The Antiplanner

Solid Gold Light Rail

8th August 2008

Solid Gold Light Rail

posted in Transportation |

RTD, Denver’s overpriced transit agency, has published a draft environmental impact statement for the proposed Gold rail transit line, which is supposed to go from Denver northwest to Wheat Ridge. Back in 2000, when RTD did a “major investment study” of this corridor, light rail was expected to cost $281 million. By the time FasTracks was put on the ballot in 2004, the cost had risen to $355 million.

Now, RTD says the line will cost more than $600 million, which is a lot for a mere 11 route miles. Moreover, RTD has changed the proposed technology to something it calls “electric multiple-unit commuter rail,” which sounds something like the Chicago Electroliners or some of the Philadelphia commuter trains.

For this high price, the DEIS reports incredibly trivial benefits. The proposed rail line is projected to take 0.0085 percent of cars off the road. Of course, that’s for the region as a whole, but in the corridor it will take a whopping 0.227 percent of cars off the road. A handful of buses could do as well.

Of course, the DEIS doesn’t include a bus-rapid transit alternative. The major investment study found that bus-rapid transit on HOV or HOT lanes would cost about half as much as rail, but RTD discarded that alternative. It did consider an alternative, called “transportation system management,” that includes some token bus improvements, but only because the FTA requires such an alternative. Curiously, the DEIS admits that those token bus improvements will actually reduce regional driving by more than the rail line.

Other benefits of the rail line are similarly trivial. The rail alternative results in 0.009% less carbon monoxide, 0.009% less nitrogen oxides, and 0.007 percent less volatile organic compounds aka hydrocarbons.

The Antiplanner’s review of rail transit and greenhouse gases found that Denver’s light-rail lines produce more greenhouse gases per passenger mile than a typical SUV. The Gold Line DEIS agrees, admitting that the rail alternative will result in a regional CO2 increase of 0.034% (see page 3.7-10).

Curiously, the text in the DEIS contradicts the tables, saying, “the increase associated with the Preferred Alternative is negligible and would be off-set by the traffic reduction, and associated lower CO2 emissions, resulting from the FasTracks system ridership as a whole” (table 3.7-9). But the “traffic reduction” is built into the numbers in the tables. Clearly, whoever wrote this is engaging in wishful thinking, and the result is very deceptive.

Comments on the DEIS are due on September 1. The growing number of people in Denver who are disillusioned with the cost overruns, eminent domain, and other problems associated with FasTracks should be sure to get their comments in while they can.

This entry was posted on Friday, August 8th, 2008 at 12:00 am and is filed under Transportation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 12 responses to “Solid Gold Light Rail”

Please feel free to submit comments. Constructive debate is welcome. Ad hominem attacks and name-calling will reveal the shallowness of the author. Foul language may be deleted. Your first comment will require moderation; after that, all comments will be approved unless they contain too many links in which case the software may hold them for approval as potential spam.

  1. 1 On August 8th, 2008, the highwayman said:

    This project seemes as if it’s being gold plated, then again much of the highway system is gold plated.

    posted on August 8th, 2008 at 2:20 pm

  2. 2 On August 9th, 2008, The Colorado Index said:

    RTD Desires More Taxes, Ignores Cost-Effective Options

    Denver’s Regional Transportation District and its FasTracks program is in trouble. However, RTD’s planners refuse to look at more cost effective measures and instead plan to raise taxes. This week’s Post story contained some telling information.The …

    posted on August 9th, 2008 at 4:29 pm

  3. 3 On August 10th, 2008, Francis King said:

    “Now, RTD says the line will cost more than $600 million, which is a lot for a mere 11 route miles. Moreover, RTD has changed the proposed technology to something it calls “electric multiple-unit commuter rail,” which sounds something like the Chicago Electroliners or some of the Philadelphia commuter trains.”

    The cost is actually very reasonable. 11 miles = 18km. So the cost is $33m/km. Light rail in the UK is $40-60m/km. The type envisaged is shown on the front cover of the report.

    “For this high price, the DEIS reports incredibly trivial benefits.”

    Including a 1% increase in systemwide patronage (Figure 4-2). I like the way in which the graph has a non-zero axis, in order to make the benefits look better.

    posted on August 10th, 2008 at 9:22 am

  4. 4 On August 11th, 2008, the highwayman said:

    An other problem is that we don’t know the breakdown of the costs here. The devil is always in the details.

    Just as with road projects there are others costs that never get counted.

    posted on August 11th, 2008 at 12:19 pm

  5. 5 On August 11th, 2008, Dan said:

    How much are construction cost increases, and how much is other factors, one wonders.

    Hmm…where are these cost increases in Randal’s “analysis” in this post…hmmm…hmmm…and how much is the road fund overdrawn and thus delaying road projects…hmmm…and why are they over budget, one wonders…

    DS

    posted on August 11th, 2008 at 4:13 pm

  6. 6 On August 12th, 2008, prk166 said:

    “Under the FasTracks Plan, 28 miles of light rail, 94 miles of commuter rail, and 18 miles of BRT improvements will be developed between 2005 and 2017. Rubber-tire service levels (bus and Americans with Disabilities Act services) will increase by a minimum of 1.0 percent per year from 2008 to 2020 and a minimum of 1.5 percent per year from 2021 to 2035. Overall, 2035 rubber-tire service hours will increase by 50 percent over 2007 service levels.”

