The numbers are hard to argue with. According to Sacramento Regional Transit (RT) director of customer service Mike Wiley, the main line of Sacramento's light rail has been outpacing all of its projections for the past decade. A special report from the advocacy group Light Rail Progress shows that the metro area’s 20 or so miles of rail, built in 1987 at a cost of $172 million, eclipsed 2002’s projected level of patronage half a decade early. With a number of logistical, socio-economic and environmental factors spurring them on, commuters and residents are increasingly taking to the rails as the route’s popularity continues to climb. 

In the northwestern part of the area, light rail popularity in Natomas would assuredly be similar to what has been documented in other outlying areas, where ridership is nearly 70% higher than on corresponding bus routes. Currently the single line that comprises less than 2% of the city’s transit routes carries more than 30% of the city’s commuters, and with just 17% of the city’s vehicles. As Wiley’s group finishes up the analysis and evaluation of environmental and logistical concerns for the proposed Downtown-Natomas-Airport (DNA) train route, the concept has made a strong case for itself in the debate of rail versus bus.

National Transit Database statistics from the fall of 2002 indicated that the RT Metro regularly sees 31,000 riders making weekday trips, a number that is on par with averages for systems in much larger cities, such as Los Angeles’ Green Line and Salt Lake City’s UTA. The same study also reported that while bus lines attracted only 31% of available riders, light rail was piling them in with 122%--meaning more riders were finding their way to the Metro than census numbers would even predict. Plainly put, while most commuters will pick up the car keys to avoid sweating through their clothes in a stale, noisy bus this summer, they’re willing to go out of their way to take the train. Light Rail is working in the capital city--a staggering 80 million riders have chosen light rail in its first fifteen years, no small feat for a mid-size city. The appeal is far-reaching, and contrary to what some might have Natomas residents believing, the development of light rail is not simply a treehugger’s agenda. As cities near and far have learned, light rail systems are a key component in a larger move toward efficiency in a time of monetary woes. As early as 1997 the Sacramento’s rail line was undercutting bus service at a rate of 38¢ per mile compared to 56¢, respectively.

Although construction on the proposed extension would not begin until 2008 at the earliest, the debate over light rail extension has already engulfed Natomas. The recently opened bus Route 11 effectively mimics the operation of the proposed extension to Sacramento’s light rail system from downtown to the international airport northwest of the city, and it’s proximity to existing residential and commercial property in Natomas has been duly noted.

In actuality, "there is very little single-family residential development next to the proposed rail line," says Karen Wilson, a representative for Air Quality Management and also the president of the Natomas Community Association, dispelling the notion that a rail line would seriously displace Natomas residents. Most of conflicting structures would be temporary living spaces such as apartments. "You can’t put a light rail line through cornfields because no one will get on it," adds Wilson, referencing a proposal to run a northwest addition to the rail system entirely along Interstate 5 rather than along Truxel Road, bypassing most of Natomas entirely. "Where we once might have anticipated the need in ten to twenty years, development has happened quickly enough that as soon as we can get it built is going to be the appropriate time for us," Wilson explained of her group's no-time-to-wait position. "Natomas will be built out in ten years."

After environmental and community hurdles have been cleared, the major obstacle remaining to the DNA line is funding, the presence or lack of which will further shape many of the plans for the service. While the traditional concrete artery snaking through valley neighborhoods has only led to more traffic and more congestion, lawmakers continue to give preferential treatment to the highway over the light rail line when it comes to financial support. But what many legislators, short-sighted on glaring deficits, fail to consider is the long-term maintenance and residual costs of light rail versus highway development. In the short-run both can move passengers as efficiently as the route allows; putting an emphasis on long-term viability as the determining factor, almost all variables favor light rail.

A gray area exists surrounding the environmental impact of the DNA line’s crossing of the American River, which Natomas Manager Carol Shearly points out, but any environmental drawbacks--which are projected to be minimal--of a new bridge project may be heavily offset by the benefits. As an auto-centric lifestyle becomes less viable, the change that light rail brings to an area becomes more and more appealing. The savings in air and noise pollution have been well documented in the debate over rail versus bus service, and those environmental benefits must necessarily weigh heavily in the debate.

