URBAN MOBILITY STRATEGIES: A COMPARISON The Phoenix METRO Light Rail & the Ningbo Metro Line 1

Adam Odgers 1134950 Comparative Studies on Chinese and American Urban Development Prof. WANG Lan Winter Semester 2011 Tongji University

Introduction Similarly to a living organism, a city consists of many complicated systems operating simultaneously, not the least important of which is the circulatory system. As circulated blood brings oxygen to the organisms various extremities, so does a citys transportation system enable daily life to occur, moving people as fast as possible between home, work, leisure and consumption. As a city become larger, the stress and strain on its circulation system becomes greater. These stresses and strains, however, vary depending upon how a city grows. In the case of Phoenix, in the American southwest, the city has grown outward as a result of the sprawling development of single-family homes and accompanying car-oriented urban structure. The city of Ningbo in Zhejiang Province of eastern China has also grown outward, but simultaneously inward and upward, resulting in a densifying urban region similar to other cities in China experiencing rapid economically-charged growth. Coincidentally, both cities are in the process of recharging their transportation infrastructures by inserting drastically new mobility systems. In an attempt to understand how mobility systems affect urban fabric, this paper will briefly compare the implementation and subsequent effects of the Phoenix METRO Light Rail and the Ningbo Metro Line 1. Phoenix, composed largely of post-war suburbs, has developed into a car-oriented city highly dependent on wide roads and large-scale highways. Its metropolitan region is home to over 4 million1 while its urban center, consisting of around 64 sq. miles has around 1.4 million1 inhabitants, a relatively low density for an urban center. The METRO Light Rail system was developed as a commuter/local express compromise, linking the Phoenixs urban center with adjacent neighborhoods to the north and east. The first phase of the METRO Light Rail has been in operation since 2008. Ningbo, a wealthy and budding commercial center and port in Zhejiang Province, 220km south of Shanghai in the Peoples Republic of China has a much older and more organic developmental history, and finds itself with around 7.6 million1 residents in its metropolitan region, nearly half1 of which are living in its urban center (comparably sized to that of Phoenix). Ningbos Metro system has been in development since the beginning of the 2000s and is currently under construction. Phoenix is one of nearly 20 of the largest US cities depending heavily on the car for daily commuting. In 2008, around 73% of commuters drove alone in their personal cars to work while only 4% rode public transportation2. The precise number of auto commuters in Ningbo is unknown, but it is important to remark that in 2011 there are an estimated 70,000,000 privately owned cars in China3 and Zhejiang province ranks 3rd behind only Beijing and Shanghai in terms of private car ownership4. It also ranks 3rd in personal income4, indicating that economic development plays a large role in private car ownership. In the case of Phoenix, the METRO Light Rail was intended to be an alternative for commuters travelling into the city center for work, but also as a new urban development generator. The Ningbo Metro, on the other hand, is intended to be a massive congestion stress-reliever, reducing the need for bus and taxi traffic and moving citizens much faster in and through the Ningbo Urban Center. Until now, the extent of public transport in both cities has consisted of bus systems. Bus systems are limited, however, in that they must also navigate through car traffic and make many more local stops. Light rail and subway metro systems are both considered alternatives, replacements and sometimes extensions of existing bus systems. However, the differences
1 2

Demographia World Urban Areas: 7th Annual Edition (2011.04) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USCommutePatterns2006.png 3 http://www.4thmedia.org/2011/07/20/number-of-privately-owned-cars-in-china-exceeds-70m/ 4 Xin Deng: Calculated from China Statistical Yearbook (2001, 2004)

between the two are in their passenger capacities and subsequently their up-front investment costs. On a scale putting buses at one end and full train systems at the other, light rail might fall in the middle towards busses and a subway might fall in the middle towards a commuter train system.

