Only $379 Million Per Mile

Yesterday, the Phoenix airport proudly opened its “Sky Train,” a 1.7-mile automated rail line connecting the terminal to the nearest low-capacity rail station. This is only the first step: a 0.7-mile extension will open in 2015 and a 2.5-mile extension is supposed to open in 2020.

Click image for a larger view. Flickr photo by Nick Bastian.

Total project cost is $1.58 billion, up from a 2003 cost projection of $700 million (about $900 million in today’s dollars). Assuming no more cost increases, that’s about a 75 percent overrun.

Irrespective of this, you need to follow the prescribed treatment to viagra buy no prescription keep the blood pressure under control. By picking the best super viagra depression treatment, you will get the best in anxiety care. The problem of ED may arise levitra price due to free radicals in the body. The more ropes or contractions result in generic levitra online try that a client’s success at work. According to the airport authority, the 1.7 miles that just opened cost $644 million, or $379 million per mile. The next 0.7-mile extension is expected to cost $240 million or $343 million per mile. The final 2.5 miles will cost about $700 million or a mere $280 million per mile. The total cost averages to $336 million per mile.

These costs might be typical of a high-capacity rail line such as the Washington Metro or San Francisco BART system. But the Sky Train is anything but high capacity. At the maximum, it will run three-car trains, each car capable of comfortably holding about 53 people, every three minutes. That’s less than 3,200 people per hour, which is about the same as an ultra-low capacity streetcar; about a third of a low-capacity (a.k.a. light-rail) line; and about a tenth of a true high-capacity line.

One reason for the high cost of the initial segment it that they built it 100 feet high to go over one of the airport taxiways. It is high enough to accommodate a 747, but not an Airbus A380. How long before some air traffic controller sends the wrong plane under the Sky Train? (It’s probably not an issue now as I don’t think A380s regularly serve Phoenix.)

This costly rail line is funded out of airport ticket fees, which means if you fly US Airways or one of the other airlines that makes Phoenix its hub and change planes without leaving the terminal, you will still be charged as much as $4.50 for this “free” service. All of which suggests that airports, like transit agencies, have too much money.

But hey–it’s environmentally friendly. After all, just think of the greenhouse gases people would emit if they had to walk to the light-rail station. The airport authority claims the train will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5,913 tons per year. Amortizing the $644 million cost over 30 years at 2 percent results in a $28.5 million annualized cost, or a mere $4,800 per ton of reduced emissions. If we keep reducing emissions at that rate, we’ll be bankrupt before the climate has a chance to warm up again.

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

5 Responses to Only $379 Million Per Mile

  1. FrancisKing says:

    I am astonished. I thought it had been demonstrated that PRT, as at Heathrow, is the correct technology here, been cheaper to buy and more responsive to passengers.

  2. LazyReader says:

    PRT is seldom cost effective. And don’t confuse PRT systems with People Movers. The one rare example of effectiveness was the Morgantown University system which is only because the unique terrain of Mountain country makes it comparable with other means of moving which would be more difficult. I don’t why this costs 379 million a mile, I thought Arizona was much more business friendly and a right to work state compared to California.

    I love the fact that Randal mentioned the cost per ton of CO2 removed. Even though US emissions are at it’s lowest levels since 1994 due to A) the recession and B) hydraulic fracturing for natural gas whose emissions are 30-40% less than that of coal; the main constituent to our electricity supply and C) the ever improving automobile whose emissions control features improve every decade.

    http://inhabitat.com/united-states-co2-emissions-fall-to-lowest-level-since-1994/

    While the article above submits renewable power such as wind/solar as a prime reason for the drop (I’m not sure how considering it only provides no more than 2% of our power). But we did it without any substantial legislation, agreements or protocols. We did by accident what the European Union spent hundreds of billions trying to do for the last ten years. All because they don’t allow “Fracking”.

  3. FrancisKing says:

    @ LazyReader

    I should introduce myself. I am a qualified transport planner.

    A good example of PRT is the system at Heathrow. Unlike most development types, airports don’t really have a peak hour, which nicely matches transit like PRT.

    At the same time, PRT has no passenger delays, offers direct routes without intermediate stops, and uses relatively inexpensive trackway.

    A 2 mile system at Heathrow cost £30m ($45m). That’s a long way from $1600m of the system that Antiplanner has described.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ULTra_(rapid_transit)

  4. Sandy Teal says:

    How does the PHX system to tie into rail transit compare to the SFO system which is very similar?

  5. Scott says:

    Amortizing the total build capital cost of $1.6 billion across a decade of 3 million trips annually (assuming the estimate for the 1st year will increase w/expansion), that comes out to $53 per trip. Trips will average 2-3 miles, about half of total length.

    The LRT could have been built through (under) the airport, w/stops, to avoid this ridiculous, extravagant expense.

Leave a Reply