Sam1: I'm interested in what went wrong with Austin's commuter rail? One would think itwould have had lots of positive opportunities to do it right. Too bad. Austin is a nice place. Is it too late?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Awesome! videomaker Sam, If its not profitable,why is DART growing like gangbusters covering nearly every part of Dallas and now Dallas county? If you dont think its profitable go ride DART across downtwn Dallas and during the lunch hr ,not to mention rush and come back and tell us what you think ! I dont think its ALL about money,profit.. Danny I think DART needs to come down to Austin and give CapitalMetro some classes. Javier
videomaker Sam, If its not profitable,why is DART growing like gangbusters covering nearly every part of Dallas and now Dallas county? If you dont think its profitable go ride DART across downtwn Dallas and during the lunch hr ,not to mention rush and come back and tell us what you think ! I dont think its ALL about money,profit..
Sam,
If its not profitable,why is DART growing like gangbusters covering nearly every part of Dallas and now Dallas county? If you dont think its profitable go ride DART across downtwn Dallas and during the lunch hr ,not to mention rush and come back and tell us what you think ! I dont think its ALL about money,profit..
Danny
I think DART needs to come down to Austin and give CapitalMetro some classes.
Javier
Interestingly, Doug Allen, who was part of the DART management team overseeing the implementation of the DART Red and Blue light rail lines, is now a Vice President of Capital Metro. He is a good guy, but it does not appear that he has been able to untangle the mess associated with the start-up of Capital Metro's commuter rail system.
We don't worry about people like Billblom here in Charlotte. It doesn't take a giant mentality to see the absurdity of the numbers he is throwing around. I suspect that he is the same guy who keeps throwing out that silly helicopter suggestion in the comments section attached to pretty much every CATS story that appears in the Charlotte Observer.
The existing 9.5 mile Blue Line is currently transporting 15,000 people per day so 4,000 per day by 2030 is hardly a valid projection. The statement that no increase in property values is occuring along the Blue Line route is also absurd. Perhaps he should ride it and just look out the window during the trip. High rise communities are springing up all along the route.
As often as Sam and I disagree, at least she uses valid verifiable numbers in her arguments.
The reason that large government jobs always go way over budget is that it takes 20 to 30 years to build them, and the cost of everything goes up during that period of time. If the paperwork was not such a burden, they could be built much faster and much cheaper.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
BillBlomBy 2030, it will move 4,000 passengers per day
Check your numbers again. Nobody, anywhere, ever, would spend $9B to move 4000 commuters a day.
I did check. The $9B will move ~100,000 riders a day on a round trip - 52M trips a year.
Your 4000 number looks like the ridership for one commuter rail line.
The first phase of the commuter rail line will cost about $200M to do and will carry 4600 riders a day (2300 commuters). This alone is worth about an additional lane on I-77. Care to guess how much it would cost to widen I-77 out to four lanes in each direction for 20 miles? It just cost $80M to add a third lane each way for 8 miles - and that was an easy one - adding a lane on where the median was.
If Charlotte doesn't build out a good chunk of their plan, they will risk becoming the next Detroit - a highway-only based urban area with a rotten core.
Atlanta is arguably the most successful city in the southeast. They were about the same size as Birmingham and Charlotte in 1970. What did Atlanta do that the other two cities didn't do?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
BillBlom: "Now CATS wants to spend ** 9 BILLION ** additional dollars to build 8 more lines... with the line going through uptown, and out to a black college."
So would this plan be ok with you if it went out to a largely white college?
I agree that the lack of sustainability in our transportation systems is a good reason to pack up and leave the city. Although I lobby for government support of trains and ferries, I own a car and a boat.
BillBlom, you mention a lot of numbers. A million dollars here, a billion dollars there, a hundred thousand more cars... The number that catches my eye is "one-half cent" tax. Really, we could get ten times as much for five cents? Imagine what fifty cents or five dollars tax per gallon of gas could do!
