Today is Earth Day, a day in which we are supposed to celebrate environmentally friendly ideas such as public transit, high-density development, and electric vehicles. My report published last week revealed that the transit lobby has hijacked affordable housing funds so that, in many cities, most of those funds are spent on expensive high-density transit-oriented developments rather than on more affordable low-rise housing.
The Federal Transit Administration has recommended that Congress fund the Inglewood Transit Connector, a $2.0 billion people mover that will be just 1.6 miles long.
Last month, the Federal Transit Administration released its 2025 funding recommendations for transit capital improvements. This allows us to see some of the wacky ideas that the transit industry has come up with in recent years.
High on the list of wackiness is the Inglewood Transit Connector, an automated guideway or people mover that the city of Inglewood, a suburb of Los Angeles with about 100,000 residents, wants to build. At just 1.6 miles long it will cost more than $1.26 billion a mile and is expected to attract just 4,300 daily transit riders, about half of whom would take transit even without the people mover.
Despite these crazy numbers, the Inglewood Connector is one of 25 of the 66 projects considered that the FTA has recommended for funding in 2025. That doesn’t mean the other 41 projects won’t be funded; most are simply in early planning states.
In authorizing spending on transit capital improvements, Congress has repeatedly stated that it wants transit agencies to measure the cost-effectiveness of their projects. That means comparing them with a wide range of alternatives. Light rail should be compared with bus-rapid transit on dedicated bus lanes; bus-rapid transit on dedicated lanes should be compared with bus-rapid transit on shared lanes; etc.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration wrote cost-effectiveness rules that made it clear that the FTA is not allowed to care about costs, ridership, or cost-effectiveness. The rule states that all a transit agency has to do to meet the cost-effectiveness requirement is to estimate the cost per rider. It doesn’t have to compare that with alternatives other than “do nothing” and even if the cost per rider is higher than doing nothing it is still considered cost-effective. Agencies certainly don’t have to worry that the FTA will compare the costs of their projects with projects proposed by agencies in other parts of the country.
We can see the results of this rule by looking at projects in the 2025 FTA report. A crude way of measuring the cost-effectiveness of these projects is to divide the projected capital cost by the number of riders they are expected to carry each day. A better way is to divide the capital cost by the number of new daily riders the projects are expected to attract, that is, the number of riders who wouldn’t have ridden transit unless the new project is built.
The difference between riders and new riders can be significant. One proposed bus project is expected to carry 2,800 riders per day, but 2,300 of those are already riding transit. The bus project will attract only 500 new daily riders. In many cases, about half the riders are expected to be new riders, but in some it is as little as 10 percent.
Ridership projections are not yet available for all of the projects considered by the FTA, but of those that are, the average capital cost per new daily rider of bus-rapid transit projects is about $76,000 and some are as low as $20,000. The same cost of the Inglewood Connector will be $961,000. That’s not cost-effective if bus-rapid transit could do the same job for less than a tenth of the cost.
The Inglewood Connector is not the only outrageously expensive project on the FTA’s list. Chicago wants to extend one of its elevated lines by 5.6 miles, which will cost $774,000 per new daily rider.BART to downtown San Jose is expected to cost nearly $500,000 per new daily rider. San Francisco’s project bringing commuter trains into its Transbay terminal is expected to cost well over $260,000 per new rider. Charleston South Carolina has a bus project that is expected to cost more than $200,000 per new daily rider.
Of course, these numbers assume there will be no cost overruns, but we already know that isn’t true because the FTA is using old data for many of the projects. Its profile for the Twin Cities’ Southwest light rail says it will cost $2.00 billion, but the lastest actual estimate is $2.86 billion (which is $315,000 per new daily rider).
Some people have claimed that one good thing about the 2025 report is that most of the projects — 40 out of 66 — are bus-rapid transit. That’s mainly because many transit agencies don’t believe they can convince local politicians or voters to pony up matching funds for ridiculously expensive rail projects. But most of the BRT projects will increase congestion by taking away lanes for automobiles. Whether you think that is a good idea or not, BRT might represent most of the projects, but they total to just 14 percent of the cost.
