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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.!
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.
Maglev Blue streak, how do we account for the cost of politics? This cost manifests itself with delay and inefficiency.
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.
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.
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...
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
This topic has been discussed before -- but new comments are certainly welcome.
http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/p/134578/1510836.aspx#1510836
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.
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
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.
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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.