RAIL TRANSIT WORKS

RAIL TRANSIT WORKSLight Rail Success Storiesfrom Across the Country

Elizabeth RidlingtonGigi Kellett

MaryPIRG Foundation

Spring 2003

The MaryPIRG Foundation gratefully acknowledges the Surdna Foundation for itsfinancial support of this project and of MaryPIRG Foundation’s transportation andland-use work.

Thank you to Dan Pontious of the Baltimore Regional Partnership and Brent Flickingerof the Citizen’s Planning and Housing Association and to Gerry Neily for their reviewof the report and valuable suggestions. Brad Heavner and Tony Dutzik provided edito-rial review.

The authors alone bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations arethose of MaryPIRG. The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect theviews of our funders.

© 2003 MaryPIRG Foundation

The MaryPIRG Foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to protecting theenvironment, the rights of consumers, and good government in Maryland. TheFoundation’s companion organization, the Maryland Public Interest Research Group,founded in 1973, has 5,000 members throughout the state and a student chapter at theUniversity of Maryland’s College Park campus.

For additional copies of this report, send $10 (including shipping) to:

MaryPIRG Foundation3121 Saint Paul Street, Suite 26Baltimore, MD 21218

For more information about MaryPIRG and the MaryPIRG Foundation, call (410)467-0439 or visit our website at www.marypirg.org.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Executive Summary 5

Introduction 6

The Challenges Facing Baltimore 7

Case Studies 9Dallas 9Denver 11Los Angeles 12Portland 14Salt Lake City 16San Diego 17San Francisco 19St. Louis 21Washington, D.C. 22

Principles for Successful Rail Lines 24Encourage Transit-Oriented Development 24Provide Easy Pedestrian Access 25Enhance Access to Suburban Stations 25

Rail in Baltimore 26Current Service 26Proposed System 27

Policy Recommendations 30

Appendix 32Light Versus Heavy Rail 32Passengers Versus Boardings 32

Notes 33

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4 MaryPIRG Foundation

Rail Transit Works 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

W ith a range of policies—Prior-ity Funding Areas, the Ruraland Community Legacy Pro-

gram, brownfield cleanup—Maryland hasmade a concerted effort to control sprawl.One tool that the state could make betteruse of is developing transportation alter-natives. Case studies of nine metropoli-tan areas across the country show thaturban rail lines—whether light rail orheavy rail—carry more passengers thanprojected and can play a role in makingcities stronger economic and residentialcenters. Maryland could capture some ofthese benefits by constructing a compre-hensive rail system in Baltimore and sur-rounding communities.

Cities across the country that have in-vested in new or expanded rail servicehave experienced strong ridership.

• When Denver extended light railservice to two suburbs, Littleton andEnglewood, ridership in the first yearwas 40 percent higher than pro-jected.

• In car-dependent Los Angeles, manycommuters have turned to thesubway. Planners expected 100,000passengers daily on a new section ofthe Red Line and had to add carswhen ridership rapidly reached120,000 daily.

• St. Louis reintroduced rail service in1993, decades after the city’s street-car lines closed. Ridership by the endof the first year was expected to be12,000 passengers daily. Actual usewas 3.5 times higher, with 44,000daily riders.

By increasing access to downtown, arail system can encourage redevelop-ment of underused areas and enhancetheir desirability.

• In Los Angeles, the opening of theRed Line has prompted renovationsand new construction, rejuvenatingthe Hollywood area.

• Two billion dollars of constructionhas occurred along Portland’s Eastsiderail line, mainly as infill development.

• In Washington, D.C., residentialproperty close to rail stations is worth$6 to $8 per square foot more thancomparable properties farther away.

• In Dallas, locations near the light railline have risen 25 percent in valuecompared to more distant properties.New development and higherproperty values can also translateinto increased property tax revenuesfor city government.

Maryland can reap many of the ben-efits of rail transit if it constructs anintegrated rail system in Baltimore.

• Baltimore’s existing urban rail linesare inadequate. Even those segmentsthat draw high numbers of ridershave not reached their full potentialbecause the region has made littleuse of transit-oriented development.

• The Maryland TransportationAdministration’s proposed 109-milesystem would make Baltimore and itssuburbs more accessible and wouldrepresent a commitment to investingin older communities in the regionthat could spur other development.

• The Transportation Equity Act forthe 21st Century, the federal appro-priations bill that provides partialfunding for transportation projects,is up for reauthorization this year.Maryland will allocate funding forvarious projects. At the top of the listshould be rail in Baltimore.


The effects of sprawl are familiar toanyone who lives in Maryland. Bal-timore, a city of 736,000 people in

1990, lost 85,000 residents by 2000.1 Atthe same time, the counties surroundingBaltimore endless sprawl—low-densitysubdivisions in which the only way to goanywhere is by car.

Low-density suburban developmentdestroys open space by paving over landand fragmenting wild areas with roads.Development in existing urban areas, onthe other hand, requires little additionalpavement. There is a direct trade-off be-tween urban and suburban development:the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency estimates that for every underusedor abandoned urban acre that is devel-oped, 4.5 acres of undeveloped land are

INTRODUCTION

preserved.2 Thus, redevelopment inBaltimore and its inner suburbs can helpprotect the Maryland countryside fromsprawl.

In addition, urban redevelopment canprotect water and air quality. Building inexisting developed areas does not sub-stantially increase runoff into nearbystreams, thereby protecting water quality.The proximity of residential, commercial,and retail districts in urban areas allowsshorter car trips compared to suburbanliving and reduces air pollution.

Sprawl and its consequences are notinevitable. Cities and communities areconstructed as designed; they are notpredestined to be ugly or beautiful, car-dependent or transit- and pedestrian-friendly. In recognition of this, Marylandhas already taken the initial steps tocontrol sprawl. By identifying PriorityFunding Areas and supporting growth inthose corridors only, Maryland seeks toencourage more concentrated develop-ment and reduce sprawl.

Maryland has another opportunitynow to combat sprawl by making Balti-more a more livable city that will drawnew residents and businesses. One impor-tant way to enhance Baltimore’s attrac-tiveness is by improving transit. TheMetro, opened in 1983, and light rail,opened in 1992, were first steps towarda rail system, but the lines are not ex-tensive enough to adequately serve thearea.

A rail system will not change Baltimoreovernight, but it is another tool for shap-ing the city’s and Maryland’s future.Light Rail stop at Baltimore-Washington International Airport


Light Rail in downtown Baltimore

THE CHALLENGES FACING BALTIMORE

B altimore has experienced a dwin-dling population and decliningemployment for decades, trends

that have reduced the city’s economic re-sources. The largest source of revenue forthe city of Baltimore is property taxes,which provide over half of the city’s gen-eral fund, but property tax revenues fellduring most of the 1990s.3 Income taxesare the second-largest source of incomefor the general fund. For nearly 20 years,the number of income tax returns de-clined until the strong economy in thelate 1990s led to a slight increase.4 Witha weak tax base, the city has struggled toprovide the public services necessary forattracting new residents and businesses.

The Baltimore area’s current transpor-tation system is not much of an asset fora city struggling to revitalize itself. Roadsare congested. Bus service, though exten-sive, is too often slow. Rail transit is lim-ited and inconvenient, and fails to servemuch of the region. The Maryland Tran-sit Administration (MTA) operates anorth-south light rail line that runsthrough downtown Baltimore. The city’sMetro subway line, coming in from thenorthwest and looping through down-town, does not connect with the light rail.Transferring between light rail and thesubway requires walking a block from theMetro station to the light rail station.Commuter rail service has several stopsin Baltimore, but adds little to intra-citytransit.

