On May 21, the second meeting of the Alternative Transportation Study Advisory Committee met at City Hall. DeWain and Carlos represented RRTC. A/E Group Team gave the "Access to Employment" report, and, of special interest to our organization, they were followed by Ken Sislak of Wilbur Smith Associates who presented the second progress report on the feasibility of an LRT line from Charlotte through downtown to the U of R. He accompanied his presentation with a highly-detailed written report entitled, "Rochester Light Rail Economic Development Feasibility Study - Interim Report #1" consisting of more than 125 pages of text and charts. The report is also the product of Erdman Anthony and Fisher Associates.

Although a preliminary report, it has as much material in it as many recent "final" transportation reports in this region. In general, it indicates that the potential for Light Rail Transit in this corridor is promising, although one is warned not to jump to any conclusions. The report examines and describes the corridor itself, including its history. The North Section begins by the lake in Charlotte and runs south and slightly west to Ridge Road, a half mile west of Dewey Ave. The Middle Section follows the old Conrail (New York Central) Secondary right of way due south past Ridgeway, Lexington, Emerson, and Lyell before turning east to where the old subway bed has been filled in. The line can either use the old subway and go underground at the Brown St. portal, or it can stay on the surface and go over to Plymouth Ave. and pass in front of Frontier Field and enter the subway where Plymouth and Broad St. intersect. The line uses the old Broad St. subway tunnel into downtown. The South Section has two key alternative alignments: it can go as far as the War Memorial and then head down Exchange Blvd. and join the old Erie right of way south of the Troup Howell Bridge, or it can cross the river in the aqueduct, as did the Subway, and head south along the east bank of the river going in front or behind the Genesee Gateway apartments. This segment ends on the U of R campus at Elmwood Ave. near Strong Memorial Hospital/Medical Center.

The study analyses such attributes of the corridor as Land Uses and Zoning; Neighborhood Demographics; Civic Facilities; Special Events held in this area; Existing Highways, Bus Lines, Pedestrians and Bicycles. It also examines existing plans and visions for these areas and how an LRT line would impact such plans. Some interesting facts: our metro area has a population of just over 1 million and an urbanized (higher density) area of over 620,000. 491,000 are employed in this area of which 40,000 work in the Central Business District. This gives us a CBD employment density of 104 persons/acre. One rather surprising statistic is that 23.7% of the households in the South Section have no automobile; 39.3% in the Middle Section; and 23.7% in the North Section. Thus, nearly one-quarter of the 204,000 people living in 105,000 households, of whom 204,000 are working do not have the option of driving their own car to work or anywhere else! The study does a good job of cataloging the characteristics of this north-south corridor and is highly informative in its own right. Another interesting fact is that Rochester enjoys one of the finest highway systems in the country as measured by average number of highway lane miles per 1,000 persons, average daily vehicle miles traveled per lane mile, and levels (or lack thereof) of congestion. We have 755 lane miles of express highways which is very good for an area of this size.

Chapter 3 compares Rochester with other US cities that operate or are planning Light Rail systems--the so-called "Peer Cities Comparison." In its introduction, the study emphasizes that simply building LRT is no guarantee, absent of other civic policies, that a line will invigorate the adjacent area. LRT is a key component of growth but not a magic potion. Even if you build it; they might not come! Chapter 3 reiterates that caution but allows us to see how cities with characteristics similar to Rochester have been successful with Light Rail. Although many cities in Europe smaller than Rochester successfully operate LRT, no cities outside the USA are considered. Among the many numbers in this section: Rochester is lowest in traffic congestion, which bears out last summer's GTC study that an LRT line is not justified on the basis of any real or perceived traffic problem. Ten cities have built LRT since 1981, adding themselves to the seven that had it since earlier in the century. Twelve LRT cities have urbanized areas of less then 2 million. Rochester has a smaller overall population, and lower urbanize area population than any city currently operating LRT. The reason these two numbers have been important over the years is that they tend to indicate population density or "persons per acre." In this area, Rochester compares favorably with 4.4 persons/acre. This is higher than such LRT cities as St. Louis, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh. Our CBD employment is less than the LRT cities. We also lack the level of traffic congestion of most LRT cities. Looking at cities already operating LRT, it appears that Rochester is a bit too small and underpopulated to consider light rail.