Light rail would get 43 percent of the cost of projects considered by the FTA. Back in the 1980s, light rail typically cost about $30 million a mile and I remember being appalled that Portland approved a light-rail project in about 1990 that cost $55 million a mile. The average light-rail project in the 2025 FTA report costs over $310 million a mile. One Seattle project is expected to cost well over $1.2 billion a mile. Ridership projections aren’t yet available for that project, but another Seattle light-rail project that is expected to cost $383 million a mile would have a cost per new daily rider of nearly $200,000.
Heavy-rail projects include an extension of New York’s Second Avenue Subway at a cost of $4.4 billion per mile; subways in Los Angeles expected to cost about $1.2 billion a mile (and at least $176,000 per new rider); San Jose BART which is more than $1.5 billion a mile; and the Chicago Red Line extension which at $705 million a mile is least expensive because it isn’t a subway.
In addition to San Francisco’s Transbay project, commuter rail projects include two in Florida whose costs are modest and an unnecessary $966 million spent on double-tracking of a commuter-rail line in Utah. But the big one is new tunnels under the Hudson River, which are supposedly needed because the existing tunnels are in danger of collapse. At $7.4 billion, the cost is projected to be less than the Transbay’s current estimate of $8.3 billion. While both are likely to rise, the Hudson tunnels will move four or five times as many people as the Transbay project.
While I don’t think that lower-cost alternatives to new tunnels were given adequate consideration, and I do think more of it should be funded locally, the Hudson River project is arguably more sensible than most on this list, including the Second Avenue Subway, New York City’s other big project. I say it is more sensible because, unlike all other rail projects being considered, I don’t see any way that buses could provide an adequate substitute for rail in this case. It does provide a cautionary lesson for rail advocates, which is that if you make your city dependent on expensive rail infrastructure, you will eventually be liable to pay the high costs of rehabilitating that infrastructure.
Three streetcar projects on the list, in Sacramento, Seattle, and Tampa, are expected to cost an average of $93 million a mile, a cost raised by Seattle’s project, which is $220 million a mile. All of these are ridiculous ego projects and the good news is there is significant local opposition to some of them.
Most of these rail projects were planned long before the pandemic and any ridership estimates are counting on downtown workers reaching pre-pandemic numbers. This is unlikely in most regions, which means most of the ridership estimates are way too high.
Even before the pandemic, none of these rail projects other the Hudson tunnels made sense because buses could do as much as rail for far less money. Why spend $1.8 billion adding light rail across the Columbia River from Portland to Vancouver when Vancouver voters don’t even want light rail? Why spend more than $540 million a mile building light rail into the San Fernando Valley when buses could carry more people for less money? Why does Seattle have to have the most expensive light-rail network in the universe when Seattle transit carried a higher percentage of commuters to work than Portland’s when Portland had multiple light-rail lines and Seattle had only buses?
Nor should bus projects be exempt from criticism. There are two kinds of bus projects in the FTA report. One, sometimes called BRT lite, would run buses in shared lanes with fewer stops than normal buses. This would make them faster without taking lanes away from cars. These projects tend to cost around $5 million a mile with one as low as $2.7 million a mile. Such projects can be implemented practically overnight: just buy some buses, paint them a distinctive color, and go.
The other, sometimes called BRT heavy, requires dedicating lanes to the buses, which increases costs and congestion at the same time. These projects tend to cost around $50 million a mile with one coming in at just below $100 million a mile. These projects require years of planning, if only to get local buy-in. While Richmond’s BRT has proven to be a success, others such as Albuquerque’s turned into embarrassing failures.
The real problem is that the availability of billions of dollars of federal funds for transit capital improvements has led transit agencies to generally select the more expensive alternatives: dedicated bus lanes when shared lanes would do; light rail when buses would do, etc. Until those incentives change, we will continue to see wacky proposals such as the Inglewood Connector.