The result is that only three percentof Baltimore-area residents ride theMetro or light rail, compared to 12.5 per-cent in Washington, D.C.5 This is largelybecause Baltimore’s rail lines do not reachinto many of the region’s neighborhoods,440,000 jobs in the Baltimore area are notcurrently served by rail transit, and littletransit-oriented development has oc-curred.6

The limited usefulness of the Balti-more region’s rail lines as a transit optionhas also muted their impact as a develop-ment tool. By drawing a steady stream ofpeople, rail stations can be attractiveplaces for new development. Baltimoreand its inner suburbs have received littleof this benefit thus far because of modestridership numbers and because MTA andthe state, despite its relatively strongsmart growth policies, have provided fewincentives for transit-oriented develop-ment.7

In other cities across the country, con-struction of rail lines and stations oftenhas prompted new urban developmentand enhanced the value of existing prop-erty. Easy access to downtown and asteady flow of people to and from rail sta-tions make downtown development moreprofitable for developers, and residents’desire for transportation choices places apremium on properties accessible bytrain. Higher property values translateinto enhanced revenues for local govern-ment and better city services for urbanresidents.

A new rail system in Baltimore couldhelp urban revitalization efforts directlyand indirectly by acting as a catalyst for


change. Constructing a rail system sug-gests a new vision for and commitmentto the city’s future. As in other cities,higher pedestrian traffic rates around sta-tions may draw new urban development.In addition, greater access to existingcommercial space could make it morevaluable.

Increased tax revenues, from newprojects or from the increased value ofexisting developments, would give thecity more resources to help neighbor-hoods, restore public spaces, and build thecity’s infrastructure. These improvements

can help reduce sprawl in Maryland bymaking Baltimore and its inner suburbsa more appealing alternative to suburbanresidential developments.

As the case studies below show, newlyconstructed rail systems and expansionsto existing systems have been well-re-ceived in cities across the country. Morepeople have chosen to ride trains thanplanners anticipated and rail constructionhas prompted new urban development.The cities discussed are as different fromeach other as they are from Baltimore,yet rail has consistently performed well.


CASE STUDIES

DallasGary Hufstedler, a senior manager atDallas Area Rapid Transit, describes Dal-las as a city where everyone believes in a“divine right” to drive a large, expensivecar at breakneck speed anywhere, at anytime. Such an atmosphere seems unlikelyto be one in which a light rail systemwould flourish, but since the Dallas AreaRapid Transit (DART) light rail linesopened in July 1996 ridership in the sys-tem has nearly doubled.8 The rail system’sinitial 20 miles of track, constructed at acost of $860 million, were expected tocarry 16,000 riders.9 In its first month ofoperation, 19,000 people rode lightrail.10 Each successive expansion—January 1997, June 1997, September2001, May 2002, and July 2002—attracted more riders.11 Even between ex-pansions ridership rose: in the periodfrom June 1997 to September 2001, aver-age weekday boardings rose from 33,000per day to 38,000, exceeding the projec-tion of 32,500 daily boardings for thatlength of track.12

DART light rail attracts both passen-gers who would otherwise be driving andthose who would need to ride the bus.Of those riders who had a car availablefor the trip, 59 percent responded in a

survey that they would drive alone to theirdestination if light rail were not available,adding to air pollution. Most transit-de-pendent riders would have taken a businstead, though 13 percent would haveforgone the trip.13

With the newest extension, opened inDecember 2002, DART’s light rail sys-tem is approximately 40 miles long. (TheRed Line is 27.5 miles and the Blue Lineis 24 miles, but they share 11 miles oftrack through downtown.) Dallas is ingreat need of additional rail cars to easecrowding at peak commute times and hasordered 20 new cars, but they will not bedelivered until December 2006.14

The light rail system in Dallas has in-creased real estate values. A study by theUniversity of North Texas Center forEconomic Development and Researchfound that existing property next to sta-tions increased in value by 25 percentmore than comparable property not nearthe rail line.15 Occupancy rates and rentsincreased for rail-accessible locations.

Furthermore, the long-term promiseof a steady flow of people carried by lightrail has influenced where developers sitenew projects.16 Private development nearcompleted and planned light rail stationsreached $922 million by 2001 and an-other $124 million worth of new projects

January 1997 13,615 22,869 68%

June 1997 28,011 31,497 12%

September 2001 38,055 43,422 14%

May 2002 41,667 45,829 10%

July 2002 45,829 56,687 24%

PercentageIncrease

Date ofExpansion

Table 1. DART Light Rail Ridership After Each System Expansion

Average WeekdayRidership In the MonthBefore Expansion

Average WeekdayRidership In the MonthAfter Expansion


were to have been opened by the end of2002.17 These developments include amix of office, retail, and residential unitsbuilt close to stations, creating urban vil-lages. At Cedars Station, on the edge of

downtown, a long-vacant structure wasconverted into 450 loft apartments.18

Mockingbird Station is now the site of amixed-use project that is connected viafootbridge to the rail station.19

Figure 1. Current DART System and Planned Expansions

Map courtesy of DART


DenverDecades ago, Denver recognized the de-velopment potential that transit createsby bringing large numbers of people intodowntown areas. The 16th Street Mall,a 15-block outdoor mall served by freeshuttles, opened in 1982, long beforeDenver had light rail. Today, the mallconnects Denver’s bus, Amtrak, and lightrail hubs.

Denver began offering light rail ser-vice in October 1994 with 5.3 miles ofthe D Line through downtown. Since theline opened, ridership has exceeded pro-jections. On opening day, 20 percentmore people rode than the RegionalTransportation District (RTD) ex-pected.20 The Southwest Line extendedthe D Line from downtown to the south-western suburbs of Littleton andEnglewood in July 2000. More than 8,400people rode on the first day, filling uppark and ride lots and catching RTD off-guard with the line’s popularity.21 Rider-ship on the 8.7-mile route has remainedstrong, exceeding projections by 40 per-cent in its first year of operation.

The Central Platte Valley Line, the CLine, opened in April 2001, extending thereach of the light rail system to majorentertainment venues and universities.Ridership has exceeded expectations by15 percent. Total use of the C and D linesin 2002 averaged 35,000 boardings perweekday.22

Rail passengers are not simply con-verted bus passengers. RTD conducted asurvey of light rail riders in 2001 in which65 percent of respondents reported hav-ing a car available to drive instead of tak-ing a train, and another 10 percent ofpassengers said they could have receiveda ride in a car driven by someone else butchose to ride the train. Only a quarter ofrail passengers did not have access to acar.23

In addition to further enlivening the16th Street Mall, light rail has broughttransit-oriented development to more ofDenver and its suburbs. Lower down-town (LoDo) Denver has added manyresidential units and a riverfront projectwill soon add 1,800 more.24 The failedCinderella City shopping mall at theEnglewood station has been convertedinto a mixed use center, housing CityHall, the library, the municipal court,Wal-Mart, Office Depot, IHOP, andother retail stores and restaurants.25

Figure 2. Denver Rail System

Map courtesy of RTD


Los AngelesThough Los Angeles is not typically as-sociated with mass transit, much less asubway, it has a well-used and expandingrail system. The three-line system snakesthrough Los Angeles’ web of freeways,connecting residential and commercialareas. The Blue Line, opened in 1990,runs north from Long Beach on the southside of Los Angeles into downtown. TheRed Line begins north of the city in sub-urban San Fernando Valley, windingthrough Hollywood into downtown, andeast to Union Station, providing an easyconnection to Amtrak service. The GreenLine, added in 1995 with east-west ser-vice, bisects the Blue Line and serves theairport.

