If there is one thing Denver’s Regional Transit District (RTD) has become famous for, it is making economic forecasts that are proven wrong a year later. Back in 2004, it projected that it could build 119 miles of rail lines for $4.7 billion. By 2007, the cost was up to $6.2 billion, then $7.9 billion. In 2008, it had declined to $7.0 billion (which everyone but the Antiplanner published as $6.9 billion — but it was really $6.952, which rounds up to $7.0).
The latest projection estimates that, thanks to the recession, the cost will be only $6.5 billion (details here). But the other side of the projection — revenues to pay for it — are even more dismal, with revenues now projected to be $2.5 billion less than originally expected.
In fact, the latest projections indicate that, even if RTD manages to build all of the new rail lines, it won’t have enough money to run them. Of course, RTD and the rail nuts who support it just see this as all the more reason why Denver-area voters should agree to another tax increase. Let’s hope they wise up this time.
This is so because sildenafil online canada has proven to be the best amongst all. It improves secretion of testosterone and corrects nocturnal canadian viagra no prescription browse over here emissions naturally. Because unless your mind wishes for a cure for erectile dysfunction, then heritageihc.com cialis prescription you should check out Kamagra. What will be the boon of ordering on this site a kind of online site, which deals widely with viagra online australia stuff for the first time in the world.
You know where RTD went wrong? It didn’t plan an aerial tramway. New York City has one. So does Portland. Hey, someone might actually choose to use it, so under smart-growth’s “choice” theory (“we have to give people a choice, no matter what the cost”), it should be mandatory for the Mile High City to have one too, right?
Given all the biases inherent in public agencies seeking increased budgets, it is foolish to expect that they can make reasonable projections about the future. That’s a major reason why transit agencies should stick to running buses, which doesn’t require long-range projections, instead of building rail lines.
The Autoplanner: That’s a major reason why transit agencies should stick to running buses, which doesn’t require long-range projections
THWM: Fuel costs, labor costs, life of a bus is about 20 years.
Roads have costs too, though that kind of covert socialism is fine by libertards.
Yep.
Buses are cheaper to operate.
They do not have the expense of a right of way that is un-used 99% of the time therefore
They cost much less than light rail and
their shorter life cycle gives buses a newer average vehicle that is more up to date with the latest safety and energy saving measures.
http://www.PortlandFacts.com has all of the analysis and links to the primaryl data sources.
Thanks
JK
Buses can be moved to other routes and I bet they can be resold more easily than rail vehicles. (I’ve met advocates of rail transit that see these as disadvantages.)
Moreover, at least in other countries, bus transit has actually been *gasp* profitable as a private enterprise. You can tour practically all of Central and South America for a pittance on privately-owned buses that even stop for lunch along the way. You won’t be sitting in leather seats sipping champagne, but that’s an implementation issue, not a threshold issue.
jwetmore said:
“Buses can be moved to other routes and I bet they can be resold more easily than rail vehicles. (I’ve met advocates of rail transit that see these as disadvantages.)”
The argument I’ve heard most rail advocates use (on the operational not financial side)is that train are less susceptible to road congestion at peak hours than buses are. I’ve never heard anyone in the transit business describe the flexibility of buses as a negative.
Two nights ago the BH got home around 7.30 PM, stuck in traffic, first-grader was very sad that mom couldn’t do the bath and dumb*ss chose ugly pajamas.
Why was BH late? She drove in that day. All the buses on the roads were late as well. We made a new rule: weather means LR to avoid being late getting home.
Jus’ sayin’ the argument is kinda more complicated than simpleton statements of supposed fact. This argumentation does not endorse the management skills or capacity of RTD.
DS
One of the reasons I, as a Libertard and Simpleton, like this blog is that I can see in fairly concise form the latest arguments of the Left. They are usually wrong and nearly always ad hominem.
Highwayman assures us that the flexibility of buses as opposed to the long term expense problems of LR is nonsense because of “Fuel costs, labor costs, life of a bus is about 20 years.” Fuel and labor costs are current items. To eliminate them one stops the buses and lays-off the drivers. The life of a bus at 20 years is indeed a longer term element easily solved by putting an ad in Kijiji and selling it to a free market Mexican
Highwayman also suggests that we Libtards favor sooper seekrit road subsidies, or perhaps that we avert our eyes from them. No we do not. We, and the AP have always said that auto and truck users must pay their way. The only argument has ever been as to how best to calculate that. Gas taxes? Mileage taxes?
DS tells me what I know from personal experience to be false: that LR works perfectly when weather snarls auto traffic, and so badly overstates the case. He then tells me that matters are not simple and by implication that I am a simpleton too dumb to understand. No doubt only a central committee imposing a 5 year plan has the brainpower to know and understand what 500 million North American consumers want and need for transportation.
I have two arguments, well, three if you include ‘lefties are always wrong’.
One, let the market decide. Only a market can truly summarize the ever-changing individual wants and needs of large groups. No committee can come close. All it can do is keep the market fair, and often not even that.
Two, distributed processing beats monolithic processing for nearly everything. Trains v. trucks. Mainframes v. networked PCs. Examples are legion. People v. ants. OK, that one’s supposed to be a joke.
Three, lefties are always wrong.
AP, I still hope you’ll go to Mexico, PV or Mazatlan, ride the buses and study their private ownership. Mmmm, tax deductible trip to Mexico. See, aren’t we righties corrupt, plotting to “steal” back our money from the government like that?
So you libertards think planned obsolescence in a product is a good thing?
White people won’t ride buses.
Correction: White people won’t ride buses with non-whites.
You libertards are so funny, you think every thing is just one size fits all.
Spokker, this general point has been brought up numerous times here to point out the weakness of the argument, to no avail, as it is trotted out over and over, similar to a tic or maybe a parrot.
DS
Spokker,
I’m a white guy (well, okay, part Native American, but my features are predominantly caucasian) and I ride the bus to work. Thanks to HOV lanes, riding the bus is faster than driving and costs a fraction as much.
To be specific, I ride the Rapid I-10 East.
These folks seem to do math like the California High-Speed Rail Authority.
Mike,
Good ridership?
RTD’s initial revenue projections for the sales tax were so far off that, as it turns out now, the tax wasn’t even enough to cover their overly optimistic initial construction cost projection of $4.7 billion.
These are tough economic times for every one.
Spokker,
The peak-hour buses on the RAPID are full with standing room only (or even none, at times). By “peak hour” I mean the 6:50-7:20 morning runs and the 4:50-5:20 evening runs, since the RAPID is by definition only in operation during commuting hours. The very early and very late runs in either direction range from a third full to half full, except that the very first outbound afternoon bus is invariably full (because commuting teens attending the downtown private high schools are all done by 3pm).