Spokane7
35°
March 27, 2010 in Opinion
Light rail spurs local economy
In 2000, the boards of directors for Spokane Transit and the Spokane Regional Transportation Council established a light rail steering committee specifically to examine high-capacity transit between Spokane and Liberty Lake. For the next six years, the committee studied light rail and bus rapid transit options in the South Valley corridor. Finally, it concluded that a low-cost light rail system was the best option for the Spokane region, based on its consistency with growth management, environmental sustainability and long-term applicability.
The committee’s detailed analysis indicated a 15.5-mile, 14-station light rail system operating on single track with 15-minute frequency could be built for $263 million, an average cost of about $17 million per mile. Even more important, the committee felt the system would serve as a powerful economic engine for the region.
In July 2005, analysis by two reputable economic consulting firms, Marketek from Portland and Applied Economics out of Phoenix, concluded the system’s financial influence would be in the billions of dollars to the region. In 2006, the board of directors for the transit agency relied on “the conventional wisdom” for high-capacity transit, that being that the primary purpose of light rail systems is traffic congestion relief and so would not be needed in Spokane County for a decade or more.
The Light Rail Steering Committee was subsequently disbanded in December 2006 despite conceiving the lowest- cost-per-mile light rail system in the United States. The low cost was possible because it was based on a modest system that met the region’s needs but which was planned for expansion as the population grows. This strategy should prove much cheaper than waiting as Seattle did, until the cost of their system, now under construction, is more than $180 million per mile. Moreover, construction costs are expected to grow much faster than the region’s population, so the relative cost per individual will increase over time.
The steering committee correctly focused on strategic transportation planning, and to that end light rail was considered the best choice. Additionally, economic development and growth management were seen as a major benefit from investing in light rail earlier than traditionally done in large, congested metropolitan areas. As a result, the committee came to believe that the typical model, based on conventional wisdom, is wrong. Instead, they concluded that light rail costs much more the longer you wait, and the positive influences on community development in response to growth are lost. They determined that waiting to justify high-capacity transit based on traffic congestion would be poor planning and reactionary rather than visionary.
There is a saying that “if you follow the same old model, you’ll end up in the same old place.” That is how Seattle became an icon for highway congestion, contrasted with Portland and Salt Lake City, who both invested in regional light rail systems much earlier in their growth and are now benefiting greatly.
Now STA is proposing a major investment in a cheaper version of transit that mimics light rail. It’s called bus rapid transit. In their report, Marketek and Applied Economics also concluded, “…while Bus Rapid Transit can be as effective in relieving congestion as light rail, there is little evidence that it supports or stimulates the same level of transit oriented development.”
So if we deferred light rail, which is an economic engine, because we don’t have a congestion problem, why would we invest in bus rapid transit, whose strength is congestion relief but isn’t an economic stimulus? The city of Spokane and the Downtown Spokane Partnership are now looking at electric streetcars versus trolley buses to stimulate growth in the central business district. Let’s hope they choose wisely.
K.C. Traver is the president of the Inland Empire Rail Transit Association ( www.InlandRail.org).
Vote yes for the levy 
EWU Text-to-Win Contest 
Enter to win tickets to see Adam Carolla at the Knitting Factory 
WSU Text-to-Win Contest 
liarsinnews on March 27 at 8:23 a.m.
Smallsville is looking at light rail when most large cities can`t make ends meet and supplement hundreds of millions of dollars to support them. Only fools in Spokane would even think about such a venture with the populations we have to draw from.
omaha on March 27 at 10:50 a.m.
Where is the $263 million come from?
And by the by, $263 million is not what it will cost, it will go over budget like most capital projects.
omaha on March 27 at 11:52 a.m.
Sorry, should read:
Where does the $263 million come from?
misjustice on March 27 at 11:55 a.m.
If the economy were better, and if Liberty Lake, The City of Spokane Valley, and Spokane were working to bring new industry and more businesses into the region, then this would be a justified vision of how to move our area forward.
Without additional businesses/industries, it is merely a vision without merit. We can barely support the bus system that we have, and I doubt that building a new means of public transportation during a recession would be supported by the tax payers. And rightfully so.
Good idea, wrong time…
gmorton on March 27 at 3:36 p.m.
That is the usual light rail hype. Light rail spurs economic development only when that development itself is heavily subsidized, as it was in Portland. And those subsidies can only be provided through taxes, which depress economic development somewhere else in the economy – usually activities more desirable, as evidenced by the fact that they are market-clearing, and would not require any subsidies. There is no free lunch.
