The Sunday, May 27 Seattle Times is headlined,
WHO WILL RIDE THIS TRAIN?
The article which continues on page A-12, is subtitled, "Agency hopes it won't merely siphon riders from buses." Anyway, there is a comparison of light-rail costs that is eye-opening. I am not familiar with Vancouver's system, and am not sure why it appears so much more cost-effective than Portland's(source: Seattle Times Research).
CITY / MILES / YEAR / COST / RIDERSHIP
Denver / 35 / 1994 / 1.2 bil / 72,100
Minneapolis / 12 / 2004 / 0.72 bil / 30,200
Phoenix / 20 / 2008 / 1.4 bil / 34,400
Portland / 44 / 1986 / 1.7 bil / 107,600
Salt Lake CIty / 20 / 1999 / 0.54 bil / 44,800
Seattle / 16 / 2009 / 2.6 bil / 26,600 (Sound Transit 2010 projection)
Vancouver, BC / 31 / 1985 / 1.7 bil / 240,000
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
Part of the answer is Canadians are more likely than Americans to use Public Transport. 11% of Canadians versus 4.8% of Americans use some form of Public Transport. Leaving aside Mexico, by ridership the three largest Light Rail or Streetcar systems in North America are in Canada, in order they are Calgary, Toronto, and then Vancouver. Then comes the largest US system, Boston. Portland is only the fifth busiest in the US.
Cost can be affected by when it was built, how much is reserved ROW, how much tunneling, etc.
OK: Lets look at costs. If we use the two track model then we take EIS, Engineering, ROW acquisition, Utility relocations, construction costs, etc. Break the costs down to rural, suburban, urban, intercity. Now we apply those costs to the total number of interstate lane miles now in existence. And remember the really costly ones (Big Dig - 15Bn+ 1.5 miles+; etc) Now we get a cost figure to compare to. Almost all city interstates are 6 + lanes. 2 lanes - 2 tracks; 3-1/2 lanes - 3 tracks, 5 lanes - 4 tracks. When our accountants figure this out tell us which is more cost effective
Well, I've been trying to make head-or-tails out of what is proposed in Honolulu. I actually moved to Washington State before the proposal was accepted. I am sure there are some locals who think this is more than sixty years overdue (when the old Oahu Railway closed). I lived in Honolulu for two semesters, and visited many times between 1967 and 2004, and there was always intermittant talk of fixed guideway transit...
They are talking five billion for twenty miles, and 95,310 passengers per day. But Honolulu's current transit usage is only 6.1% (Seattle 17%, Portland 13%), so the ridership projection sounds high. One good thing is that it will connect the airport with downtown; this is something that in the past (eg, San Francisco) was prevented by the taxi lobby.
Blue streak, how do we account for the cost of politics? This cost manifests itself with delay and inefficiency.
This topic has been discussed before -- but new comments are certainly welcome.
http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/p/134578/1510836.aspx#1510836
Maglev Blue streak, how do we account for the cost of politics? This cost manifests itself with delay and inefficiency.
All I wish to know is what todays roads would cost today.
Mr. Paul Safety--
I wanted to post this in the Seattle Light Rail thread, but those seats were occupied...
The figures I posted included ridership; your chart does not. For the time being, I would hold off on including anything about Honolulu.
The Seattle Times article included a beautiful front page photo, which will make its way to my garage art collection along with various Trains centerfolds...
blue streak 1 Maglev Blue streak, how do we account for the cost of politics? This cost manifests itself with delay and inefficiency. You made me chuckle. Frankly I've no idea. The politics of road and rail and light rail and buses drives me crazy. NIMBYS, the absolutely nothings, the put it over theres, etc. As whiley says ARG----------. All I wish to know is what todays roads would cost today.
The cost of a road depends on numerous variables, i.e. location, capacity, expansion of existing roadway vs. new system, materials, local labor rates, real estate costs, etc.
The estimated cost to build TX 130, which is a toll road designed to take through traffic off of I-35 and route it around Austin, was approximately $30,8 million per mile. The tolls average 12 to 18 cents per mile, depending on the distance traveled.