    Well, RTD, we’ll have to wait and see especially in light of recent service cuts.

    What I get a kick out of in this study where they talk about travel times on this corridor. They couldn’t forsee events just a couple years into the future yet they know what things will be like in 2030? How about let’s compare ridership, travel times and such today and focus on that before we get into the future. Even that aside they know their riders have time to get to the station and they have time to get where they’re going after DUS so why measure Ward Rd to DUS? If I’m already in my car to drive to the Ward Rd station I could save time by skipping the amount of time it takes to find a spot, walk to the station ramp, wait at the station ramp, take a train to DUS, and then walk from DUS to my office or more likely walk over, wait for a 16th street shuttle, get off, walk to the office. Sheeeeeet, I could’ve drove directly there in much less time. RTD is cherry picking that number.

    posted on August 12th, 2008 at 11:45 am

  7. 7 On August 13th, 2008, the highwayman said:

    prk166: Another problem is that thanks to the likes of O’Toole and Cox, numbers can mean almost nothing these days. Since they have based their careers time and time again on cherry picking numbers them selves.

    Transport policy hasn’t been any thing close to being market based for the past 100 years and people like O’Toole or Cox want it to continue being that way.

    posted on August 13th, 2008 at 5:58 pm

  8. 8 On August 14th, 2008, Dan said:

    Gosh. I wonder why we don’t mention this on this site:

    AGC Leaders Meet President Bush, Discuss Impact of Rising Construction Materials Prices

    WASHINGTON, D.C.– Douglas E. Barnhart (J. Reese Construction, Inc; San Diego, Calif.), President of the Associated General Contractors of America and Stephen E. Sandherr, CEO of the Associated General Contractors of America, met with President Bush to discuss the impact of rising petroleum costs on the construction industry.

    “Construction costs have risen much more than consumer prices this year, due to the extreme run-up in petroleum costs,” Barnhart explained during a meeting today at the White House. “The producer price index (PPI) for inputs to construction rose 10.4% from June 2007 to June 2008, vs. 5.0% for the consumer price index.

    Barnhart continued, “The PPI for highway and street construction, the most fuel- and asphalt-intensive construction segment, rose 18.9%. The national average retail price of on-highway diesel fuel on August 4 was $4.50 per gallon, up 55% in a year, and 57 cents more than the average for gasoline.”

    The construction industry has faced unforeseen increases in all construction materials, which are resulting in a reduction in projects and causing job uncertainty.

    DS

    posted on August 14th, 2008 at 11:16 am

  9. 9 On August 14th, 2008, MJ said:

    “prk166: Another problem is that thanks to the likes of O’Toole and Cox, numbers can mean almost nothing these days. Since they have based their careers time and time again on cherry picking numbers them selves.”

    Numbers don’t mean anything by themselves, it is the interpretation that matters. A smart reader can tell the difference between fact and fancy, including “cherry picking” data, and can explain whether and how such activity is taking place.

    “Gosh. I wonder why we don’t mention this on this site:

    …“The PPI for highway and street construction, the most fuel- and asphalt-intensive construction segment, rose 18.9%…”.

    Yet, if you look at the trend in this index (highway and street construction) from 2001 to the present, it only accounts for an increase of about 50-60%. As mentioned in the post, this project has increased in cost by over 110% since 2000, leaving much of the increase still to be explained. My hypothesis is that, in this case at least, much of this had to do with the fact that RTD and the FasTracks lobbying coalition were trying to sell voters a $5 billion (now $7 billion) package of rail lines, and were playing with some “funny” numbers.

    posted on August 14th, 2008 at 10:14 pm

  10. 10 On August 18th, 2008, the highwayman said:

    Also how much of this is back log from not doing any thing for many years regarding improving transit service?

    posted on August 18th, 2008 at 12:59 pm

  11. 11 On August 18th, 2008, prk166 said:

    DS –> Those construction costs were not unforeseeable. Commodity prices started to outpace inflation just a couple years after the Asian financial crisis 97/98. Furthermore, when you’re constructing a project that is going to take 10-20 years to make there are forms of insurance, futures for steel for example, that can be used to mitigate these risks.

    I would argue they cherry picked both construction costs and future sales tax revenue projections that looked good for the voters. I suspect they saw the $7.1 / 7.2 spending cap as giving them plenty of room with their low $4.7 billion project. So what if they go a billion or 2 over, they’ve still got room. But with the sharp increase, they lost that room.

    The funny thing is on the West Corridor, they recently signed contracts with 2 companies to build it. They have all of $5 million for for inflation increases. Yet somehow even though commodity prices have been shooting up these 2 companies are confident that’s all they need to get the job done. If these construction costs increases are so unforeseeable, why aren’t these 2 worried about them over the next 7 years of construction?

    posted on August 18th, 2008 at 11:31 pm

  12. 12 On August 19th, 2008, Dan said:

    Those construction costs were not unforeseeable.

    The heroic, patriot RoadBuilders are saying the same thing. Apparently they are cherry-picking construction costs to continue sucking at the public teat for our hard-earned patriot dollars.

    DS

    posted on August 19th, 2008 at 8:23 am

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.