It is more revealing to look at those cities in various stages of planning and designing new LRT systems. Of the 24 cities planning LRT, Rochester is larger than 16 and has an urbanized area population larger than 10. We already noted that our population density is characteristic of a rather large city. Only Burlington, Vt. (with geographic constraints), Honolulu (with very high land cost), and Seattle have a denser population among the 24 "planning LRT" cities. We have more urban employment than 10 of these cities and higher transit usage than 12. Thus, we are "in the pack" of two dozen American cities seriously looking at or actually designing LRT systems.

The study then compared Rochester to recently studied corridors in Charlotte, Columbus, Hartford, Salt Lake City, and St. Louis. Our corridor population is exactly the average of these five other cities, as is our portion of all urbanized employment. Only Charlotte, NC has a higher amount of employment along its corridor. Except for Hartford, which has a lot of people commuting to New York City, our transit usage is similar.

The cost of building LRT, in more recent years, runs from $16 million to $79 million per mile. A more representative range would be $16-25 million. The more expensive costs reflect systems having extensive tunnels and elevated structures and new right of way acquisition. The least costly are more similar to Rochester in that they use existing rail rights of way and street running segments. Rochester's unique advantage is having the Broad Street Subway Tunnel along with connecting abandoned and lightly used rail rights of way.

Looking at economic impact is more difficult because there have not been the amount of studies as have been done on new Heavy Rail systems. Anecdotal evidence tends to support the positive impact seen with Heavy Rail. When used as part of a planned and coordinated urban development effort, LRT has a positive impact. Los Angeles proves that in the absence of such effort, an LRT line alone cannot transform a blighted area.

The study's conclusions agree with the GTC study of August, 1996, that Rochester does not compare with cities already operating LRT and does not appear to have as supportive an environment for LRT. However, this study indicates that Rochester compares favorably with cities currently studying or designing LRT. Rochester has a good transit use base which should grow with LRT. The corridor has a high percentage of no-car households. We have a dense population in our urbanized area. The corridor serves: Charlotte Beach, Kodak Park, stable northwest neighborhoods, Kodak Office, Frontier Field, High Falls, the War Memorial, Rundel Library, Midtown, Four Corners, the Convention Center, Corn Hill, the riverfront parklands, and the U of R-Medical Center complex. The line could be easily extended into Brighton and Henrietta to serve RIT and the Marketplace area. The conclusion: There is reason to continue studying LRT in Rochester!

The report was generally well-received with many thoughtful questions. Ken asked for our ideas regarding alignment options and station locations. There is growing consensus with having the line run down Plymouth past Frontier Field and into the subway at Broad/Plymouth. There is less agreement from that point. The line should cross the Genesee River to get close to Midtown but the east-bank alignment through Genesee Gateway and on Mt. Hope Ave. is less attractive than the west-bank which uses the Erie right of way and crosses over at the University. One solution is to use the former Subway to Court St. and cross back over the river beyond the Troup-Howell bridge. This is expensive. Another option would be for the line to go on or under Exchange St. past the War Memorial and on to the Erie R.O.W., with a downtown loop that crosses the river and comes to the surface at East Broad by the new library. Eastbound cars would loop on Clinton to Amtrak to St. Paul, and back to the subway at South/Broad. This has more complex operating characteristics than a "single line" through-routed from North to South but does get LRT to Midtown--one of the big shortcomings of the old Subway.

Following the meeting, Ken said that the consultants were pleasantly surprised by the results, and he believes that Rochester is not only a good LRT candidate, but that an entire new tier of American cities are becoming similar candidates. He feels strongly that our recent reliance on highways will not get us the cities we want. No argument from RRTC! the next step is to get a handle on capital costs, ridership estimates, and some estimates of economic impact.

I realize that this is a very long article, but it is probably the best news we've had in this city in a generation with regard to the potential for rail transit. Stay tuned!!