Phoenix, Arizona, USA with METRO Light Rail Route in green, image approx. 38.6km by 19.3km Urban Center highlighted5

Ningbo, Zhejiang, Peoples Republic of China with Metro Line 1 Route in red, image approx. 38.6km by 19.3km Urban Center highlighted5

Time Line6,7 As late as 1997, the citizens of Phoenix & Scottsdale were still rejecting legislation that would fund a Light Rail system through a cent sales tax increase. This illustrates how
5 6

www.google.com/maps http://www.azrail.org/trains/transit/transit-history/ 7 www.nbmetro.com

the issue of public transport can be hotly debated in a city where private transport is preferred and celebrated. Then in 2000, the tipping point was finally reached as funding was approved for the Light Rail system (also including funding for road improvements). In 2002, a Regional Transportation Plan was approved as well as the cent sales tax increase rejected only 5 years prior. This provided funding to match the federal investment of 15.8 billion for transit improvements. Around the same time, the municipal government of Ningbo completed the Ningbo City Rapid Rail Transit Development Plan including plans for at least 6 new metro lines. Following this, until 2006, the city of Ningbo established the administrative framework needed locally to execute the design, construction, and management of the first two lines. Municipal governments in China are usually composed of a combination of locally elected officials and state-appointed party secretaries or watchdogs. Ningbo, however, apparently with its burgeoning economy experiences a certain degree of autonomy. Nevertheless, all transportation developments and decisions must ultimately have the blessing of the central government and are in fact officially owned by the state. After three years of planning, construction on the Phoenix METRO Light Rail began in 2005. In 2006 and 2007, the management offices and headquarters for the Ningbo Metro were established and incorporated and finally, in 2008, the state officially approved the Ningbo Rail Transit plan. The Phoenix METRO Light Rail began operation in December of 2008. Construction on the Ningbo Metro Line 1 began in 2009 and is projected to begin operation in 2014. Costs/Specifications8,9 The Phoenix METRO Light Rail was funded by a combination of local tax dollars and federal subsidy. As is the case with many such systems in United States, it is considered locally owned and operated. The Federal governments role in transportation is limited generally to Interstate Highways. So far, $1.4 billion have been invested in the METRO Light Rail. This equates to about $43.75 million per each of its 32 km. This 32 km route is divided into twenty stations and the entire system is located completely on grade, sometimes in the middle of existing roads, sometimes to the side. Trains can travel at speeds of up to 88km/hour. As of October 2011, daily ridership had reached 38,700. By contrast, the Ningbo Metro is locally funded and operated but considered Stateowned. The cost of Line 1, so far, has been around $1.95 billion equating to a cost of about $91.5 million per each of its 21.3 kilometers. Line 1 will also have 20 stations, 4 of which will be elevated and 16 of which will be underground. The trains will travel at speeds of up to 80km/hour and it is expected to have a ridership of over 3 million during peak travel times. Marketing The way both cities have promoted their new transport programs is remarkably similar with visually stimulating websites featuring designed logos. As each system will provide a kind of competition to existing taxi and car industries, the ability of each to sell itself is very important. One point of amusement regarding the Phoenix Light Rail is the public selection of the word METRO as its name. The generally accepted trade word for an underground train system is actually metro, therefore the use of this word for a light rail system is a misnomer.
8 9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Light_Rail_(Phoenix) www.nbmetro.com 4

Phoenix METRO/Ningbo Metro home page screen shots10,11

It is also interesting to note the difference between the ways in which each new system is being marketed. The Phoenix METRO Light Rail has spawned a series of privately funded websites that enable users to search for shopping12 and dining13 possibilities near Light Rail stations. These sites have been subsequently sanctioned by commerce groups as well as the Phoenix METRO Light Rail company itself. By contrast, the Ningbo Metro seems to use itself as a platform to promote social programs including Childrens Outreach, Communist Party Morale, and Public Civility11. It could therefore be said that the Phoenix METRO Light Rail is used more as a Market-Building instrument whereas the Ningbo Metro is used more as a Community-Building instrument. The obvious conclusion would be that this is directly attributable to the different political systems in which each city exists. However, on second look, it has also to do with the intentions of each system. The Phoenix METRO hopes to regenerate urban fabric where the Ningbo Metro hopes to relieve transport stress. Design The Phoenix METRO Light Rail trains consist of two connected wagons operating on grade and providing interior storage space for bicycles. The stations are all open-air and more or less the same design, streamlining the infrastructure costs. The Ningbo Metro is much more complicated due to its higher capacity and underground implementation. Several renderings of the elevated station designs have been provided on the website. By the very nature of the infrastructure, the impact on the urban fabric will vary from light rail to metro.

