If this snippet in the Seattle Times is correct, that's the offical position of the Seattle City Council.
The [South Lake Union streetcar] service, which started in December 2007, averages 1,500 riders per weekday, one-quarter of what a crosstown bus route carries.
The city assumes employment growth will triple use by 2012, and that advertising income will rebound from recession.
And if those things don't happen, will the city keep giving the streetcar big loans?
So far, the council appears to prefer hope to experience. Usually, though not always, that's a mistake.
Posted by Jim Miller at September 22, 2009 05:32 PM | Email ThisAnd we will get more of the same from Mallahan and McGinn. Mr. Magoo would be a good write in. At least then there would be a legitimate excuse for not reading the fine print.
Posted by: Burdabee on September 23, 2009 10:13 AMCAPITAL COST
Initial estimate: $45 million
Real cost: $52.1
Distortion: 16%
OPERATING & MAINTENANCE COSTS
Initial estimate: $1.7 million
Real cost: $2.4 million
Distortion: 41%
RIDERSHIP PROJECTIONS
Initial daily average estimate: 3151
Real daily boardings: 1283
Distortion: 59%
RIDERSHIP NOTES
Local officials commissioned a $214,000 feasibility study for the SLUT in 2004, which yielded the above projections. They buzzed about it to the public, but once funding was secured, they slashed their daily ridership projections by 70% to 950, and are now congratulating themselves on the 1283 number, which is 59% lower than originally claimed, because it "exceeds their expectations."
Also, as the article notes, officials are claiming ridership will MORE THAN TRIPLE once Amazon's HQ moves in. Even ST transportation reporter Mike Lindblom finds that hard to believe, and notes that WALKING IS OFTEN AS FAST (OR FASTER) THAN TAKING THE SLUT.
FINANCING
Despite collecting more than half of its capital costs from "private financing" (localized taxation), it is still running in the red from operating costs alone, which is why Nickels has secured $3.65 million in yet-unpaid loans just to fund its annual O&M costs.
RAIL ADVOCACY
Rail advocacy is one of the most bizarre social phenomena I'm aware of. Never will you find people so enamored of Orwellian Newspeak.
By changing cost projections as the project progresses, advocates are allowed to claim they came in under budget when they double the original estimate.
By changing ridership projections in the same way, advocates claim they came in over ridership projections, even when it may be half the original number.
Despite obstructing or eliminating more versatile modes of transit (e.g., auto, bus), advocates claim they are "creating transportation options."
Despite the environmental consequences of rail in per-capita excess of the automobile, advocates claim it is more "eco-friendly."
Despite killing more jobs and nationalizing more economic activity than it creates, advocates claim it has revitalized a locality.
Despite turning revenue-generating transit markets into permanent, cost-hemorrhaging tax liabilities, and often costing billions to carry less than 1% transit share, advocates claim "it works!"
None seem to recognize that not all Americans wish to be forced out of their cars, yet to them this is a goal we are working toward "together."
Watch for these truly bizarre, Orwellian claims. They are pervasive in publications from government, private consultants with government contracts, advocacy literature (e.g., Smart Growth, liberal/urban magazines), and trade literature (e.g., architecture, planning) to name a few. Also watch for the equally bizarre and utterly insecure propensity of advocates to demand we model ourselves after Europe/Asia/Portland/NYC.
Posted by: gulliver on September 23, 2009 11:55 AMThe loans have little to do with ridership but with advertising revenue. In a deep recession like this, advertising definitely bottoms out.
Posted by: John Jensen on September 24, 2009 05:34 PM