Though the rail system does not reachinto all 2,265 square miles occupied bythe Los Angeles area’s 13 million resi-dents, it regularly carries nearly a quar-ter million passengers. Over 200 rail carsoperating on 60 miles of track accessibleat 52 stations carry 240,000 passengerson weekdays and 121,000 on weekends.26

The most recent extension of the sys-tem occurred in June 2001 with the

lengthening of the Red Line by 6.3 milesinto the San Fernando Valley. In themonth before the extension opened, RedLine ridership was 65,150 daily board-ings. By the end of the first week of ex-panded operation, ridership reached120,516, well above the 100,000 passen-ger target.27 Use of other lines rose also:Blue Line passenger numbers increasedby five percent and Green Line ridershiprose 10 percent.

Substantial transit-oriented develop-ment along the Red Line adds to thesubway’s appeal. At the Hollywood/Highland stop, a joint development ven-ture led to construction of the KodakTheater (new home of the AcademyAwards), a hotel, retail stores, and resto-ration of Graumann’s Chinese Theater.The facilities opened shortly after thesubway stop and have so increased rider-ship that the Metropolitan Transporta-tion Authority has added cars to its trainsat peak hours.28

Los Angeles rail passengers are eagerfor a transportation alternative to driv-ing a car or riding the bus. Nearly 50 per-cent of rail passengers had a car availablefor the trip on which they were surveyed.Only 25 percent did not own a car. Ap-proximately three quarters of passengersknew that bus service was available fortheir trip but preferred to take the train.29

The train, freed from navigating throughLos Angeles’ congested freeways, pre-sumably is more reliable.

The next expansion will be the open-ing of the Gold Line. A 14-mile routeheading northeast from Union Stationwill serve Pasadena beginning in 2003.The Holly Street Village, a transit-ori-ented housing development with a lightrail station built into the ground floor,has already been completed in anticipa-tion of the Gold Line’s opening.30 In2008, another leg of the Gold Line willopen, connecting Union Station and eastLos Angeles, one of the city’s mostdensely populated regions.31A train on the Los Angeles Red Line.

Phot

o co

urte

sy o

f LA

CM

TA/G

ayle

And

erso

n


Figure 3. Los Angeles Rail System

Map courtesy of LACMTA


PortlandOften cited as the paragon of plannedgrowth, Portland can also be held up asexample of successful light rail develop-ment. The Metropolitan Area Express,known as MAX, extends from the airporton the northeast side of town and theeastern suburb of Gresham, along Inter-state 84 to the Lloyd District, crosses theWillamette River to reach downtown,continues westward through a tunnelunder the zoo and Forestry Center, andinto the western suburbs of Beavertonand Hillsboro.

A push in the 1970s to restore historictrolley service in Portland led to the con-struction of light rail in the city. MAXcarried its first riders in September 1986on the 15-mile Eastside Line fromGresham to downtown. By the end of thefirst year of operation, average daily rid-ership reached 19,500, exceeding projec-tions by 500 boardings per day.32

Ridership on the Eastside Line has risensteadily, reaching 47,000 daily boardingsby June 2002.33

Two system expansions have beenequally popular. Westside MAX, com-pleted in September 1998 at a cost of$963 million, 73 percent of which camefrom the federal government, stretches18 miles from downtown to Portland’swestern suburbs through the SunsetHighway corridor.34 Much of the con-struction cost was consumed by drillingtwo three-mile tunnels under the westsidehills.35 Ridership at the end of the firstyear was projected to be 20,000 dailyboardings but actually reached 22,500.36

By 2002, average weekday boardingsreached 29,000, surpassing the 2005 pro-jection of 25,200 riders. After the open-ing of Westside MAX, transit use in theSunset Highway corridor is 160 percenthigher. Half of this increase is due to newtransit riders.37

A second extension in 2001 added a 5.5mile spur off the Eastside Line to reachthe airport. The Airport MAX Line cost

$125 million to construct. Through cre-ative funding, the Tri-County Metro-politan Transportation District (TriMet)built the line without federal funds andwithout raising property taxes.38 In ex-change for development rights on 120acres at Cascade Station, Bechtel Enter-prises and Trammell Crow, private cor-porations, provided $28.2 million for therail line.39

In its first year of operation, dailyweekday ridership on this spur was 2,800.Ridership exceeded expectations despitereduced air travel after the September 11attacks and before any development hadbeen completed at the Cascade Stationsite part way to the airport. TriMet esti-mates that 2,300 people get on and off atthe airport daily and that an additional8,000 people ride the line between down-town and where the extension starts atthe Gateway Transit Center.40

TriMet has adjusted its bus lines to helpconnect to light rail. In some places, par-ticularly along the Westside Line, it hasadded service.41 Eighty-eight bus routesnow intersect the MAX lines.42

MAX ridership has increased for 14years straight.43 TriMet reported that inthe 12-month period ending June 30,2002, MAX overall carried 80,000 riderseach weekday, a 12 percent increase fromthe previous year.44 (For comparison,Baltimore Metro and light rail ridershipis also 80,000 boardings per weekday.However, Baltimore’s total population islarger and the city is more compact,which should boost ridership.)

Portland’s increase in transit ridershipis particularly notable because it has out-paced both population growth and ve-hicle miles traveled. From 1990 to 2000,the Portland metropolitan area’s popula-tion rose 24 percent and vehicle milestraveled grew 35 percent. TriMet bus andMAX ridership rose 49 percent.45 TriMetmanagement attributes steady ridershipincreases to better connections, increasedservice to popular destinations, and im-proved amenities.46


The construction of MAX has had apositive effect on property values and hasspurred transit-oriented development.Researchers at Portland State Univer-sity have found that a single-familyhouse next to an Eastside light rail sta-tion sells for about 10 percent more thana comparable home 1,000 feet away. Ap-proximately $2 billion of developmenthas occurred along Eastside MAX, pri-marily as urban redevelopment andinfill.47 For example, a former Depart-ment of Transportation maintenance yardhas been turned into mixed-incomerental and for-sale housing. Along theWestside Line, a master planned com-munity at Orenco Station will have 1,834houses when complete. A development

at Beaverton Creek is retail and hous-ing.48 In total, 8,000 housing units havebeen constructed within walking dis-tance of the Westside Line. The masterplan for development along the AirportLine will create 10,000 jobs and $500million of entertainment, retail, and officespace on 120 acres by 2015 at CascadeStation.49

The rail system, currently with 38miles of track and 54 stations, will expandagain in 2004 with the opening of Inter-state MAX. It runs alongside Interstate5, the major north-south freeway on theeast side of the Willamette River acrossfrom downtown. Interstate MAX willconnect the Expo Center north of Port-land to downtown.