The cost to upgrade the Austin Western Railroad for the Leander to Austin commuter train was somewhere between $2.8 and $4.1 million per mile, depending on whose accounting one chooses to believe. The estimated cost to build a scratch light rail line from the Austin airport to downtown, as well as the University of Texas and beyond is approximately $47 million per mile.
In a sense the cost of highways vs. railways (heavy or light) is immaterial in many if not most areas of the United States. Americans have shown consistently that they want to drive to work, play, etc., and will only use public transit when the cost of driving (economic, time, frustration) makes doing so impracticable. This is especially true in Texas where the love of the automobile is as great as ever.
People choose to drive, at least in part, because they don't have to sit next to someone who has not showered for a week and is shouting into a cell phone or uttering profanities. They can listen to the radio or chat with a companion of their choosing. This is a major reason why only 4.8 per cent of Americans use public transport to get where they are going.
It's also possible that Canadian transit authorities keep their books differently than USA does.
Their private corporations' annual reports have similar but differing accounting considerations and figures than do American corporations.
Otherwise, doesn't it look like the Vancouver system cost about half to build than anything here? If that's literally true, we should hire THEM to build and run the systems.!
I suspect we also have to take into account foreign exchange rates too. Canadian Dollar versus US Dollar.
Look at the change just from last year to this year on the cost of steel, copper and cement also.
This is well outside my specialty, so this is just an offered guess...but the different tax systems may have a lot to do with it. There may be more incentives in Canada, and that would presumably show in reduced overall costs once the rails heated up.
We shouldn't forget that doing much with new routes, or even when widening those exant, expropriations will factor heavily in the costs...and they won't be insubstantial. Early in the last century the density of occupied land was much less.
-Crandell
The costs of the Portland system were pushed up drastically by the west side extension, which involved very heavy tunneling, with the usual surprises with regard to loose rock and water. Vancouver's only tunnel was provided by the Canadian Pacific which abandoned their freight tunnel to the waterfornt (could not accommodate today's double stacks anyway), One of the reasons for the linear motor concept used in Vancouver is it made possible a very low profile car, allowing the existing freight single track tunnel to be double decked in inbound on one level and outbound on the other, very economical use of an existing facility. The Vancouver system is mostly simple lightweight elevated construction with some limited on-ground running (all private right of way, no street running) and use of the tunnel with an underground terminal station. Vancouver's cars are considerable smaller and lighter than Portland's. Vacouver's is an automated system. trains are operated manually only in emergencies.
Before the west side extension, Portland's per mile construction costs were relatively low.
Two hundred and thirty two BILLION dollars to build the Norfolk to Virginia Beach LRT? Did anyone else notice this? It seems way out of line -- probably by three orders of magnitude. Did you possibly read the amount spelled out and add an extra set of zeroes when you made the chart?
There are so many variables in estimating costs for rail and roads , especially in urban areas, that comparisons are really marginal. The next section of Independence Blvd. here in Charlotte, (US-74) to be widened to 6-8 lanes with busway in middle (possible future LRT route) is currently estimated at $152 Million for 1.4 miles, or a little over $100M per mile. Right-of-way purchase, remember this is an urban area, and keeping traffic moving on temporary road, temporary lanes etc, for the 80,000+ vehicles a day that use the road will probably consume more then 50% of that money. As was mentioned earlier, CLT's rail line was $46M per mile.
matthewsaggie There are so many variables in estimating costs for rail and roads , especially in urban areas, that comparisons are really marginal. The next section of Independence Blvd. here in Charlotte, (US-74) to be widened to 6-8 lanes with busway in middle (possible future LRT route) is currently estimated at $152 Million for 1.4 miles, or a little over $100M per mile. Right-of-way purchase, remember this is an urban area, and keeping traffic moving on temporary road, temporary lanes etc, for the 80,000+ vehicles a day that use the road will probably consume more then 50% of that money. As was mentioned earlier, CLT's rail line was $46M per mile.
Aggregate cost is only part of the story. A more relevant number is the cost per vehicle mile traveled or the cost per passenger mile. These are a function of how many people pass a given point over a period of time.