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
In addition, the costs involved with the build out of light rail can be enormous. In Charlotte, CATS sold the public on LR to Pineville - 13 miles from downtown Charlotte to the city to the south. Their estimate was $190 to 219 million. Naturally, the CATS folk and promoters pushed the $190 mil side of the equation to get the 1/2 cent sales tax passed. Well, then they did the engineering, and that $219 came in 10 mil higher.. Then about 6 months later, they said "OOPS.. Steel went up in price.. Make that $279 mil. Then it went to 329 mil...And Pineville dropped out of the group. (There are some bright folk down there.)
Well, from there it went to 429 mil, then 479 mil.. Now a year late... And then the feds looked at it because the city was about to have to give back 100 mil in federal subsidy.... And said "those books don't look right - cook them again!" - and it rose to $679 mil. But since Pineville was out of the picture, the line shrank to only 9 1/2 miles.. so about 30% less, only 6x higher.
Now CATS wants to spend ** 9 BILLION ** additional dollars to build 8 more lines. One to a bombed out gang infested shopping center on the east side of the city.. All street running, with the line going through uptown, and out to a black college. And a circulator for uptown.. Ok.. And an assortment of lines north, including *heavy rail* to lake norman on track owned by NS. The upgrades to the track, signalling, and so on are (CATS estimate) coming in between 300 mil and 500 mil. But to make that line work, there will have to be a new Amtrak station in uptown.. Current guesses on that put the costs somewhere between 200 million and half billion. Part of the problem: they have to put the CSX line that runs across uptown 30 feet down, because CSX wants no part of an at-grade crossing of their main line there. That means eternal pumping to keep it from popping out of the ground due to high ground water, and the engineering challenge of old gold mine tunnels under the thing.
Throw the cost of that, plus the half bil needed to rebuild the line, and you have a nice Billion spent. Their estimates? By 2030, it will move 4,000 passengers per day.
The interstate currently carries 79k cars and trucks per day...By 2030, it will be at 179k cars and trucks per day. If ALL of those 4000 rides were single passenger types, you are down in statistical noise as far as traffic congestion relief. They could buy helicopters for each of the 4000, and fly them uptown for 20 years for a LOT less than the train.
And the next one (at 1.8 billion) will be a train to the Charlotte Campus of the North Carolina State University system.
All financed by tax increment financing.. where "Increases in property values within 1 mile of the track will have 100% of their tax increases dedicated to pay off the costs of construction.
The city is about to have to say to its residents "There have been NO increases along the south corridor, so we are going to have to bump up your taxes by 5% or 10%. Paying off the 9 billion they are now quoting means $80,000 PER HOUSEHOLD over the next 10-15 years.
I'm glad I'm moving away and selling my house.
gardendance Sam, I agree with you that IF you had a passenger in your car the per passenger cost would be lower than it is for 1 person per car. I just don't think there are many regular commuters who drive 2 or more people per automobile. You often cite a statistic that says less than some single digit percent in the US use public transit. Do you have any data on the percent that have 2 or more people per automobile?
I agree with you that IF you had a passenger in your car the per passenger cost would be lower than it is for 1 person per car. I just don't think there are many regular commuters who drive 2 or more people per automobile.
You often cite a statistic that says less than some single digit percent in the US use public transit. Do you have any data on the percent that have 2 or more people per automobile?
According to National Transportation Statistics, Table 1-38: Principal Means of Transportation to Work, which is published by US DOT, 10.7 per cent of the U.S. population rode to work in 2006 (latest figures) in a carpool; that is to say, with 2 or more persons in the vehicle. The numbers would have been somewhat higher in urban areas and somewhat lower in rural areas.
In 2006 86.7 per cent of the population drove to work or rode in a personal vehicle; 4.3 per cent used public transport, .6 per cent rode a bicycle or motorcycle, 2.9 per cent walked, 3.9 per cent worked at home, and the remainder used other means.
In 1989, for comparison purposes, 88.1 per cent drove to work or rode in a personal vehicle, 4.6 per cent used public transport, .7 per cent rode a bicycle or motorcycle, 3.4 per cent walked, 2.6 per cent worked at home, and the remainder used other means.
As you can see, the numbers did not change significantly between 1989 and 2006, except for the percentage of people who worked at home. The numbers for 2008, which will not be available until 2009 or 2010, will probably show a blip in the percentage of people who used public transport, walked, or worked at home. However, at least based on what I see on public transport in Austin, the rush to public transport that was induced by the dramatic run-up in the price of gasoline during the summer of 2008 has subsided.