Figure 4. Portland’s MAX System

Map courtesy of TriMet


Salt Lake CityThe Salt Lake City metropolitan areaextends in a relatively narrow strip be-tween the Wasatch Mountains and theGreat Salt Lake. The linear shape of SaltLake City means many people have ac-cess to the Transit Express (TRAX) lightrail which runs north-south through themiddle of the 1.3 million resident urbanarea.50

The initial 15-mile, 16-station North-South Line opened in December 1999.51

The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) hadprojected daily ridership on the maturesystem to be 14,400. Ridership in the firstyear always exceeded that target and of-ten neared 20,000 riders.52

A 2.3-mile extension to the Universityof Utah east of downtown opened in De-cember 2001.53 UTA projected 5,000boardings per day, but just eight monthsafter the line opened average daily rider-ship topped 10,000.54 During the 2002Winter Olympics, TRAX, using addi-tional rail cars borrowed from Dallas,carried 100,000 people each day.55

TRAX has been a success. UTA re-ports that 30,000 people ride TRAX eachday, 10,000 more riders than projected.56

Overall transit ridership was on an up-ward trend before TRAX opened, but therate of increase has been more dramatic:total rail and bus system ridership is upby 18.5 percent since 1996 and by 23 per-cent since 1999. Ridership has exceededprojections enough that UTA has length-ened trains to three cars from two andschedules the trains to run more oftenthan originally anticipated.57

General popular support has alsogrown since the system opened in 1999.In November 2000, residents of SaltLake, Weber and Davis counties—amongthose counties served by TRAX—ap-proved increasing the sales tax by a quar-ter of a cent to fund transit expansion.58

Another expansion is scheduled to openin 2004. The Medical Center extensionwill be 1.5 miles long and with the addi-tion of this third line the system will in-clude 21 miles of track.59 Manycommunities initially uninterested in par-ticipating now are eager to have UTAbuild a TRAX extension for their resi-dents. Riverton is paying $125,000 to beincluded in a region-wide transit studyconducted by UTA.60

Figure 5. Salt Lake City’s TRAX Lines

Map courtesy of UTA


San DiegoSan Diego, California’s third-largest met-ropolitan area with 2.7 million residents,sits along the coast south of Los Angelesand just north of the U.S.-Mexico bor-der.61 Commuter rail service extendingfrom Los Angeles serves the area northof San Diego, so the city’s 48 miles of trol-ley lines are concentrated to the south andeast of the city. The Blue Line begins justnorth of downtown San Diego in Mis-sion Valley and extends south to Tijuanaat the border. The Orange Line runsnortheast from downtown.

The Blue Line, built along existingrailroad right-of-way, opened in 1981with street-level trains that make shortruns and frequent stops. The OrangeLine began operating in 1986. The trol-ley lines serve downtown entertainmentvenues, business areas, the conventioncenter, and connects to the Coaster com-muter train, which runs from Oceansidesouth to San Diego.62

The Blue Line was expected to carry28,000 to 30,000 passengers in 1995, butreached that goal four years earlier.63 ByOctober 2002 ridership had risen to73,000 daily boardings.64 For large events,the rail lines can carry huge crowds: overthe weekend of Super Bowl 1998, onemillion people rode the trains to and from

events.65 The typical trip on light rail isnot entertainment-related, though: 50percent of riders are going to work, 12percent to visit family or friends, 10 per-cent to school, and 9 percent to shop.66

The San Diego Trolley serves manylower income neighborhoods where carownership rates are low. The light rail hasnot shifted riders from bus service—just25 percent of rail riders are former busriders—but has enabled lower incomeworkers to commute to jobs withoutspending money on a car.67

The Metropolitan Transit Develop-ment Board has also encouraged transit-oriented development by adoptingsupportive guidelines and zoning forhigher density projects near transit sta-tions.68 Projects have been built at 15 ofthe 49 stations.69 One of the most elabo-rate is at American Plaza, which is a two-block project containing office space,stores, the San Diego Museum of Con-temporary Art, and a light rail stationentirely within the building.70

A system extension is underway inMission Valley to connect the Blue andOrange lines northeast of San Diego inaddition to their junction downtown. Thenew 5.8-mile segment will open in late2004 and will add an estimated 11,000additional riders to San Diego’s light railsystem.71


Figure 6. San Diego’s Trolley System

Map courtesy of Metropolitan Transit Development Board


San FranciscoThe San Francisco Municipal Railway(Muni) provides rail and bus service tothe city of San Francisco. Muni first of-fered service in 1912 when it began op-erating streetcars. It added SanFrancisco’s famous cable cars in 1944.The rail system, which consists of fivelines covering 25 miles, carried 157,000riders per weekday in 2001-2002. Thesystem has grown over the years, mostrecently with an expansion to CaltrainDepot at 4th and King in 1998 and the FLine to Fisherman’s Wharf in 2000.72

The price of commercial property nearrail stations has risen faster than more re-motely located properties. From 1963 to1968, commercial property near theLafayette station, under construction atthe time, rose 13 percent annually,whereas land in a control area not servedby rail rose only 3.6 percent annually.73

New transit-oriented development onMuni property along San Francisco’s wa-terfront is expected to generate $311 mil-lion in revenue for Muni and $540 millionin taxes to the city of San Francisco.74

The city of San Francisco is just a smallportion of the Bay Area’s urbanization.Transit needs of residents in that largerarea—Contra Costa, Alameda, and SanFrancisco counties—are served by theBay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system.BART opened 28 miles of track in Sep-tember 1972 with daily ridership of20,000.75 BART has expanded steadily

over the years. In 1996, a 7.8-mile addi-tion to North Concord/Pittsburg/BayPoint opened. Five years after opening,the line carried 17 percent more passen-gers than projected. A 14-mile line toCastro Valley/Dublin/Pleasanton beganservice in 1997 and now carries approxi-mately 90 percent of its projected pas-senger load.76 Today the system has 95miles of track served by 39 stations, car-rying over 300,000 passengers daily.77 Insome corridors, BART has captured ahuge part of the market: 50 percent ofmorning commuters who cross the SanFrancisco Bay use BART.78

Transit-oriented development has oc-curred throughout BART’s service area,helped in part by BART’s joint develop-ment program.79 In Oakland, for example,the Fruitvale Transit Village is a $100million project serving a low-incomecommunity with retail space, a nonprofit

Figure 7. San Francisco Muni Lines

Figure 8. Bay Area Trapid Transit System

Map courtesy of San Francisco Municipal Railway

Map courtesy of BART


health-care clinic, a child care facility, alibrary, office space, subsidized housing,and mixed-income housing.80 The projectis a joint effort between BART, the city

of Oakland, and a community developmentcorporation, and took eight years to plan.Funding has come from BART, FederalTransit Administration, and private sources.


St. LouisSt. Louis built its first cable car line in1886 and soon expanded that to five lines.Though the electric-powered cars thatreplaced the cable cars were phased outmid-century, the need for rail transit re-mained. A little more than a century af-ter the first cable cars began operation,the city opened 17 miles of theMetroLink light rail system through es-sentially the same transit corridor in1993.81

The new system was constructed cost-effectively by using many existing rail fa-cilities in St. Louis. The Bi-StateDevelopment Agency built the linethrough a 100-year-old tunnel, on 14miles of old Wabash Railroad right-of-way, and on an 1874 bridge across theMississippi River.82 The starter line cost$20 million per mile,83 far cheaper than anew urban freeway; federal funds covered75 percent of the cost.84 The system ini-tially served the University of Missouri-St. Louis campus, medical center, thedowntown area, and the airport, though

not many residential areas.85 Nonetheless,ridership was high from the start.

Predicted ridership for the first yearwas 12,000.86 Within one month, rider-ship reached 30,000 boardings per day.87

After one year of operation, weekday rid-ership was 44,000, more riders than plan-ners had forecast for the system’s 20thyear.88 As many as 160,000 people haveridden the train in a single day, travelingto baseball games, Fair St. Louis, and anEvangelical Lutheran Church conference.89

With completion of the St. ClairCounty extension in 2001, built usingnew right-of-way and abandoned CSXrailroad right-of-way, the system is 34.4miles long.90 The rail line intersects 46bus routes—many rerouted to facilitatetransfers between bus and rail—and of-fers parking in 16 lots.91

In a further testament to MetroLink’spopularity, Bi-State DevelopmentAgency is planning new lines and exten-sions: the second phase of the St. ClairCounty extension will open in mid-2003and a Cross County line and a SouthCorridor line are both in planning.92

Figure 9. St. Louis’ MetroLink System


Figure 10. Washington, D.C., Metro Lines

Map courtesy of Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority


Washington, D.C.The Washington, D.C. metropolitan areais laid out in a wedges-and-corridors pat-tern that assumes most employmentoccurs in the city center and that peoplereside in surrounding areas. When con-struction on the subway system began in1969, this assumption was accurate. De-velopment patterns have changed, how-ever, generating multiple employmentcenters, and the Washington MetropolitanArea Transit Authority (WMATA) has ex-tended the Metro to meet this new need.93

A recent expansion demonstratesWMATA’s success at providing ridersthe rail transit they want. In January2000, a 6.5-mile extension on the GreenLine from Anacostia to Branch Avenuein Prince George’s County opened.94

Ridership for the expanded section wasprojected at 26,000 riders per day, but onopening day 32,000 people rode. Rider-ship has now reached 44,000 per day.95

In the region as a whole, WMATAoperates 103 miles of subway, which carry630,000 passengers per weekday.96

Overall, approximately 12.5 percent ofD.C. residents use the Metro subway.97

For selected destinations, the Metro car-ries a huge percentage of people travelingthere. For example, 70 percent of trips tothe MCI Center, the basketball andhockey arena at the Gallery Place/Chinatown stop, are via transit.98 Over-all ridership has been increasing soquickly that WMATA has struggled tomeet demand. From 1997 to 2000, rid-ership during the peak morning commuteincreased by 16 percent. In response,WMATA ordered 200 more rail cars andbegan considering strategies for shorten-ing the time trains spend in stations.99

Washington has experienced substan-tial development around its urban stations.On WMATA owned-land, 54 develop-ments worth more than $2 billion havebeen built. These projects generate $6 to$10 million in revenues per year forWMATA.100 Another measure of Metro’ssuccess is in the boost it provides to prop-erty values. Residential property near aMetro station costs $6 to $8 per squarefoot more than distant properties.101


The examples of rail discussed in thecase studies are drawn from citiesacross the country that built rail

systems of varying sizes. Some con-structed heavy rail mainly as subways,others built light rail entirely above-ground, others have done extensive tun-neling. All have been successful. Theseprinciples for successful development ofrail systems are general observationsdrawn from the case studies above.

EncourageTransit-OrientedDevelopmentTransit-oriented development (TOD)improves the accessibility and usefulnessof transit by locating homes, jobs, andshops close to rail stations. TOD places

PRINCIPLES FORSUCCESSFUL RAIL LINES

many destinations within easy walkingdistance of transit and, if well-planned forpedestrian access, new development canfurther encourage people to use transit.A study of TOD versus typical suburbantract development in the San FranciscoBay Area revealed that residents of thetransit-oriented neighborhoods were 60percent more likely to use transit thanwere people living in standard develop-ments.102 Los Angeles, Portland, Dallas,and San Diego all have used TOD toenhance the usefulness of rail transit andto draw people to urbanized areas.

Though local governments have alarge role to play in allowing TODthrough zoning requirements, transit au-thorities can also encourage TOD. Tran-sit agencies can establish TOD-friendlypolicies for agency-owned property.Portland’s TriMet limits auto-orienteduse, requires minimum densities, and capsparking immediately adjacent to stations.103

Denver’s light rail passes through many TOD projects.

Phot

o co

urte

sy o

f RT

D


In Washington, D.C., WMATA operatesa public/private joint development pro-gram to encourage development onWMATA-owned land.104 TriMet alsoprovides staff to help developers consoli-date parcels of land.105

Agencies can influence private invest-ment decisions also. RTD in Denver con-siders TOD-potential in deciding whereto locate new routes.106 The agency hasalso hired a TOD specialist who workswith other agencies, municipalities, anddevelopers to encourage new projects.107

The Metropolitan Transportation Com-mission, which oversees transportationplanning, coordination, and funding inthe Bay Area, steers more transportationfinancing to those communities that buildhousing near transit.108

Provide EasyPedestrian AccessEasy access to transit centers is crucial.Poor station accessibility at the startingor ending point of a trip reduces rider-ship.109 Ideally, stations are located withinwalking distance of sizeable residentialdevelopments or commercial centers. Areasonable walking distance for mostAmericans is no farther than 2,000 feet,or about three-eighths of a mile.110 (Forcomparison, Americans walk an average

of 800 feet from their car to work.111)That distance can be as much as doubledif they walk through appealing spaces.112

Research conducted in Houston foundthat every 10 percent increase in pedes-trian amenities-adequate sidewalk space,shop fronts, benches-resulted in a 15 per-cent decline in motorized trips.113

Enhance Access toSuburban StationsExisting residential concentrations maynot be great enough to allow many peopleto walk to suburban stations. There, ac-cess can be improved with bus service thatexplicitly serves rail stations.

A distant second choice for station ac-cessibility is for the transit agency to pro-vide parking. Commuters seeking aregular routine want to know that parkingwill be available at the train station whetherthey arrive at 7 a.m. or 9 a.m. In Los Ange-les, where parking is ample, nearly 30 per-cent of passengers expressed a willingnessto pay an additional fee for a guaranteed orreserved parking space.114 Unfortunately,poorly designed parking often create bar-riers for pedestrians by placing a hazard-ous lot or unsafe-feeling parking garageclose to the rail station, and by precludingpedestrian-oriented development immedi-ately adjacent to the station.


RAIL IN BALTIMORE

Current ServiceWhile rail in other cities has led to newurban development and boosted propertyvalues, Baltimore and its inner suburbsreceived little of this benefit because thepotential of the region’s multiple rail lineshas not been reached. The MTA’s lack ofstrong policies in support of TOD, thelimited frequency of light rail trainsdue to the single-track route, and otherproblems have limited the system’s effec-tiveness.

The 15.5-mile Metro, constructed ata cost of $1.3 billion, opened in 1983 withnine stations. Today there are 50,000boardings per day as people travel to des-tinations between Owings Mills andJohns Hopkins Medical Campus.115 Morethan 40 percent of people who ride theMetro use connecting bus service.116

Construction of the Metro has encour-aged some transit-oriented development,

but less than that achieved by other cit-ies. Adjacent to the Reisterstown RoadPlaza mall, the MTA built a day care cen-ter and police substation with fundingfrom the city of Baltimore and a LivableCommunities grant. A development atthe Charles Street Metro station includes250,000 square feet of office space and25,000 square feet of retail space.117

The Central Light Rail Line openedin 1992 and expanded in 1993, running26 miles from Hunt Valley in the north,through the west side of downtown, toCromwell Station/Glen Burnie in AnneArundel County. The light rail line cost$460 million to construct, far less thanthe subway, but because the state receivedlittle federal funding it chose to minimizecosts by not connecting the light rail lineto the Metro.118 Passengers transferringfrom light rail to subway must walk ablock to switch stations. MTA also savedmoney on the light rail line by building

A Metro station in downtown Baltimore


only a single track in many places, whichlimits the speed and frequency at whichtrains can run.

The light rail line carries 30,000 rid-ers per day.119 Commuters are the primaryusers of light rail: of the 3,000 hourly tripsduring commute times, 2,700 are in thepeak direction.120 As along the Metro line,the light rail has drawn relatively littledevelopment. A transit-oriented develop-ment project has recently been completedat Symphony Center that includes office,retail, and residential space and that addsanother close connection point betweenlight rail and subway.121 However, theproject’s impact will be blunted by its ex-tensive accommodation of vehicles.

The oldest component of the Balti-more area’s rail transit system is the Mary-land Area Rail Commuter (MARC)which carries 15,000 to 18,000 passen-gers per day from northeast of the city toWashington, D.C.122 Passenger servicehas been available along this route formore than 100 years, though the systemwas not named MARC until 1983.123 In thepast several years, Washington-area work-ers, frustrated by expensive home prices andcongested commutes, have begun purchas-ing homes in Baltimore neighborhoodsclose to Penn Station-Mount Vernon,Charles North, Bolton Hill, and ReservoirHill-and riding MARC to work.124 Thuslong-distance rail has provided a develop-ment boost to the Baltimore region.

The MTA plans to renovate much ofthe system in the next two years, but thiswill not address the basic problem thatthe system is inadequate. MTA will spend$80 million to overhaul all 100 rail carsover next two years, $45 million to fixelevators and escalators, and $73 millionto implement the SmartTrip fare-box sys-tem.125 SmartTrip is a “smart card” sys-tem that will facilitate transfers betweenbuses, light rail, and subway. These im-provements, while making the systemmore attractive and easier to use, will notsubstantially improve rail transit optionsin Baltimore.

Proposed SystemThe MTA envisions an extensive railtransit system. It would enhance the at-tractiveness of Baltimore and its innersuburbs as places to live, work, and visit.More importantly, a rail system couldserve as another tool for Maryland tocombat sprawl by helping to revitalizeurban Baltimore.

The proposed rail system would con-nect and expand upon existing lines. Byadding 66 new miles of track and 68 newstations, the completed system would in-clude six lines, 109 miles, and 122 sta-tions.126 Whether a section will beunderground, at street level, or elevatedwill be decided upon as plans are drawnup for each stage. The cost of construc-tion, desired speed of travel, reliability,noise, visual impacts, right-of-way issues,environmental impact, and effect on ve-hicular traffic will all weigh into the de-cision.127 The complete system isexpected to cost $12 billion over 40 years,and will require both state and federalfunds.128

MTA’s Advisory Committee recom-mends three high priority components ofthe system be completed within the next10 to 12 years.129 Those projects are theRed Line from the Social Security Com-plex through downtown to Fells Point; aGreen Line extension of the Metro fromJohns Hopkins Medical Campus north toMorgan State University; and a PurpleLine from Madison Square to MartinState Airport.130 These three projects willcost $2.5 billion.

The MTA counts air quality protec-tion, traffic control, urban development,and economic growth among the benefitsof an integrated rail system. As morepeople commute to work or travel to en-tertainment venues by rail, miles drivenwill be reduced from what they otherwisewould have been. This will help protectair quality, reduce the strain on existingroads, and slow demand for new roads.An estimated 6,900 to 12,800 new jobs


will be created by construction of the railsystem and by easier travel throughoutthe region.131 More than half the region’s1.4 million jobs will be within easy walk-ing distance of rail transit.132 Approxi-mately 850,000 people would live withinone mile of a transit station.133 MTAprojects an increase in personal incomeof $113 million to $209 million due tonew employment and greater profitabil-ity of businesses. It also forecasts an in-crease in property values of $641 millionto $1.2 billion due to greater develop-ment near rail stations.134

These benefits will not be realizedimmediately. Construction on the prior-ity sections will not be complete for adecade or more. Complementary devel-opment likely would not begin until con-struction on the nearest station was wellunderway. Larger effects, such as in-creased property values and a broader taxbase, will take longer.

Beginning work now on the expandedrail system is important. It will ensure theroutes are included in local master plansand will allow MTA to begin securingrights-of-way. The state will be able tobegin arranging funding for the project,specifically by requesting federal help forthe rail system when the TransportationEquity Act comes up for reauthorizationby Congress this year. Maryland will needto prioritize its requests.

Placing the Baltimore rail system at thetop of the list will have the greatest ben-efit for the state.

Federal funding for this rail transitproject is important for several reasons.First, the project is expensive andprogress will be slower if Maryland triesto finance the construction withoutfederal help. Secondly, the urban devel-opment impacts likely will be greater withfederal rather than state financing.135 Eco-nomic activity is drawn toward locationsthat have received public investments intransportation infrastructure. The drawis even greater when the funds come fromfederal rather than state sources. Thusspending money on transit in Baltimoreand its inner suburbs rather than in out-lying areas should encourage economicactivity in Baltimore. A study of trans-portation investments in and aroundPhiladelphia revealed that highway andtransit expenditures benefiting suburbanresidents were about 50 percent higherthan those benefiting city residents. Thisinvestment difference created an “eco-nomically significant, although not over-whelming, incentive for suburban ratherthan city locations for people and firms.”136

The estimated impact was the loss of40,000 jobs in the city of Philadelphia.137

Applying this observation to Baltimoresuggests that increasing transportationinvestments in the city will encourage eco-nomic activity and development withinexisting urban areas rather than new sub-urbs, and thus discourage sprawl.

Light Rail provides access to special events


Figure 11. The Rail System Proposed for Baltimore


S prawl is swallowing Maryland’sopen spaces while Baltimore’s po-tential as a vital economic and resi-

dential center remains largely untapped.One tool for revitalizing Baltimore andnearby suburbs and for controllingsprawl is to construct a comprehensiverail system.

Experience in other cities across thecountry suggests that a comprehensiverail system in Baltimore would be an as-set. Rail systems in a variety of cities-newand old, those with a history of rail andthose without, those that are mainlysprawl and those that have denser devel-opment-have attracted large numbers ofriders.

Maryland should prioritizeconstruction of a Baltimore railsystem when seeking federalfunding for transportation projects.

• The Transportation Equity Actreauthorization by Congress thisyear, known as TEA-3, will includefunding for Maryland. Whichspecific projects receive money willbe determined by the state’s prefer-ences.

• Rail in Baltimore will complementthe state’s existing anti-sprawl effortsmore than any highway constructionproject.

The benefits of expanded rail servicewill increase over the years, as higher rid-ership rates encourage development andas rising property values translate intoincreased tax revenues for the city. Start-ing planning and construction now willavoid additional delays in realizing thesebenefits.

The priority sections of rail, whichMTA anticipates could be completedwithin 10 to 12 years, are an impor-tant start.

• Those sections are a line from theSocial Security Complex east to FellsPoint, an extension of the subwayfrom Johns Hopkins Medical Cam-pus north to Morgan State Univer-sity, and a line from Madison Squareto Martin State Airport.

• Planning for these segments willrequire extensive public participationbefore MTA can begin purchasingrights-of-way. This review processshould begin now to build commu-nity agreement for the most usefulrouting of lines and placement ofstations.

• Large transit-oriented developmentscan take years to complete. Com-mencing rail planning and con-struction now will encouragecomplementary urban developmentand diminish the need for moreurban fringe growth.

MTA should review its policies toensure that they encourage transit-oriented development.

• Transit-oriented development is avital component of rail development:it ensures more homes and servicesare within easy walking distance ofrail lines and thus maximizes theusefulness of rail transit.

• Federal transportation funds oftencan be used as seed money fortransit-oriented development if thelocal transit agency has a develop-ment plan.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS


• The MTA can work with localgovernments to ensure that landaround transit stations is zoned formixed-use development. Creativeplanning with private developerscould encourage more projects, andproviding a liaison within the transitagency can ease the process fordevelopers.

Redevelopment of Baltimore has thepotential to curb sprawl on the urbanfringe. One of the most powerful toolsavailable to the state to meet this goal isbuilding a strong rail system in Baltimoreand its suburbs.


Light VersusHeavy RailLocal rail transit in the U.S. is dividedinto two categories: heavy rail and lightrail.138 What each category encompassesvaries depending on the source.

Heavy rail, also know as rapid rail,metro, or subway, is completely separatedfrom street and foot traffic. Cars are typi-cally powered by a ground-level, electri-fied, third rail. Because of the separaterights-of-way, heavy rail is more expen-sive to construct. The Federal TransitAdministration’s National Transit Data-base adds several more criteria to the defi-nition of heavy rail: the capacity for aheavy volume of traffic, high speed op-eration, single or multi-car trains, andhigh platform loading.139 In the preced-ing case studies, the term heavy rail meansa rail line powered by a third rail, operat-ing in a separate right-of-way.

In Baltimore, heavy rail is used on theMetro from Owings Mills to JohnsHopkins Medical Campus. The subwayis completely separated from other traf-fic, whether it is operating underground,at street level, and on elevated track. TheWashington, D.C. Metro, New York sub-way, and parts of the Los Angeles andBoston rail networks use heavy rail.

Light rail is primarily defined by itsoverhead, rather than ground-level,power supply, and by its ability to oper-ate in shared rights-of-way. Mixing withvehicle and pedestrian traffic is possiblebecause the raised power supply is lesshazardous. Further criteria applied tolight rail include the use of single cars orshort trains, the ability to load passengers

at track or car floor level, and lower traf-fic capacity than heavy rail.140 In this re-port, the phrase light rail means a railline powered through overhead wires, op-erating in separate or shared rights-of-way.

Baltimore uses light rail from HuntValley to Cromwell. Portland, St. Louis,Pittsburgh, San Diego, and Buffalo areother examples of light rail systems.

Passengers VersusBoardingsComparing passengers carried per day ona given rail system or line is a crucial as-pect of determining the success of a railsystem but is difficult to measure. Track-ing the number of riders would be simpleif every passenger rode a single train inthe morning, did not transfer betweenlines, and then made the trip in reversein the evening. In reality, trips are morecomplicated, however, and often involvetransfers between lines, different routesin the morning than in the evening, andperhaps an altogether different mode ofgetting home at night. As a result, transitoperators report boardings per day ratherthan passengers per day. Someone whotakes two trains to work in the morningand one train home at night is reportedas three boardings. In the case studiesabove, references to the number of rid-ers or passengers mean the number ofboardings.

The American Public TransportationAssociation provides a rough figure forcalculating the number of passengersfrom the number of boardings. Becausemost riders take just two trips per day,APTA estimates that the number of pas-sengers is 45 percent of the number ofboardings.141

APPENDIX


NOTES

1. U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 US Census Data,Database C90STF1A, downloaded fromvenus.census.gov/cdrom/lookup, 15 January2003; U.S. Census Bureau, Geographic ComparisonTable, GCT-P5, Age and Sex: 2000, downloadedfrom factfinder.census.gov, 15 January 2003.2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Whitman Announces $14.6 Million in BrownfieldsGrants to Assess the Contamination of AbandonedProperties in 80 Communities Around the Nation,20 May 2002.3. City of Baltimore, Comprehensive AnnualFinancial Report, Year Ended June 30, 1999, 6December 1999, x.4. Ibid., vi.5. Stephen Kiehl, “State Betting Rail ExpansionWill Get Commuters on Track,” Baltimore Sun,19 November 2002.6. Report of the Advisory Committee, BaltimoreRegion Rail System Plan, August 2002, 21.7. California Department of Transportation,Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study:Factors for Success in California, Technical Appendix,September 2002, 15.8. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Movin’ On: DART2001 Annual Report, downloaded fromwww.dart.org/newsroommain.asp?zeon=annualreport, 22 November 2002.9. Ibid.10. Gary Hufstedler, Senior Manager, PlanningInformation and Analysis, Dallas Area RapidTransit, personal communication, 3 January 2003.11. Ibid.12. Ibid.13. Ibid.14. Larry Lynn, personal communication, 27December 2002.15. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, DART Newsroom:DART Rail Generates Major Real Estate Impact,downloaded from www.dart.orgnewsroommain.asp?zeon=economicimpact,22 November 2002.16. Ibid.17. Op. Cit. 8.18. Op. Cit. 7, p. 23.19. Ibid.20. Scott Reed, Chief Public Affairs Officer,Denver Regional Transportation District,personal communication, 27 November 2002.

21. Light Rail Now! “Denver Ridership HitsTarget,” Light Rail Progress, July 2000.22. Op. Cit. 20.23. Ibid.24. Regional Transit District, Transit-OrientedDevelopment, downloaded from www.rtd-denver.com/projects/TOD, 2 January 2003.25. Op. Cit. 7, p. 26.26. MTA, Transit Operations: Metro Rail System,downloaded from www.mta.net/press/press-room/transitops.htm, 22 November 2002; andFacts at a Glance, MTA, downloaded fromwww.mta.net/press/pressroom/facts.htm, 22November 2002.27. Light Rail Now! “Los Angeles: Rail Rider-ship Surges,” Light Rail Progress, 10 July 2001.28. California Department of Transportation,Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study:Factors for Success in California, September 2002, 102.29. Rea & Parker Research, Los Angeles CountyMetropolitan Transportation Authority FY2002On-Board Rail Survey: Follow-up Telephone SurveyReport, October 2002, 13.30. Op. Cit. 28, p. 86.31. Facts at a Glance, MTA, downloaded fromwww.mta.net/press/pressroom/facts.htm, 22November 2002.32. Mary Fetsch, Director of Communications,Tri-Met, personal communication, 3 December2002.33. Tri-Met, Eastside MAX Turns Sweet 16!,downloaded from www.tri-met.org/news/aug0208.htm, 22 November 2002.34. TriMet, MAX System Overview, downloadedfrom www.trimet.org/history/maxpage.html, 30December 2002.35. TriMet, MAX Blue Line Overview, down-loaded from www.trimet.org/history/bluepage.html, 30 December 2002.36. Mary Fetsch, Director of Communications,Tri-Met, personal communication, 2 January 2003.37. Op. Cit. 34.38. TriMet, Airport Max Red Line Overview,downloaded from www.trimet.org/history/redpage.html, 30 December 2002.39. Op. Cit. 34.40. TriMet, Airport MAX Marks 1st YearAnniversary, downloaded from www.tri-met.org/news/sep0201.htm, 22 November 2002.


41. Op. Cit. 32.42. Op. Cit. 34.43. Op. Cit. 42.44. TriMet, TriMet Ridership Statistics,downloaded from www.tri-met.org/factsandphotos/index.htm, 22 November 2002.45. Op. Cit. 34.46. TriMet, TriMet Annual Ridership SetRecords, downloaded from www.tri-met.org/news/prjul0206.htm, 22 November 2002.47. Ibid.48. Op. Cit. 7, p. 35.49. Op. Cit. 34.50. Light Rail Now! “Salt Lake City: LightRail’s a Hit,” Light Rail Progress, November2002.51. Ibid.52. Mike Hansen, Strategic Planner, UtahTransit Authority, Strategic Planner, personalcommunication, 7 January 2003.53. Op. Cit. 50.54. Utah Transit Authority, TRAX Packed, pressrelease 21 August 2002.55. Mike Hanson, Strategic Planner, UtahTransit Authority, personal communication, 27November 2002.56. Utah Transit Authority, UTA Receives APTAAward, downloaded from www.utabus.com/news/details.asp?ID=237, 22 November 2002.57. Op. Cit. 50.58. Ibid.59. Utah Transit Authority, “TRAX MedicalCenter Light Rail Transit Project,” MakingTRAX, August 2002.60. “Clamoring for More TRAX Lines”(editorial), Deseret News, 5 September 2002.61. Texas Transportation Institute, 2002 UrbanMobility Study, 2002, Table 1.62. Paul Weyrich and William Lind, AmericanPublic Transportation Association, Does TransitWork? A Conservative Reappraisal, downloadedfrom www.apta.com/info/online/weyrich2new2.html, 2 December 2002.63. Ibid.64. Becca Arnold, Transit Analyst, San DiegoAssociation of Governments, personal commu-nication, 6 December 2002.65. Op. Cit. 62.66. Op. Cit. 64.67. Op. Cit. 62.68. Op. Cit. 28, p. 110.

69. Op. Cit. 28, p. 87.70. Op. Cit. 28, p. 108.71. Metropolitan Transit System, Mission ValleyEast Light Rail Transit, downloaded fromwww.sdcommute.com/mps/mve/factsheet.asp,31 December 2002.72. Pamela Jang, Community and PublicRelations, San Francisco Municipal Railway,personal communication, 8 January 2003.

73. PriceWaterhouseCoopers, “Review ofProperty Value Impacts at Rapid TransitStations and Lines,” Richmond/Airport-VancouverRapid Transit Project, 3 April 2001, 6(3).74. Op. Cit. 28, p. 85.75. Bay Area Rapid Transit, BART Chronology,downloaded from www.bart.gov/docs/about-hist-chron2001.pdf, 6 December 2002.76. Janice Lee, Administrative Analyst, BART,personal communication, 24 January 2003.77. Op. Cit. 75.78. Op. Cit. 28, p. 84.79. Ibid.80. Federal Highway Administration, U.S.Department of Transportation, Fruitvale TransitVillage Project, downloaded fromwww.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ejustice/case/case6.htm, 22 January 2003.81. Op. Cit. 62.82. Bi-State Development Agency, Arts inTransit, Self-Guided MetroLink Tour, October1999; and MetroLink, Fact Sheet Background.83. Op. Cit. 62.84. Metrolink, Fact Sheet Background.85. Op. Cit. 62.86. Light Rail Now! “Light Rail’s StunningTrack Record in Meeting—and Exceeding—Ridership Projections,” Light Rail Progress,March 2001.87. Op. Cit. 84.88. Op. Cit. 62.89. Light Rail Now! “St. Louis MetroLink LightRail Ridership Hits 160,000 a Day,” Light RailProgress, January 2001.90. “An Open Letter from County ExecutiveBuzz Westfall and Mayor Francis Slay,”Community Link, Cross County MetroLink, July2002.91. Bi-State Development Agency, Facts andFigures, downloaded from www.bi-state.org/facts.html, 20 March 2002; and Op. Cit. 62.92. Bi-State Development Agency, 2002-2003Facts At A Glance & Pocket Calendar.


93. Transit Service Expansion Plan, WashingtonMetropolitan Area Transit Authority, April1999, 13.94. Lyndsey Layton, “Giving New MetroSegment a Whirl,” Washington Post, 14November 2000, B03.95. Rick Stevens, Director of Business Planningand Development, Washington MetropolitanArea Transit Authority, personal communica-tion, 17 January 2003.96. Ibid.97. Op. Cit. 5.99. Lyndsey Layton, “Metro Wants ShorterStops,” Washington Post, 18 July 2000, A01.100. Op. Cit. 7, p. 39.101. PriceWaterhouseCoopers, “Review ofProperty Value Impacts at Rapid TransitStations and Lines,” Richmond/Airport-VancouverRapid Transit Project, 3 April 2001, 6(2).102. Transit Cooperative Research Program, AnEvaluation of the Relationships Between Transit andUrban Form, Research Results Digest, No. 7,June 1995, 36.

103. Op. Cit. 7, p. 34.

104. Op. Cit. 7, p. 39.

105. Gloria Ohland, Great American StationFoundation, Transit-Oriented Development inFour Cities, presented to the Partnership forRegional Livability, August 2001.

106. Ibid.

107. Op. Cit. 7, p. 25.

108. Op. Cit. 105.

109. Op. Cit. 102, p. 31.

110. Ibid., p. 34.

111. Ibid.

112. Ibid., p. 38.

113. Ibid.

114. Op. Cit. 29, p. 19.

115. Op. Cit. 5.

116 Op. Cit. 6, p. 25.

117. Op. Cit. 7, p. 15.

118. Op. Cit. 115.

119. Stephen Kiehl, “Maryland Rail Plan LinksSuburbs to Downtown,” Baltimore Sun, 16November 2002; and 2050 projection: TonyBrown.

120. Light Rail Now! “Baltimore: ResoundingNew Light Rail Success on the East Coast,”Light Rail Progress, August 2000.121. Op. Cit. 7, p. 16.122. Tony Brown, Project DevelopmentDepartment, Maryland Transit Administration,personal communication, 6 December 2002.123. Kathryn Waters, Manager and ChiefOperating Officer, MARC Train Service, TransitProfiles: History of MARC, downloaded fromwww.mtamaryland.com/aboutmta/transit_profile.cfm, 6 December 2002.124. Alan Oser, “Commuters to WashingtonAre Buying in Baltimore,” The New York Times,6 October 2002.125. Op. Cit. 5.126. Op. Cit. 6, p. 4.127. Ibid., p. 10.128. Ibid., p. 4.129. Ibid., p. 2.130. Ibid., p. 5.131. Ibid., p. 21.132. Ibid., p. 11.133. Ibid., p. 18.134. Ibid., p. 21.135. Richard Voith, Federal Reserve Bank ofPhiladelphia, Transportation Investments in thePhiladelphia Metropolitan Area: Who Benefits?Who Pays? And What Are the Consequences?Working Paper No. 98-7, 22 March 1998, 4.136. Ibid.137. Ibid., 60.138. Op. Cit. 6, p. 10.139. Glossary of Transit Terminology as Defined forNTD Reporting—2001, downloaded fromwww.ntdprogram.com/NTD/ReprtMan.nsf/docs/glossary, 19 November 2002.140. Jack Boorse, E.L. Tennyson, JohnSchumann, Transportation Research Board, Thisis Light Rail Transit, November 2000, 3; andGlossary of Transit Terminology as Defined for NTDReporting—2001, downloaded fromwww.ntdprogram.com/NTD/ReprtMan.nsf/docs/glossary, 19 November 2002.141. American Public Transportation Associa-tion, Number of People Using Public Transportation,downloaded from www.apta.com/stats/ridership/people.htm, 27 November 2002.

36 MaryPIRG Foundation Design by Harriet Eckstein Graphic Design • Santa Barbara, CA

Documents

RAIL TRANSIT WORKS