Using numbers from a recent Charlotte Observer article, as well as the U.S. Census, I calculated that approximately 2.64 per cent of the people in Charlotte or 1.94 per cent of the people in Mecklenburg County use the light rail system. To be sure, as the system is expanded, a higher percentage of the population will be able to use the light rail trains, but it is unlikely that they will ever be used by a significant per cent of the population. This is also true for Dallas and Austin.
Most Americans prefer to drive to and from work, play, and entertainment. This is true even if it costs them more than public transport, and it is likely to remain true. The major reason is the convenience of the automobile. Beyond that, although many people will not admit it, they don't want to sit next to someone who is shouting into a cell phone, has not bathed for a week, and is restricted to a four letter vocabulary.
I have often wondered how many of the folks who extol the virtues of public transport use it on a regular basis. I worked for the implementation of the DART light rail system. When the system was inaugurated, the speaker's platform at Union Station was dotted with local luminaries, including the members of the DART Board of Directors. They sang the praises of public transit to the hilt. Not a single one of them were regular users of public transit.
Trains Mag. has a good article on this very subject in the current issue..They say that rail is cheaper to build than hwys,and nobody has mentioned the fact that roads are usually built only 2-4 miles at a time and they are already outdated by the time their opened to traffic...I live right next to interstate 35 and Friday traffic was bumper to bumper in both directions as far as you could see ! I would have hated to had to go somewhere Friday !
The Trains article also mentions the cost of automobiles as a consideration. That concept has been soundly rejected by some on this forum, who feel that automobiles are a discretionary luxury. I believe that there are many people for whom a car is a necessity to get to work.
Maglev The Trains article also mentions the cost of automobiles as a consideration. That concept has been soundly rejected by some on this forum, who feel that automobiles are a discretionary luxury. I believe that there are many people for whom a car is a necessity to get to work.
I agree,for some folks thats all the way they have,but,if you or I live in an area that has a dependable transit company I see no reason not to take the bus or train ! If some people dont like public transit let those folks drive their cars ! More power to them but I like the relaxed feeling of not sitting in traffic and that hassel...If you build the trains they will ride !
sam1
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Sam;
I have yet to encounter any of those undesirable fellow travelers of which you speak, and Matthewsaggie knows exactly what he's talking about. The Charlotte Observer, on the other hand...
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe Vet Sam; I have yet to encounter any of those undesirable fellow travelers of which you speak, and Matthewsaggie knows exactly what he's talking about. The Charlotte Observer, on the other hand...
I rode public transit to and from work for 37 years. Most of the people I encountered were OK. But I had enough bad experiences to know that using public transit does not always generate a pleasant outcome. I witnessed six instances of violence or near violence, including two directed at me.
I suspect that many of the people who praise the virtues of public transit seldom use it. As I stated, not a single member of the DART Board of Directors uses public transit on a regular basis. And there is not a more enthusiastic bunch of transit supporters in the Metroplex. At least for the press!
Last year I rode the Acela from Philadelphia. As soon as we cleared the platform at 30th Street Station, the woman behind me began shouting into a cell phone. She kept up a constant chatter until Newark. The guy across the aisle also spent a considerable part of the trip talking loudly on his cell phone. Trying to read when someone is shouting on a cell phone is a challenge.
The raw cost of building a short stretch of highway in a congested area of a large city is not a good comparision. The cost may be over or under represented for the larger project. Also, for comparative purposes cost accountants seldom use raw numbers. They are meaningless. A better methodology is to compare cost per passenger mile, cost per vehicle mile, etc.
Clearly, in some areas the cost to build a mile of highway is considerably higher than the cost to build a mile of light rail line. And the cost per passenger mile can be higher for highways as opposed to railways. But it is not a given across the board.
There is one thing that advocates of light rail, as well as all forms of transit, miss. Until the cost of driving becomes prohibitive, the over whelming majority of Americans will opt for their car as opposed to public transit. They have demonstrated this consistently for decades. And no amount of social engineering is likely to change that dynamic.
Last year it was standing room only on my bus from Leander to the University of Texas thanks to $4 gasoline. This year the average rush hour load is approximately 60 per cent of the seats due to the drop in the price of gasoline.
Sam1Using numbers from a recent Charlotte Observer article, as well as the U.S. Census, I calculated that approximately 2.64 per cent of the people in Charlotte or 1.94 per cent of the people in Mecklenburg County use the light rail system. To be sure, as the system is expanded, a higher percentage of the population will be able to use the light rail trains, but it is unlikely that they will ever be used by a significant per cent of the population. This is also true for Dallas and Austin.
Sam, are there any frequency of use numbers for the various segments of 130 here in Austin? I would be curious to know what segment of the public use this road and what the actual cost is based on that use.
I expect the number of users would be higher on the north end than the south, and the numbes would adjust slightly based on the south end opening up. I travel this road frequently at night, mostly before 10:30PM and it looks like a ghost town. I cannot see how it will ever pay for itself, given how little it seems to be used, although daytime use is greater, I am sure.
And the proposed Mo-Kan corridor (the old Katy passenger main)....how would that fit into things overall, and what effect do you think it would have on 130, or vice-versa? And what about cost? I don't know if the Katy roadbed is intact all the way, but if not, land acqusition would seem like another long and bitter fight, similar to the 130 land grab.
There has been talk of a light rail line from Atlanta to Marietta, GA, roughly parallel to I-75. I-75 just north of I-285 (where the HOV lanes end) has some of the stickest traffic in Atlanta. There have been some wild plans put forth to widen I-75 for the 10 mile stretch between I-285 and I-575 including two pair of truck only toll lanes. These have all been too expensive for the DOT to push to the next step.
The highway construction contractors have just put forth a scaled back plan. Two reversible HOV lanes - 10 miles - $1B. DOT is interested.
Lets see if this highway can "makes money".
If a highway lane can carry 2000 vehicles and hour and the existing highway is over capacity 3 hrs in the AM and 3 hrs in the PM, thats 2 lanes x 2000 vehicles x 6 hrs x 10 miles = 240,000 vehicle miles per day. (at the most!)
If the typical vehicle gets 20 mile per gallon and the fuel tax is $.25/gallon, then the "revenue" is $3000 per day.
Assuming the incremental operating cost and maintenance is zero (which it isn't!) ....
Simple payback period = 913 years. Not worth even calculating the ROI for this one!
But, wait! If we make it a HOT lane and say that 1/2 the traffic pays $2 to use the road we can boost the daily revenue to $15,000 per day.
Simple payback = 182 years (not worth doing the ROI calc for this one, either)
This project will not "make money". Even the Army Corp of Engr. would have to walk away from a project with this poor a "pure" ROI!
Does the public want it (or something like it)? Yes. Is the public willing to pay. Probably. Metro Atlantans are. The rural Georgians aren't. Does Metro Altanta want light rail, commuter rail, etc, Yes. Willing to pay. Probably. Same deal. State Senate is controlled by rural senators. So far, the state has not given the metro Atlanta counties the option of banding together to raise sale tax money to fund any transportation improvments in Atlanta. Politics pretty much preclude any direct state funding....
What fun.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Sam1 Until the cost of driving becomes prohibitive, the over whelming majority of Americans will opt for their car as opposed to public transit. They have demonstrated this consistently for decades. And no amount of social engineering is likely to change that dynamic.
This is likely an overstatement. If one limits the comparison to OD pairs where transit exists you get a different picture. Certainly OD pairs from Nassau Co. on Long Island to mid town Manhattan would show the LIRR with a significant market share. Or, Vorhees NJ or Paoli PA to Center City Phila. Or Napierville to Downtown Chicago.
But, even in places were transit is not plentiful and driving costs are not high "overwhelming majority" is over stating it. If you compare express bus ridership from Gwinnett Co. to downtown and midtown Atlanta against the the number of drivers make the same trip, you wind up with transit pulling in 20-30% market share.
The issue isn't whether transit can pull a decent market share. It can and it does many, many places, even in locations where people "will never give up their cars". Los Angeles, Atlanta, Denver, St. Lake City, etc.
The issue is "are the OD pairs with enough traffic that make sense to provide transit". Given that the OD pairs for most trips in metropolitan cities have been socially engineered through the provision public highway building over the past 80 years, there aren't many niches for transit in the US.
For example, transit can never generate meaningful market share from areas of suburban sprawl to areas of suburban, low rise business campuses, particularly where there is employer provided "free" parking. The parking and landscaped areas and roads to and from the parking lots kill any chance at decent density of potential riders at origin or destination and the multitude of OD pairs this arrangment generates kill any potential lane density.
But, where those niches exist, transit generally generates meaningful market share.
Two points on using cars to commute: cost and comfort.
On cost, we now must include the $4,500 subsidy for auto manufacturers our government wants to give to everyone who destroys a classic automobile gas guzzler.
On comfort, it is unsafe and illegal to take a nap or drink an alcoholic beverage while driving a car. These, and other comforts, are available on trains. This is not a trivial issue. A memo was circulated at a recent Ferry Advisory Council meeting here, concerning a Coast Guard policy change which might severely disrupt ferry service to the San Juan Islands. "Elimination of touring watches" (sleeping on the boat between shifts) "will double commute times for crew members... Traffic issues may be more stressful than the shift itself." But if a crew member could take a nap and eat breakfast while on a train to work, and take a nap or have a snack and drink on the way home; some of the time dedicated to these activities would occur while commuting instead of at home, giving more time for personal activities at home. At present, infrequent trains and a lack of transit coordination makes public transportation an impossible alternative.
According to the USDOT, 4.3 per cent of Americans used public transit to commute to and from work in 2006. This was down from 4.6 per cent in 1989. This may not be an overwhelming majority for some people, but it is for most of the statisticians I know.
As I have stated in previous posts, the percentage of the population using public transit in major urban areas is greater than in medium and small urban areas as well as rural areas. It is also higher in areas that have had good transit (rapid, convenient, dependable, safe, etc.) for decades and there is a culture of using it.
Transit may be able to pull a decent market share as long as it is heavily subsidized, but if it had to collect its resources through the fare box, it would have a difficult time pulling any market share. In Dallas the fare box covers 10 per cent of the cost of the system, whilst in Charlotte it pulls 13 per cent of the cost of the system.
In Dallas approximately 30 per cent of the people commuting into the central business district ride the train or a bus. But for the Metroplex as a whole, only 3.5 per cent of the population over 18 rides transit. In many instances, as has been stated, they are commuting from one suburb to another, and there is no viable transit. Or they are poor and have no other wheels.
In Dallas, according to numbers furnished to me by Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), approximately 43 per cent of the people who use DART's buses do not have a car or alternative transport. And approximately 15 per cent of those on the light rail system have no alternative, although there is an overlap in the figures here because a significant percentage of the light rail users are fed into the system by connecting buses.
Following WW II people turned to the car, and they moved to the new suburbs that were being developed all over the country. They did so for a variety of personal reasons. As a result, they demanded good highways. And they got them. Yes, in many respects the country over reached for the suburban lifestyle, and there are some signs that the process is being reversed. But it was the people, not a bunch of social engineers, who opted for the car and suburban living. The car and the house in the suburbs were better options than crowded, slow moving public transit and crowded neighborhoods.
The roads preceded the housing,
At the turn of the century, it was transit that preceded the housing.
Zero percent of Atlantans ride commuter rail. Because there is none. Why would you include them in a national statistic about the utility of commuter rail? The only stat that makes any sense is a comparison of places where it exists.
In the US, 30% of all frt tonnage moves by rail, but globally, the rail share of all tonnage is likely only 5% or so since rail carries no tonnage from Singapore to LA, for example.
The "only 4% use transit" is meaningless except as a "fun fact"
Market studies of who uses transit, who buys cars, and who lives in the suburbs reflect the availability of those products. In turn, the availability of those products has been shaped by government policy. "Myth: Rail transit is social engineering (John Diers, Trains, v. 69, no. 7, p. 22; July, 2009)." Providing public transportation simply means responding to changing economic and environmental imperatives, and changing government policy accordingly. Transit must be considered as an integral part of our urban planning and transportation.
I have tried to argue that people who ride trains are happier, but it is a dead-end; likewise, arguments that people who drive cars are happier will go nowhere. "Poor people who have no other wheels" make lifestyle choices as do rich people who fly around in their own jets. Jets cannot land where there is no airport, so choices of the rich are limited by government policy just as much as "poor" people.
oltmannd The roads preceded the housing, At the turn of the century, it was transit that preceded the housing. Zero percent of Atlantans ride commuter rail. Because there is none. Why would you include them in a national statistic about the utility of commuter rail? The only stat that makes any sense is a comparison of places where it exists. In the US, 30% of all frt tonnage moves by rail, but globally, the rail share of all tonnage is likely only 5% or so since rail carries no tonnage from Singapore to LA, for example. The "only 4% use transit" is meaningless except as a "fun fact"
The 4.3 per cent figure is a starting point and puts it into perspective for the country as a whole. Had you taken the time to read all of my post, as well as others that I have made regarding this subject, you would have seen that I acknowledged that in major urban areas, i.e. Austin Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, etc. upwards of 30 per cent of the population commuting into the center of the city uses public transit. But at the end of the day, no matter how you slice and dice the numbers, roughly 3.5 per cent of the population in any Texas metropolitan area uses any form of public transit, although in some inner city neighborhoods the numbers increase significantly.
It may come as a surprise to you, but there are numerous smaller communities in Texas that have public transit, i.e. Abilene, Midland, Lubbock, Amarillo, Odessa, Longview, Paris, San Angelo, etc. The per cent of the population that uses it is very small and, for the most part, consists of poor people or handicapped persons as well as a few seniors who can no longer drive.
I am all for public transit where it makes sense. I have ridden it for more than 60 years. But I am not blind to the fact that it is not used by many Americans in the aggregate or as majority per cent of the population under any circumstances. And I am not unmindful of the fact that light rail, except in a few situations, is not the best fit from a financial point of view.
Whether the road preceded the suburbs or vice versa is immaterial. Following WW II people moved out of the cities in droves, although the trend had started in many parts of the country before the war. When I lived in Charlotte, people moved out along Preston Road faster than the city and state could expand it. And the same has been true in Texas.
When I lived in New York City rich people for the most part never used the subway. This is probably still the case. They can afford to drive from the Upper East Side to Wall Street and, if it costs them $500 a month to park, they could care less. Most people I know, if they had the choice, would do the same thing.
I don't really disagree with most of what you have to say.
The common thread in the road v housing, transit v driving, etc. is that if the perceived public value is greater than the perceived public cost, then it happens. If not, it doesn't. Information can shape or warp perception.
If Georgians perceive that a couple of HOV lanes that will move only a very tiny fraction of rush hour traffic in Atlanta are worth $1B in congestion relief, air quality, jobs or whatever, it'll happen. But you'll never be able to pay for its construction or care in incermental revenue.
I will add some anecdotal highway v. housing evidence of my own.
South Jersey was almost completely rural except for Camden which was connected to Phila by ferries and a few small towns connected to the ferries by rail.
Then the Del River bridge was built in 1928. And, Camden grew around the edges.
Then a road between into the farmland was improved to connect AC with the Del River Br. And, towns around Camden expanded into the farmland between them and Camden. This was the in th 1930s
Then, in 1958, another bridge was built across the river, and access roads improved. Two large, single family home subdivisions sprang up, in a completely rural area, at the end of the improved road, about 10 miles. They were built out in 1959-1961. In 1963, a free way replaced the "improved road" and in a span of 20 years that township went from 6000 residents to 60,000 residents. That wave of building started in 1964. The freeway is now jammed at rush hour.
Along the other "improved road" leading from the Del River Br., a transit line was built about 10 miles out. Rural land at the end of the transit line quickly developed into high density housing. The road remains in it's 1930's configuration. The transit line carries more riders than the freeway.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.