Under another topic I opined of the importance of going to primary source documents to get an unbiased view of the subject being discussed. To hear advocates for public transport (American Public Transport Association, commuter rail advocates, etc.) tell it, people are flocking to public transport to get to and from work. These statistics do not support that contention.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
aegrotatio Hold on, your figures are missing something. That $7.90 to drive your Toyota is cost to you. You're supposed to add the subsidy paying for the roadway, bridges, lamps, signals, maintenance, police, for the roads and highways that you're driving on.
Hold on, your figures are missing something. That $7.90 to drive your Toyota is cost to you. You're supposed to add the subsidy paying for the roadway, bridges, lamps, signals, maintenance, police, for the roads and highways that you're driving on.
As I have pointed out in previous posts, with more detail than most readers want, most motorists pay the cost of driving in the United States. The one exception is lower income motorists. They are subsidized by upper income motorists, as well as taxpayers who don't drive. Most taxpayers in the U.S. are motorists.
Motorists pay federal and state fuel taxes, which are included in cost of their fuel. These taxes are used to build federal and state highways, provide police support, etc. They are included in my estimated cost of $7.90 to drive from Fort Worth to Dallas. Also, most motorists pay property taxes, sales taxes, license fees, etc., which are used to pay for county roads and city streets. These are indirect charges. Most motorists don't see the connection between these taxes and their use to fund roads, streets, etc.
The federal transfer subsidy would have added about 8 cents to my trip from Fort Worth to Dallas, all of which I would have paid through my federal tax assessment. Less than a mile of my hypothetical trip was on city streets. The amount of the support cost for those streets is indeterminate, but it would have been very little. Thus, all up, the total cost of my comparative drive would have been about $8.00, which is considerably less than the cost of the TRE. And if I had a passenger in my vehicle, the cost would have been much less than the total cost to go via the TRE.
During the Nov 2006 elecctions my county (in Ga) implemented a SPecial Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) effective Jun 2007. My local town (2500 POP) has received $1,000,000 + of which $185,000 has gone for local streets. No gas taxes no state aid , no federal aid. Now this amount could have gone as the local contribution for Commuter rail but the city is going to repave roads not needikng repaving. The whole county is in the same boat and just part of this money (est 56M for 6 years) would be the local contribution for the rail stations and upgrading CSX.
For the sake of the preservation of the English language, let's use the terms "profit" and "profitable" as as they have been customarily defined. The term "investment" has already been bastardized by the politicians. Let's not do the same with "profit."
John Timm
I agree with Sam1's take on this. Just because DART trains are crowded doesn't mean that they are profitable. For a similar example, take the airlines, most of whom are presently losing plenty of money -- despite having high load factors. Becasue of the economic slowdown, they are only filling those seats at low fares...at an insufficient price to generate a profit. If transit systems were to charge at the farebox at a rate was adequate to break even, there would be a lot fewer riders.
Right. And up here in the Frozen North the pothole situation is such that it adds to car-use costs via causing extra flats and making the motorists lay out for extra new tires, rims, and front-end alignments. In essence road neglect privatizes pain. I don't know what the equivalent for public transit would be -- a little extra shoe-leather. And most physicians say Americans don't walk enough anyway.
I think there will be a renaissance in mass transit and it will really tell when middle-income people become willing to take a little less living space and/or private backyard in order to live close to transit lines which enable them to get rid of that second car. Detroit loves to claim that two or three cars per family is normal consumer "demand." Talk to the consumers, though, and it usually resolves into "We live so far out, we had to have that second [or third] car or we'd be stuck."
As with highways, there are parts of a transit system that are profitable and parts which must be subsidized. The companies that build highways are profitable, but apparently the auto manufacturers now must be subsidized. With fixed guideway transit, those who build the trains and stations make money, but operatons seem to usually need a subsidy.
CSSHEGEWISCH If public transit was profitable, it would never have been municipalized in order to keep it running.
If public transit was profitable, it would never have been municipalized in order to keep it running.