With the population boom in California, areas like Natomas will continue to become more and more urban, meaning cars will become increasing impractical. Twenty-one times less likely to be involved in an accident than an automobile, rail systems offer an attractive transportation alternative to those who cannot afford to purchase and maintain a car or simply find it inconvenient to do so. In addition to the precious conservation of time, extra cash in hand from the relief from insurance, oil changes, licensing, registration and of course gasoline is always a welcome benefit of daily light rail travel. 

According to a 1996 research report from the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California in Berkeley, the costs associated with initial infrastructure construction of light rail lines is nearly ten times that of highways, but the recurring costs to both user and operator are far greater with bus travel on highways. One major difference is the time that the efficiency and speed of rail saves, on average twice as much as traveling by roadway. In a world of multi-hour commutes and endless traffic jams where for many families time is indeed more precious than money, light rail can offer considerable savings. As 30,000 daily riders on Sacramento’s light rail line can attest, the dependable 55-minute end-to-end train schedule easily outweighs the unpredictable daily bumper-to-bumper grind from Folsom to downtown Sacramento. Every minute saved counts.

Aside from the lower initial investment, busses only outweigh light rail in one major aspect: out-of-the-box convenience. With a more intricate network already in place, highways are more easily accessible--users can potentially catch a bus on any and every corner while they must first travel to a station to access rail service. But a corollary and perhaps more important distinction that the Berkeley report makes is that, as the implementation and demand for rail systems increases, the average infrastructure cost per passenger decreases. This fact is one of the more important arguments for the adoption and proliferation of light rail projects. Further adoption and proliferation in turn drives production costs down for manufacturers, increasing the financial attractiveness of light rail.

But unlike the Berkeley report, the situation in Natomas does not exist in a vacuum of spreadsheets and data points. At a time when local and state governments across the United States are facing monumental financial crises, in the eyes of many the funneling funds into a form of public transportation that is documented to be inefficient would only be another in a long line of shortsighted mistakes. Yet there is still the possibility that the DNA rail project could be forgone in favor of constructing more highway express lanes and routes for additional bus lines, which the RT itself maintains are not working. As County Supervisor Roger Dickinson explained in a recent interview with the Sacramento Bee, "We’d never build Truxel [Road] that way now if we had to do this again, with houses fronting on it." The uncertainty over the wisdom of the current situation on Truxel, which the Route 11 bus route in Natomas utilizes, is echoed in the sentiments of homeowners up and down the thoroughfare. "We would certainly consider selling in order to get away from it," said Natomas resident Jim Layton with a nod toward the nearby road.

As an increase in population accompanies the residential and commercial building boom in Natomas, one way or another the expansion of transit routes is an inevitable necessity. The question before Natomas residents and city planners alike is one of planning. While additional roadways are an unavoidable element of any new community, the placement and frequency of those roadways need not be as pervasive as it has been in previous and current development projects. Although it initially costs more per mile to develop, a light rail line can carry 100% of the commuters carried by bus with only 6% of the infrastructure, and one light rail corridor is much easier to plan around and disguise than the hundreds of miles of pavement required for busses.

Some infrastructure development is already planned regardless of the decision between additional bus routes and the light rail extension. There are seven new transit stations in the works along Truxel Road (at El Camino, Pebblestone, San Juan, Marketplace, Arco Arena and both North Natomas Town Center and Town Center East) according to Wylie, who sees the stations as an integral part of the area’s development. "The stations provide access to the entire metro system for residents of Natomas," Wylie explained, adding that both the neighborhood walk-on stations and the more centralized bus connection stations will provide centers for commercial development. "The implementation of mixed-use stations will support the inclusion of mass transit in the community while also serving the community." While the specific design elements are still on the drawing board, Wylie notes that RT has been very receptive to community input and that Natomas residents will have the opportunity to get involved with community meetings scheduled for July and August. "The new South Line is a good indication of where we’re headed with the stations in Natomas," he continued, pointing out the inclusion of artwork, landscaping and extensive shelter areas that were brought to RT’s attention by residents along the new rail extension south of Sacramento.

Despite the observations by administration and transportation officials that the need for a light rail line through Natomas is apparent now, the earliest service date would be 2011. And that of course hinges on the allocation of the funds to go ahead with the DNA line, an endeavor which Wiley estimates could cost anywhere from $400 million to upwards of twice that amount. While the paperwork changes hands and the attempt to allocate funding is made during a historical time of budgetary shortfalls, Natomas will be holding its breath.