Congress has repeatedly stated that it wants transit agencies to measure the cost-effectiveness of their projects”
Congress going into detail about cost-effectiveness and giving financial lectures…after just approving a spending bill which allocates 66 billion Ukraine, 14 billion to Israel.
We cant pave roads, or build affordable housing, But we sure can perpetuate More War,
Good one
Transportation financing policy in this country is a hopeless unholy mess.
We’re tearing down highways, which practically everybody wants, and spending bazillions on transit that practically nobody wants.
Which highway teardown was a horrible idea?
The antiplanner doesn’t seem to care that he has racist fans.
janehavisham,
I’d hardly call Lazyreader a fan as they disagree with me as much as they agree. But you are right: they went too far this time.
when adjusted for inflation the sacramento, seattle, and tampa light rail projects are no more expensive per mile than your back in the day “estimate.” You’d think an economist would account for inflation.
In mid 1980s price average lightrail was 5-10 million per mile to build. Inflation adjusted 14-30 million today’s money.
Today light rail averages 85-250 million per mile. And some systems 500 to a BILLION plus.
It’s not inflation.
What changed? Government unions?
… Unions are partly responsible.
Back in 1955 Edward Banfield wrote his case study book “The Moral Basis of a Backward Society”
He observed a self-interested, family-centric society, which sacrificed the public good for the sake of nepotism and the immediate family. As an American, Banfield was witnessing what was to become infamous as the Southern Italian Mafias and a self-centered clan-system promoting the well-being of their inner group at the expense of the other ones.
In any case… self interested groups overtook the nations labor pool to corral protected labor class to build all national projects.
2nd Antiplanner said it in his ICONOCLAST
article
Rule 6: Don’t trust special interest groups.
Public transit is largely obsolete, yet it’s pushed by special interest groups all whom tied circumstance they say is bad
Demographic, poverty, age/children/handicappped, blah blah blah.
Outside a few dense metro cities rail is effective way moving people. But status quo and nostalgia rail romanticizers placed emphasis we need rail systems everywhere.
Because it supports Labor and capital intensive technologies.
Walt Disney World Resort has 1000 people crew dedicated maintenance for parks rides and moving equipment. The Disney Monorail moves 150,000 people a day; thou it doesn’t charge any fares, it runs on a crew of 20-30 people, Far fraction of heavy rail systems. As it’s just a bus with it’s wheels bent 90 degrees inward it is by far the most reliable and least labor intensive transit system.
Big Contractors love heavy rail, keeps them busy for decades and You Mr. Taxpayer foot the bill.
Cyrus992,
No, unions are not responsible for the huge increase in costs. What changed was that transit agencies discovered that politicians and voters are innumerate, so a project that cost a billion dollars didn’t seem any more expensive than one that cost a million. Portland’s first (1986) light-rail line cost around $200 million in today’s dollars; the last one it opened (2015) cost $1.5 billion.
Transit agencies also know that politicians won’t hold the agencies to their ridership predictions. Portland transit ridership declined after both the 1986 and 2015 lines opened, but support continues for more construction. So why bother to build inexpensive lines when politicians will fund expensive ones?
Uh yeah Unions are responsible.
WHo pushes and lobbies politicians and finances the campaigns?
Unions feed political races, politicians vouch for projects which unions will build.
The problem with rail is just like Hyperloop, ALL the technology is in the infrastructure. thats a huge problem when service, new technology emerges or worse if the government lets the infrastructure rot. In any case the technology is proprietary; therefore only dedicated labor can fix it. And as I wrote before It’s perception as a public good, doesn’t do much to dissuade the public from speaking up against it. After all I don’t ride it but “X’ does, so who cares if it costs “Y” amount of dollars.