No rail transit system in the country, or indeed mass transit system of any kind, except New York City’s, operates in the black (NYC’s doesn’t either, but it comes close). They all require heavy, continuous subsidies, and as such are a net drain on local economies. Worse, they divert funds from highway improvements – the form of transportation 90% of commuters actually use and will continue to use – and thus worsen congestion and throttle commerce.
Light rail systems are boondoggles for transit unions, bureaucrats, and selected developers, and like gleaming airport terminals in 3rd World capitals, monuments to the egos of pompous politicians.
west on March 28 at 8:30 a.m.
Spokane can’t support it, 45 min of rush hour..then empty. Saturdays and sundays..empty I-90. And light rail would really take traffic off Sprague at the detriment of the business’s. Whats the Appleway for, then? You just do not have the density of population, and 20-30 years from now Spokane is not going to be a metropolitan area like Portland-Vancouver BC. Where are all the hundreds of thousands? of riders going to? That run down part of Spokane Valley called Dishman?? Spokane to liberty lake is no destination mecca…peole are not going to take the train to valley for shopping..only business people for lack of business.it ain’t gonna happen… Spokane is too poor, jobs, etc to pay for it..
nduft on April 01 at 4:54 p.m.
I think a light rail is a great idea. A light rail would ultimately help the economy by creating a progressive and enlightened image of the Inland Northwest.
The Inland Northwest is largely unrecognized for it’s amazing location. It is next to world class outdoor recreation and has ridiculously affordable and attractive real estate both residential and commercial (compared to Seattle, Portland, The Bay Area, even Boise). What we are lacking is a progressive identity that is attractive to so many businesses (Google) and people who want to move away from overpriced and over run locations (again, Seattle, Portland, The Bay Area). As a former California resident I can say that our 5 minute commute in Spokane compared to our former 45 minute to hour-and-a-half commute was one of the top reasons for moving here. It is a much better quality of life.
I vote for a light rail now instead of high way expansions and traffic congestion in the future. Just look at the impoverished and sad looking neighborhoods that were once vibrant next to Hwy 90. That doesn’t attract business. As new companies tour this area and see a brand new light rail system … now that is selling point.
By planning our communities in an environmentally friendly way now, we would attract growth while preserving the area’s charm and quality of living.
PS We love STA and their Hybrid Buses.
PowderKeg on April 02 at 10:21 a.m.
Anyone who runs a successful business should understand the term “loss leader.” Basically, a loss leader is an investment that defers immediate returns for significant longterm returns. Light rail or a track-based trolley system is a worthy loss leader in every sense of the term. Most people who are against light rail base their opinions on the significant investment it takes to get it up and running. These same people, however, are often the first to endorse projects like new sports stadiums as community enhancements and revenue generators. Let’s be clear, light rail would add millions, perhaps billions, more to our region’s coffers than any other project we can imagine. It would also add an invaluable brand cache to the region. How’s that? When high value or anchor businesses like Google, Ikea and yes, Trader Joe’s, consider new locations, they first gauge the public’s willingness to look forward, beyond the rancor, and plan for the long haul. And nothing says “forward” more than a well-planned light rail system. Is now the time to begin implementing light rail? Yes. Traffic may not be terrible, yet. But it’s actually cheaper to start implementation now before land prices and urban sprawl explodes even more. One need only look at places like Seattle, Denver, San Diego, Raleigh/Durham and Austin to see citizens and council members who wish they had planned for growth long before it become a critical need.
misjustice on April 02 at 4:22 p.m.
nDuft and PowerKeg, you have made valid points worthy of consideration…re: implementation costs/planning for growth, “loss leader”, and progressive image…
rraymond on April 03 at 4:47 p.m.
In his March 27 post, misjustice notes, “Good idea…wrong time.” On their website, Inlandrail speaks to the underlying but unspoken theme of misjustice’s statement, which could be “wrong time…the RIGHT time being some time in the future.” Inlandrail points out on their editorial page that as soon as someone recognizes that, in fact light rail WILL be a viable congestion relief mode in the future, then by building it sooner than later the region would realize a $4 million annual saving, even if no one rode it. All this in addition to the up-front economic development benefits. Nduft and PowderKeg have hit the nail on the head, as misjustice seems to acknowledge in their April 2 post.