<<  <  >  >>

Page 31

Pickrell's report and reached similar conclusions.65

Dunphy found that the rail systems Pickrell had studied

did not have "dramatic ridership growth to change the early

assessment."  Dunphy also looked at several newer systems,

all but one of which was "following the pattern . . . of

overestimating ridership and underestimating costs."66

Four of seven cities that built light-rail lines during

the 1980s actually suffered significant losses in transit

commuting between 1980 and 1990.  Transit commuting fell by

9 percent in Baltimore, by 17 percent in Denver, by 20

percent in Portland, and by 25 percent in Buffalo.  Transit

commuting grew in three cities.  It increased by 2 percent

in Sacramento, by 18 percent in Los Angeles, and by 43

percent in San Diego.

All of the light-rail lines opened since 1987, after

the Pickrell report, "were in cities with a net loss in

transit commuting during the 1980s," says Dunphy.  Those

lines included the ones in San Jose and St. Louis and new

lines in Baltimore and Denver.  All of those lines, except

the one in St. Louis, followed the pattern of costing more

and carrying fewer riders than anticipated.

Dunphy reports that the St. Louis line was "a surprise"

because its ridership actually exceeded expectations and

construction costs were within budget.  But rail ridership

still accounts for only a small fraction of total trips in

that city.

The pattern of rail construction and overall declines

in transit ridership is so common that it must be more than

a coincidence.  Transit agencies that sink most of their

capital funds into rail lines that will replace, at most,

two or three bus lines find that they do not have the funds

to maintain and improve bus service on other routes.  As a

result, overall patronage falls.

In most cities much of the impact is borne by the poor

as bus service is curtailed in lower class neighborhoods in

order to pay for rail transit.  In Los Angeles lower income

transit riders recently formed a bus riders' union that,

with the help of civil rights groups, sued the transit

agency for neglecting buses while it builds expensive rail

lines.  The union charged that the transit agency had spent

70 percent of its budget on rails that carry only 8 percent

of its riders, most of whom are white and well-to-do while

bus riders tend to be minorities and poor.67  The agency

signed a consent decree agreeing to buy more buses but now