Home


The Facts on Light Rail
A comparative analysis of existing light rail systems in six West Coast cities

by Michael Ennis, Director, Center for Transportation Policy
April 2008

Key Findings

As Washington cities consider whether light rail is right for them, this summary of a larger study on the performance of the six existing systems on the West Coast provides factual, real life examples of what taxpayers could expect here.

Often, public agencies try to estimate, with little success, how such a system in Washington would perform. Through unrealistic modeling and ambitious assumptions, they typically underestimate operating and capital costs, and overestimate revenue and passenger demand.

This is especially true with light rail systems.

For example, in 1996, Sound Transit officials in the Seattle area promised its first light rail segment would be completed by 2006 and would cost about $5 billion Today (1), Sound Transit says the total cost is about $15 billion and the segment will not be finished until around 2020 (2).

Analyzing the performance of existing light rail systems sidesteps these guesses and offers a factual picture.

There are six light rail systems on the West Coast that have been operating since at least 1995: Los Angeles, Portland, Sacramento, San Jose, San Diego and San Francisco. This study looks at their past performance and results in the following key findings:

• Light rail systems on the West Coast served only about 2% of the workforce in the service areas of the six systems.

• On average, these systems only remove between 0.39% and 1.1% of cars from the roadway.

• On average, West Coast light rail systems require taxpayer subsidies to pay for 73% of operations and 100% of capital improvements per year.

• The average cost to add one additional rider to the light rail systems on the West Coast is between $82,285 and $242,014 per rider.

• Attracting a new rider to light rail costs 35 to 100 times as much as attracting a new rider to a traditional bus system.

• When accounting for passenger demand, light rail on the West Coast is 12% more expensive to operate than bus service.

• In the ten years between 1996 and 2005, the public subsidy (operating costs only) for all light rail systems in the U.S. grew from $250 million to $729 million. An increase of 191%.

• The relationship between light rail and any environmental or economic development advantages is so slight that their use on influencing policy decisions should be proportionally minor.

Examining the six existing light rail systems in major West Coast cities helps residents in the Puget Sound, Vancouver and Spokane understand what they could expect from spending on similar systems in Washington.

The most relatively efficient systems on the West Coast are San Francisco and Portland. They move the most people for the least cost and beat the six-city average in most cases.

By a large margin, the worst-performing system is San Jose. In every category, its performance is worse than the six-city average.

Regardless of how each system ranks with another, the overall poor performance of all six light rail systems on the West Coast shows that there is a very large gap between public costs and public benefits.

Even the best-performing systems require a large taxpayer subsidy and have little or no affect on reducing traffic congestion. And on average, light rail is more expensive to operate than a normal bus service.

Policymakers and the public should consider whether diverting transportation taxes away from other programs and services is worth the opportunity costs. Based on the data, this analysis concludes that it is not. There must be a stronger relationship between public spending and congestion relief. Spending significant amounts of transportation tax revenue on projects that have no influence on reducing congestion inevitably makes traffic worse.

[1]Sound Move, The 10-Year Regional Transit System Plan, May 1996.

[2]Sound Transit, University Link Financial Plan, June 2006.