I think it's more appropriate to say if it was profitable at the time it was municipalized then it would never have been municipalized.
Once upon a time for profit enterprises invested and made profit on public transit. Among other things what happened since then has been the coming of the automobile and all its associated costs and benefits. There's quite a bit of debate about if those who pay the cost of automobiles are the same ones who get the benefits, just as there's debate about the costs and benefits of public transit.
I lean on the side that's for public transit and against the automobile. A 40 foot long vehicle that carries 20 passengers should be more efficient than 4 10 foot long vehicles carrying 1 passenger.
I disagree with this thread's title. I don't see that the article quoted says that Texans have learned anything yet about profitability. I think it's saying they're going to try a maybe unecessarily cumbersome financing method for public transit.
Sam1 The game plan appears to attract private financing by offering the investors a set return on their investment, with the shortfalls being covered by the taxpayers.
The game plan appears to attract private financing by offering the investors a set return on their investment, with the shortfalls being covered by the taxpayers.
If Sam's analysis is correct I don't see how this is fundamentally different from selling bonds to finance the project. Don't investors get a reasonable expectation of a set return when they buy bonds?
DART, which captures approximately 10 per cent of its costs through the fare box, is growing because of the large subsidies it receives from local and federal taxpayers.
A profitable enterprise recovers all of its costs through the fare box or from sales and generates a return (net income) for the investors. Government activities are not all about money. Nor is life. But it is about who is going to pay for it. Because there is no free lunch, although that is very difficult for some people to understand.
As noted in a previous post, on a typical day DART, the T, and Trinity Railway Express carry less than 3.5 per cent of the adults (over 18) in Collin, Dallas, and Tarrant counties. In other words, although the trains appear to be widely used, in fact a very small percentage of the population uses the light rail, commuter rail, and bus systems. Of course, a higher percentage of the population in Dallas, as well as some of the commuties along the line, use the services, but no matter how you slice and dice the numbers, public transport in the Metroplex is used by a relatively small percentage of the population.
This squares with national figures published by the US Department of Transportation. Throughout the country approximately 4.5 per cent of the population uses public transport. Of course, the percentage using it in select metropolitan areas is much higher, but throughout the country Americans have consistantly choosen the automobile to get to work, shopping, entertainment, etc.
Maglev From today's (May 28, 2009) Trains News Wire: (excerpt) Published: Thursday, May 28, 2009 "DALLAS - Dallas Area Rapid Transit and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority announced this week an effort to see if an increasingly popular method to jump start highway projects will work for transit projects in the United States." The two transit agencies have begun seeking firms interested in a public-private partnership to design, construct, operate, maintain, and finance a cross-regional passenger rail service starting as early as 2013..." "DART's current long-range system plan calls for Cotton Belt service starting by approximately 2027...."
From today's (May 28, 2009) Trains News Wire: (excerpt)
The two transit agencies have begun seeking firms interested in a public-private partnership to design, construct, operate, maintain, and finance a cross-regional passenger rail service starting as early as 2013..." "DART's current long-range system plan calls for Cotton Belt service starting by approximately 2027...."
No where in Texas, or the United States for that matter, is passenger rail transportation profitable. With the exception of the NEC, on occasion, it cannot cover the operating costs let alone the capital investment. Neither is public transit. It is not even close.
Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and Fort Worth Transportation Authority (T) contract for the operation of Trinity Railway Express (TRE). They own the former Rock Island track.
For FY07, which is the latest data available, the average subsidy required to carry one passenger on one trip was $6.57. Coupled to an end point to end point fare of $2.50, the total cost to carry one passenger from Cow Town to Big D was on average $9.07. By comparison, it would cost me $7.90 to drive in my Toyota.
The line in question, assuming they follow DART's long range plan, will run through parts of Collin, Dallas, and Tarrant counties. It will, amongst other things, serve DFW airport, which is one of the busiest airports in the nation.
The game plan appears to attract private financing by offering the investors a set return on their investment, with the shortfalls being covered by the taxpayers. The primary advantage would be that the capital requirements for the project would not have an adverse impact on the federal budget deficit or the state or local budget. The taxpayers would be required to make up the operating losses.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.