| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/30 |
| 2008/2/22-26 [Transportation/PublicTransit] UID:49215 Activity:high |
2/22 How much does rail cost per mile as compared to a road both for
design and acquisition and also ongoing maintenance?
\_ How many lanes of a road? What's the price of land? Land for one
lane-mile of road is certainly cheaper in rural Nebraska than in
Bay Area. Of course the same applies to rail too, but rail
ususally occupies much less land.
usually occupies much less land.
\_ key word!
\_ Assume the land cost is not an issue. You are going to build
on land you already own. As for how many lanes, something
functionally equivalent. 2 lanes for a line going nowhere
and maybe 12 lanes for a main artery. For sake of argument
assume a 4 lane road (2 each direction) versus 2 tracks (1
each direction).
each direction), but if you can compare each lane of road
with each line of track that's just as good.
\_ Why would you assume land cost is not an issue? A 10-lane
freeway takes 3-4 times as much land as a dual-track rail
line.
\_ Because it's not one of my assumptions? I don't want
the cost of land to complicate things, because then
you get into tunnels versus surface and all kinds of
other issues. Assume that the land is not part of the
cost and we can add it in later if need be.
cost and we can add it in later.
\_ Until one of those tracks is blocked and the whole rail
line stops for most of the day leaving all passengers
stuck. You really need 3 tracks to avoid that problem
but you'll never get 3 tracks in the real world.
\_ An overturned truck can also block all lanes of one
direction of a freeway. It happened on 101S in Redwood
City on Jan 29. What's worse is that it also
significantly slowed down 101N which was not blocked at
all because of its spectator value. A stopped train
direction of a freeway. It happened on 101 in Redwood
City on Jan 29. What's worse is that a freeway accident
in one directory also slows down the other direction
because of its spectator value. A stopped train
blocking a track doesn't slow down trains on the track
in the opposite direction.
\_ I'm on a train. It stops. I'm fucked. I'm in my
car. There's a problem on the bridge. Unless I'm
already on the bridge I can turn off and go another
way, go home, go to Starbuck's, etc. If the train
was your only means of transportation, then you and
everyone else are 100% stuck, even people who have
not left home yet. Car mobility >>> train mobility.
\_ How often does this actually happen? I can imagine
all kinds of catastrophies that effect cars more
often than a grade seperated train, in fact that
often than a grade separated train, in fact that
is how it actually works in the real world. The
variability for driving from Antioch -> SF is
much higher than it is for taking BART.
train reliability >>>> car reliability
train safety >>>>> car safety
\_ Anecdote: I took Amtrak in December. The
train was stopped for 5 hours because someone
decided to end his life by getting drunk and
sitting on the tracks. I was told this happens
a fair bit around Christmas time. Of course
they had to stop the train for the
investigation team to get there, and also to
change the engineers (who had a right to a
'vacation' since they basically ended a human
life and couldn't stop it). -- ilyas
\_ Obviously, you don't commute to/from
Los Angeles and suburbs on the 405,
the 101, the 10, like most of the
Angelinos.
\_ According to this Keanu Reeves movie I
saw once, one is to stay off LA freeways.
-- ilyas
\_ Anecdote: I routinely drive from SF to
Sacramento to visit the in-laws. Twice out
of the last five trips, a 70 minute drive
took four hours, for no reason that I could
figure out. I decided that henceforth, I
would rather spend 2 1/2 hrs on the train
than 4 hours stuck in traffic, especially
since I have a toddler that would rather
run around than be stuck in a car seat. Plus,
my chance of getting killed by some bad
driver is much, much lower. And it costs
run around than be stuck in a car seat.
Plus, my chance of getting killed by some
bad driver is much, much lower. And it costs
about the same either way.
\_ If you are stuck on a train it's usually a lot
nicer than being stuck in a car, or in stop+go.
Unless you are in some fancy car with a chauffeur,
perhaps.
Then again, thinking of my old BART experience and
the weird people that sometimes shared my train
car, I might rethink this position.
\_ I was stuck on the Bay Bridge for five hours when
a truck fire closed it.
\- me too. it took 20min to drive through the
tunnel. people were running out of gas, falling
alseep etc.
\_ Rail is much cheaper to operate in a per passenger mile kind of way,
but I don't know about in a mile kind of way. That question doesn't
but I don't know about in a mile kind of way. You question doesn't
really make sense, since an unused freeway or railway costs less
to maintain.