10 11

http://www.valleymetro.org/metrolightrail/ www.nbmetro.com 12 www.shiftarizona.com 13 www.phxrailfood.com

Phoenix METRO Light Rail14

Ningbo Metro, Proposed Station Design Rendering15

Visible Impact Using archived satellite photos provided by Google Earth, it is possible to compare before and after effects of both new constructions. In Light Rail Comparison 1 (see page 7), we see images from a typical Phoenix situation where the parking lot of a shopping mall fronts a residential neighborhood. A Light Rail station was built directly on this intersection. Since the Light Rail stations are at grade, this creates a difficult urban situation for the houses on the edge of the neighborhood, most definitely decreasing their property value. On the other hand, one would hope that, with time, the presence of the Light Rail would alter the appearance of the Shopping Mall parking, perhaps reducing the need for so much parking and bringing the shops closer to the street. In the Light Rail Comparison 2, we see a situation where the Light Rail needed to make a 90 degree turn at an intersection. The planning cut the corner in such a way as to create an odd triangular-shaped island. This island will probably be difficult to develop. On the other hand, the easy Light Rail access for the neighborhood to the Southwest will hopefully positively affect the value and development of adjacent properties. In the Ningbo Metro Comparison 1 (see page 7), we see a rather nicely planned green park space several kilometers away from the city center. This has then been completely torn up to accommodate an impending metro station. One would hope that some or all of this park space would be restored after completion. In the Ningbo Metro Comparison 2, a similar activity is occurring to accommodate a changeover station. Since these images are only during construction, one can only speculate as to what the final appearance will be.
14 15

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/riding-the-phoenix-light-rail-system.html http://www.nbmetro.com/jsgh/ 6

Light Rail Comparison 1: 2002 vs. 201116

Light Rail Comparison 2: 2002 vs. 201116

Ningbo Metro Comparison 1: 2007 vs. 201016

Ningbo Metro Comparison 2: 2007 vs. 201016

16

Google Earth (Application) 7

Conclusions While both projects have clearly more differences than similarities, it is quite useful to compare them because the differences are slight. In other words, if some circumstances were slightly different, then the use or rejection of one system or the other could be debated. The Phoenix METRO Light Rail is above all an experiment in guiding urban development. Its probability of success is unknown. There is a certain amount of risk in inserting an urban transportation system into what is predominantly suburban. By contrast, the Ningbo Metro has a relatively high probability of success as there are many successful precedents in China already in service. There is also a strong social element playing a role in each situation. In Phoenix, the transformation that must occur is that of going from a private-transport culture to a public-transport culture. This transformation is wrought with complications as it is always difficult to convince people to be more socially minded. Ningbo (and China in general) on the other hand, is already a mass-transit culture used to making collective sacrifices and is therefore more prepared to use and accept such transit systems. Another main issue is the type of urban fabric being modified by both systems. Phoenixs separate-use zoning is already organized to support private automobile transportation. That is, people are used to driving long distances between home and work. Therefore, overlaying such a public transit system onto such an existing network may not work for everyone at first. Ningbo is already a mixed-use urban condition and therefore wont be greatly affected by the presence of a metro system. The Ningbo Metro is clearly the next logical step for the citys continuing growth; it is basically inevitable. By contrast, the Phoenix METRO Light Rail should be seen as an intermediate step towards a partial overhaul of Phoenixs urban fabric. In order for the Light Rail to be successful, people need to allow it to influence their decisions regarding where to live and work. For this reason, and in light of the current economic depression, I think the Light Rail deserves at least another 10 years of service before it can be deemed a success or failure. In effect, its success is partially dependent on a certain amount of political and social change among residents. A concept promoted by subscribers to the so-called New Urbanism movement is the idea of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)17. A Light Rail system such as the Phoenix METRO could be the centerpiece of a successful TOD, but it must be accompanied by a number of other things including mixed-use development, pedestrianfriendly facilities, narrow streets and reduced parking. Perhaps the city of Phoenix needs to more seriously consider these accompaniments to give the Light Rail a better chance for success. These two case studies could be seen as appropriate measures for their current circumstances. However, looking into the future, they could also be used as future models for one another. For example, a subway might be appropriate for Phoenix at a later stage in its development, following the success of the Light Rail. Similarly, after Ningbo implements a large-scale metro system, it might benefit from additional layers of incremental transport systems such as tram or light rail. In the end, one can see from both examples that a citys circulation system is a delicate organ that must be taken seriously and treated with caution and consideration.

17

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit-oriented_development 8