Since the technology is in the infrastructure and the infrastructure has an expected lifespan…Its impossible to routinely upgrade. And if they fuking put computers in it; it get’s worse. (The consequence of Moore’s Law is hardware CPU components of computers evolve to the point, lot of computers used in older machines are no longer serviceable. The US Air Force hired a team of engineers to completely take apart and reverse engineer it’s B2 bombers because the guys who worked on it are dead, retired or senile; it’s 70s technology. Many transit systems use obsolete computers, reliable enough to need no real maintenance)
The Antiplanner’ own article show how unions (construction or otherwise) corral this tendency.
https://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=13131
Everything costs more when government builds it.
“Government always pays above-average prices for below-average work,”
Another reason is because in America we have PROPERTY rights and Tort law. Europe and Asia don’t have same eminent domain capacities; they can just… take it.
But Unions are big reason why. In his own articles…
In 1982, economist Mancur Olson suggested that societies that enjoy long periods of stability will “accumulate more collusionsand organizations for collective action over time.” Olson called these groups “distributional coalitions” because their goal was not economic growth but redistribution of existing economic productivity. Such coalitions, he said, “slow down a society’s capacity to adopt new technologies and to reallocate resources in response to changing conditions, and thereby reduce the rate of economic growth.”
Another reason why construction costs so much, Labor costs; namely input of manual labor.
Europe builds Lots of trains, so they invest a lot of money in industrial infrastructure and manufacturing capacity for rail equipment, track, trains, cars, furnishings, etc. By contrast the US uses almost NO passenger trains so investment is significantly lower. As such, building a USA Made train means a factory must be built and converted to accommodate a production. And when finished; all industrial infrastructure shuts down after closing leaving little spare parts behind.
Europe was fighting labor costs they invested in automation like track laying machines and large modular building technologies.
Asia fights labor costs with population, they drag down labor cost by replacing with manual workers. China can build a labor intensive project
Middle East fights labor costs with imported workers from Phillippines/Africa.
Africa fights labor costs with SLAVES
Same with highway projects I bet.
There is a reason why I-11 and I-69 are overbudget and delayed as well.
The most Expensive major Highway Project in US history was 22 Billion dollar Boston Big Dig and that was more TUnnel to replace a highway; all while keeping the said highway active along with bridges and diversion.
The most expensive genuine highway project was Mon-Fayette express between Pennsylvania and West Virginia; At 5 Billion dollars.
The long run, main point is there is no longer any need to build out anymore highways, the task now rests on neglected maintence and begin long haul task of evaluating what needs repair and bridges/tunnels need most amount overhaul.
Finally some sanity and a message of hope for oppressed car driving masses everywhere..bike lanes and sidewalks will soon be outlawed in the great state of Arizona!
https://www.cazbike.org/bill-to-prohibit-bicycling-on-rural-freeways-moves-forward/
“Bill to prohibit building any Bicycle or Pedestrian infrastructure
Sen Hoffman (R-Queen Creek) also sponsored a separate stand-alone bill to prohibit ADOT from building bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure; after a similar prohibition failed to move forward in the last session; even if it means turning away federal money, SB1282”
Whas is the purpose of this?
Paris’ nightmarish anti-car world:
https://x.com/berkie1/status/1779867440324710501
Anne Hidalgo became Mayor of Paris 10-years ago. In that time the City has;
? built 1,300km of bike lanes
? planted 145,000 new trees
? reduced air pollution by 40%
?added 45km of new parks
? converted 180 streets to “school streets”
Paris also passed uts SUV tax, 20 bucks an hour.
But I can drive a V12 POWERED sedan thru Paris easy easy.
They’ve reduced pollution on metric value as people Move out.
And it’s a flaming dumpster fire Thanks importation third world rif raf.
Paris is Broke. The city is in so much debt now surpassing 8 billion euros. It’s unions will riot when the city runs out of money.
“Green” has chased jobs out of Germany and France.
They’ve tanked their sovereignty in name of not being called racism
They tanked their economy in name of environmentalism.