\_ If it's unused it still costs the same, at least the rail
does, because it still needs to run regularly whether ridership
is low or not. Maybe highways cost a lot less to maintain with
less use. Not sure. You can assume both are used at full
capacity if it produces some numbers. I know rail is cheaper per
passenger mile if every train is full, but that's not my
question. Also, there's still the whole part about the cost to
build if you can't answer the maintenance question. I
suspect that roads cost the government less, because a big part
of the costs (the vehicle, fuel, and even some construction
via fuel taxes) are paid for by private parties. How does
this compare with the fares paid versus the rail costs? Two
numbers fall out, which are overall cost and cost to the
government. I suspect overall cost is higher for roads, but
cost to the government is higher for rail.
\_ That's a matter of the choices we make. We could make
drivers pay the full cost and tax to pay for rail, instead
of the other way around, if we wanted to. One could argue
that that is the morally defensible position. -tom
\_ I think the goal should be for the government to pay
as little as possible and let the free market decide
which makes more sense. These calculations are
difficult, but the markets can find the efficiency.
End all subsidies to rail and roads and see where you
end up. I suspect in most places it will be roads and
no rail system.
\_ That's an ideological stance; do you have any facts
to support it? It is well known that markets do
a poor job of pricing externalities like pollution.
And in places where drivers pay a larger portion of
the cost of driving than they do in the U.S., they
drive less and have better rail systems. -tom
\_ Better question: Do you have any evidence that
command economies do a better job than the free
market, because there's a lot of evidence to the
contrary.
\_ There is plenty of evidence that countries which
fund more infrastructure centrally have better
infrastructure. This should be obvious. -tom
\_ Well, duh. But is that the right choice?
\_ That's not what he asked.
\_ What he asked is a straw man; I'm not
arguing for a command economy. -tom
\_ Yes, you are when you are advocating
determining what the market is or
should be instead of letting the
free market handle the problem.
\_ The free market cannot handle the
problem; the free market will choose
the solution with the greatest
cost externality. At the very least
you need the government to
internalize the costs so a market
is plausible. -tom
\_ Oh, I think the free market can
handle it just fine. Why do
you think otherwise?
\_ how about, the work of various
mathematicians and economists
which shows that the free
market is inefficient when
dealing with externalized
costs? -tom
\_ Which externalized costs
do you think are relevant
here?
\_ The cost of fuel
acquisition and the
effects of pollution,
for two. -tom
\_ Maybe you could provide one real
world example of that happening.
\_ Yes, the free market has
been an unmitigated disaster,
comrade.
\_ Just answer the question,
if you can. We both know
there are no such examples,
and it has been a failure
when tried. Well maybe you
are so ignorant of history
you don't know the latter.
Show me a free market
example of a working
transportation system.
\_ Well, ocean and air
lines... they don't
need to build the
tracks/roads, only use
ports.
When has a free market
transportation system
been tried, in a
country that wasn't
impoverished or in
some anarchic state?
\_ An anarchic state
would be ideal for
the free market to
create solutions,
right? -tom
\_ What a stupid
comment. -- ilyas
\_ $1 billion dollar per mile 3-stop train in China town! trains woot!
\_ Big Dig: $14.6B for 7 miles of road in Boston! Carz rule!
\_ Exactly. Thanks for providing an excellent example of why
we don't want government messing with anything it doesn't
have to.
\_ yeah, because private industry was chomping at the bit to
run a project like the Big Dig. Not to mention the now
$6 billion Bay Bridge project. Oh wait, all those cost
overruns were due to private contractors; funny, that. -tom
\_ Point is that if private industry didn't want to
do it then maybe there's a reason for that and it
shouldn't have been done.
\_ The reason is that private industry does things
which are profitable, not things which are needed.
\_ If it's needed then there is profit in it.
Otherwise, people don't really want it. Why
do you insist on telling people what they want?
\_ I want to breathe clean air, where is the
market for that?
\_ Have you seen ozonizers? Filters?
Companies are working hard to capitalize
on your the demand with alternative
fuel vehicles, fuels, and so on. It's
not an easy problem to solve but the
market will solve it.
\_ Wow... amazing...
