum. The
>pedestrian mall, part of the light-rail system that took automobile
>traffic off Main Street, has been a convenient scapegoat for the
>troubles that would have afflicted downtown anyway. But if it wasn't
>responsible for downtown's decline, it's also true that the mall
>certainly didn't come close to providing the vitality many expected it
>to produce.
>
>         Meanwhile, Metro Rail continues to serve a purpose. In any
>event, it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to take it off
>line. And it would completely fail to provide a public service which, as
>much as 6.4 miles can, it does to some degree.
>
>         But now the debate can end for awhile. Our mass transit future
>lies with buses, not trains. Too bad, but that's the way it is.  The
>following article and editorial are from the Buffalo (NY) News.
>
>¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>
>James B. Holland
>
>Holland  Electric  Railway  Operation
>     "O"--Scale  St.-Petersburg Trams Company Trolleycars  &
>         "O"--Scale  Parts  mailto:pghpcc at pacbell.net
>         Pennsylvania Trolley Museum (PTM) http://www.pa-trolley.org/
>     Pittsburgh  Railways  Company  (PRCo),   1930  --  1950
>N.M.R.A.  Life member #2190; http://www.mcs.net:80/~weyand/nmra/
>
>¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>
>
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp