THE "BURLINGTON [VT] GOPHER"--LIGHT RAIL LINE
The outline for a Burlington (VT) Light Rail Line, the "Gopher", stemmed from a suggestion that the 1.5 mile corridor from the bustling and planned major development up two levels to the Church Street Marketplace and then clearly the two largest institutions--University of Vermont (UVM) and Fletcher Allen Health Center (FAHC)--overlooking the City continue to be best served by a pedestrian bus service. The suggestion asserted that a light rail line alternative, a Gopher if you will, just could not be done because of the expense.....
Is light rail too expensive
from the Waterfront to UVM/FAHC? Is the
money available, can it be available?
Good questions. Yes, buses can be
electric—Toronto has some nice ones.
Still, a bus is a bus—inferior to the performance and attractiveness to
the customer.
Let’s look further into the
cost, availability of funds, etc.
Regarding population, I am
not a believer in the “Population Growth Elf” or the “Traffic Growth Elf” for
Burlington or the County for that matter—population growth will continue to be mostly
oldsters and continued immigration, much of it from distant points--not even
global warming likely changes this for some decades.
Vermonters always show a
certain sense of what their State and communities need for now and the
future. For the now past auto age,
Vermonters, perhaps seeing the car was not the inevitable future, rejected in a
statewide vote the rooftop highway during the depression. It represented one prescient choice—the Green
Mountain Parkway, which really could have literally divided the State east and
west along the Route 100 corridor, bit the dust. (One casualty of that project
was its inclusion in the plan of an equestrian trail in the highway right of
way.) Obviously the rooftop highway was
affordable since it was funded wholly with federal funds. What a gift! (We may say the same for certain sections of
the interstate system in the not too distant future.) The Green Mountain Parkway idea would
generate gales of laughter today—as would recently the Circumferential Highway,
the “Circ”, does some sixty years later (well laughter from Burlingtonians at
least).
The Champlain Parkway
project now shows the same shagginess as the Circ—the original now
“Parkwayette” $37 million project construction now devolves down to about $25-$30
million with the City policy now to “finish” the unaddressed connection from
Pine to Battery with some sensible and simple street segments. Even the fate of the original downsized
“Parkwayette” from the end of Pine to Lakeshore Drive remains murky—note the
29% decline in traffic on Pine Street since 1989 in the vicinity of the old
Vermont Transit terminal (and still declining like practically all streets
feeding the Burlington downtown from the outside, the Traffic Growth Elf not to
be seen at work here)!
Given those numbers as a
background, consider that each year Chittenden County gets a quarter of the new
federal highway largess of over $200 million to fund various highway, walk and
bike projects, and transit. Amtrak right
now is funded only with State dollars.
The Chittenden boodle is about $50 million new money each year—a third
of those funds, say $15 million a year could be used for capital and operating
funds for transit projects with up to 80% federal-20% state/local match. We get $50 million a year, a half billion
dollars a decade to dole out for various purposes in transportation. The region even dumped about the equivalent of
one year of apportionments into the ill-fated planning and design of the
abandoned Circ. Vermont Digger cites the
figure of $40 million in planning funds devoted to that expired effort.
In regard to a two-track
roughly 1.5 light rail line from the waterfront/Union Station to UVM/FAHC via
the Marketplace using a modern trolley car like those in Toronto or the San Francisco
Muni line. Assume operating every day
about the same hours as bus routes with 10-minute peak hour headways (requires
three trolley units and one spare). The
yearly operating costs likely equal or slightly below those buses. Light rail cars clearly provide a larger,
more comfortable, higher bike loading capacity than a bus. So regarding cost, there are two key cost
elements really, the initial capital cost of the line and the transit vehicles. (Of course trolleys can operate in multiple
units—some yet to be accomplished using buses.)
The transit vehicles have a lifespan of 30-40 years, really endless
based on the demand on ancient trolleys operating on the Market Street line to
Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco. Let’s
sort of admit these cost more than buses but because they draw more riders than
buses, the cost per rider (support) evens out or even bends to the trolley
side.
So, it all comes down to the
capital costs and how to finance them.
The two studies in the 1990s looked at longer routes, to Winooski, South
Burlington and the airport. The “Trunk” section in the 1999 was the
segment from the waterfront to UVM/FAHC via the Marketplace (College or Main
were the options). If one takes the “Trunk” cost from the 1999 study, the
capital cost for the track, catenary, etc. amounts to—and the figure seems
scary--$60 million with adjustment for inflation. These estimates need
to be revisited but so would the route of light rail in view of the new plan
being developed for the waterfront. But
spread over 25 years (like bonding for an new highway or passenger rail
project) amounts to about $3 million a year.
The cost for two Amtrak trains this year $4.5 state dollars serving less
than 100,000 passengers, far fewer than the current College Street shuttle
operating 200 days a year and far below a 365 day light rail service.
Not all is lost here, one
can apply for a separate capital grant and operating funds with an 80 federal-20
state split of the capital cost (say $3 million annually) and the operating
cost of about $1.5 million—the shuttle would be free as it is now. That funding would not come from the annual Chittenden
County apportionments of federal funds.
Second, you could use some of that apportionment to Chittenden to fund
either capital and/or operating costs.
Finally—and this is important—what do you think will happened to
property values along the waterfront and Lake Street with a full time light rail service available
making it a ten minute ride to the Marketplace, Library, Roxy, City Market—and
five minutes further to UVM, the Health Center, and FAHC? And what will be the reasonable amount of tax
revenues from the presence of this light rail service—certainly a portion of
the “trolley tax yield” fairly goes to the operation and capital accounts of
light rail. Can a bus do that?
Consider the other benefits
of light rail. For the driver-operators,
the task is far easier—no steering wheel, rapid acceleration and stopping
compared to vehicles with rubber tires—overall far less stress and strain. For riders no more listening to the noise of
engines straining up the grades. And all
those bicycles we can entrain! If you want to experience some waste of light
rail investment in terms of passenger usage, take a ride on some of the lines
in Sacramento or San Jose—the Burlington Gopher will surely outshine them just
about anytime.
Let’s get a light rail
“re-plan” going and apply for the funds, get support from the Metro towns,
etc. Seems cheap to me….