Private industry would never have replaced the
eastern span of the Bay Bridge; it's more profitable
to run it the way it is. Do you think the Bay Area
will be better off with a bridge that will survive
an earthquake? What is the value of being able to
travel easily from Oakland to San Francisco? -tom
\_ You are talking about building codes now,
which is ridiculous. Sure, I agree that the
government should safeguard the health of its
citizens to some degree. (I oppose mandatory
cycle helmets, but applaud meat inspectors.)
However, the bridge was just fine for 65
years. It might make more sense to just
operate it until it eventually collapses in a
disaster. I haven't seen any actuarial
tables, but hopefully someone did that study
and how it made more financial sense to
replace it first.
travel easily from Oakland to San Francisco? -tom
\_ So no one has any numbers? What are you basing your opinions
on then? Some numbers would be nice and much more convincing
than this socialist bullshit about how the government knows best
how to spend our dollars. If I want to build a transit system
that goes from San Diego to LA over land that I own then how
much will it cost to do rail vs. road?
\_ I know wher to get the numbers, but I am not willing to waste my
\_ I know where to get the numbers, but I am not willing to waste my
time arguing with a fool. You can use Google as well as I can.
\_ But Google has a liberal bias!
\_ Just post them. No need to argue if you don't want. The
numbers should drive your point home w/o need for any
arguing, hence the original (and unsatisfied) request.
If you show me it costs 50% of the cost of a road to install
a rail system with similar capacity then I'm on board with it.
\_ You may wish to see:
http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/how_transit_benefits.cfm
that whole website is chock full of transit info
http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/documents/weyrich3.pdf
A Conservative Critique of 12 Anti-Transit Myths
\_ No one is disputing rail can be effective. Is it *cost*
effective? The "myths" article did a very poor job with
that particular "myth" (and some others, too). For
instance, can you replace all roads with rail? No? What % can
you replace? How does that % compare to the % spent on rail?
It's useless to know the total $$$ spent on roads. If everyone
decided to commute by rail tomorrow then how much more
needs to be spent on enhancing and maintaining the rail
system? How much would still need to be spent on roads
regardless? This is the kind of analysis I never see done.
That is why I am in favor of the free market sorting it
out. Every individual's decision will contribute to an
efficient collective decision. If you are going to dictate
transport then you need to do a real freaking analysis
and it won't be easy.
\_ Los Angeles is a perfect example of a free-market
style of creating a city. City planning is too much work,
so why don't we let the developers build wherever they
want, whenever they want, and the rest of the solutions
will come later. Is this Los Angeles your idea of
free market utopia?
\_ Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.
\_ What about Chinatown?
\_ We get it. You have an ideology. Thanks for playing. -tom |
| 5/30 |
|
| www.apta.com/research/info/online/how_transit_benefits.cfm Download in Adobe PDF format) The following notice is from the inside of the front cover of the printed version of this report. The covers of the printed version are not included with this Internet version. This study of public transportation by the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation was underwritten by the private sector Business Members of the American Public Transportation Association. The Free Congress Foundation 717 Second Street Washington, DC 20002 (202) 546-3000 October 2003 FOREWORD by The Honorable Robert F Bennett United States Senator, State of Utah Do you use public transportation? Even if you live out in the country, you use public transportation when you drive to the city. That may be true, but you still use transit to help you get around. If it weren't for public transportation, there would be thousands more cars on the road. You would spend hours more driving in or out of the city, because congestion would be far worse than it already is. So even if you don't ride public transit, you still use it, and it is still working for you. I was pleased and honored to be asked to write the foreword to this interesting and innovative study by Paul Weyrich and Bill Lind. I see public transportation as part of the infrastructure, no different from water lines and highways and services such as the police and the fire department. Here, Paul and Bill explain exactly how transit benefits people who do not ride it. Reducing traffic congestion for people who drive is just one way. Why is it important that people who do not ride transit understand that it benefits them? Because too often, when a transit measure is on the ballot, they vote against it. That transit issue on the ballot will often benefit them, in the ways this study describes. Democracy depends on informed voters, and this study will help voters understand public transportation in a new way. I certainly intend to help distribute it in my state, and I will urge my colleagues in the Senate to do the same. I congratulate the Free Congress Foundation on once again producing the kind of cutting-edge work for which it is so well known. Notes 22 Introduction In November of the year 2000, the people of Salt Lake County, Utah faced a referendum on whether or not to build a new Light Rail line. Because the people who handled the campaign for the new rail line successfully appealed to a voting bloc most transit authorities ignore: people who do not ride transit. Brian Rasmussen of R&R Partners, Utah Transit Authority's communications agency, said: Just to step back a bit, in 1992, we knew we lost because we did not have the support of the white collar male, age 35 to 54. Knowing that many of them probably have never ridden a bus or a train, or may never, what message would motivate them? So we came up with the simple message, "Even if you don't ride it, you use it." That really became kind of the center of the focus of our message . Realizing that most non-riders drive to work, the ads stressed congestion relief. One just focused on an automobile wheel, inching ahead bit by bit in what was obviously stop-and-go traffic. Another showed a happy-go-lucky fellow enjoying the joys of the open road. In each, the message was the same: your drive to work will be easier because other people will be riding the new Light Rail line. The purpose of this study, the fifth in our series on conservatives and mass transit, is to explore more fully the question of how local authorities and transit advocates can explain the importance of public transportation to people who don't ride it. Relief from traffic congestion is by no means the only argument. It is important to note that the benefits to non-riders are real. We are not talking merely about how to present a case, as if we were pimps or, worse, lawyers. As conservatives, our first principle is the reality principle. Public policy must be based on reality, not on the fairy-tale wishes so beloved by liberals. If public transportation did not serve people who don't ride it, we would be the first to say so. As with our previous studies, our focus is mostly on the benefits of rail transit. The reason is, again, the reality principle: rail transit benefits non-riders far more than does bus transit. Here, we see again the vast differences between rail and bus. With a few exceptions, such as some express services, buses serve the transit dependent, people who have no other way to get around. Rail, in contrast, serves the whole community, including the large majority of people who have a car and can drive but may choose instead to take transit (they will often choose rail but seldom a bus) and, as this study will show, people who do not ride transit at all. Real conservatives are always happier with government activities that serve everyone than with those directed toward some special interest group. Why, you may ask, should we as conservatives care how transit benefits non-riders? Because, for the most part, we are talking about our own. Because in most of America, the high quality transit conservatives demand is not available. Most of us have cars and can drive, and if the alternative is a bus, we do drive. As our previous studies have shown, when high quality rail transit is available, conservatives will be happy to use it. Conservatives, and others who can drive, benefit more from Light Rail and commuter rail than anyone else. They benefit because it is transit they may want to ride and, as we will demonstrate here, they benefit from it even if they don't ride it. Sometimes we are tempted, at referendum time, to grab our unseeing fellow conservatives by the lapels of their Brooks Brothers suits and shout, "Come on, wake up! Our hope is that this study will serve as an alarm clock, for conservatives and all others who say, "I'm never going to ride that thing." To the degree they realize that fact and vote for more rail transit, everyone wins. As will transit itself, in referenda throughout the country. How Transit Benefits People Who Do Not Ride It: A Conservative Inquiry Transit consultant Alan Wulkan, who is a Senior Vice President with consultant Parsons Brinckerhoff, played a key role in the referendum in Phoenix, Arizona, where Light Rail won with an astonishing sixty-five percent of the vote. Discussing that campaign at a conference, Mr Wulkan said, The vast majority of the people that are going to vote on your future will never use what you are asking them to vote on. I don't care if you've got the greatest transit system in the world. The best split you're going to get is going to be 15 to 20 percent of the people in your community. So, again, why would the other 80 percent that are never going to step on your transit system vote for you? First, transit can reduce traffic congestion, or at least the rate of increase in traffic congestion. Second, everyone may need transit occasionally, to get to the big football game or when the car is in the shop or when the snow is three feet deep. Third, transit can bring large increases in residential property values, which is to say it can put money in homeowners' pockets. Reducing traffic congestion and increasing property values almost always requires rail transit, though buses can serve people who ride on an occasional basis. To see how transit benefits non-riders in each of these three ways (and a few others), we will look at each in turn in some detail. Transit Benefits Non-riders by Reducing Traffic Congestion Gary Richards, who writes a column called "Mr Roadshow" for the San Jose Mercury News in California, told of an incident that is all too typical of what is happening around the country. Within two years, Interstate 280, which is basically a parallel freeway, was more congested than it was before 85 opened up. a lady stood up and she said she didn't know if she was going to vote for any new sales taxes because she said, "You know, . I voted for the 84 Measure that built Highway 85 and now my options are - I can get stuck in traffic on Highway 85 or I can get stuck in traffic on the 280. I don't want to say it was a flood, but it was a consistent theme - "I want out of my car, how do ... |