Arlington County, Virginia wants to spend $261 million building a streetcar line that, just four years ago, was expected to cost $100 million less. The streetcar’s costs are now expected to average $50 million a mile.
That’s quite literally insane. When San Diego built the first modern light-rail line, which opened in 1981, it cost about $15 million a mile in today’s dollars. But as more cities built light rail, costs soon rose to $50 million a mile on the average, with some coming in at more than $200 a mile.
Then, in 1999, Portland decided to built a streetcar line, which was billed as a “low-cost alternative” to light rail. Yet Portland’s original line cost $20 million a mile, more than San Diego’s original light-rail line. Now $50 million a mile is considered “comparable to similar projects across the nation.”
Ndividuals are lowering his or her expending in an cialis samples effort to save money in such economically hard times but they fail to realize that they can also lose their money, their health, and even their life”. The success of propecia lawsuit http://www.heritageihc.com/articles/23/ viagra buy in usa settlements depends upon the professional lawyer hired for the trail and settlement. So, at that point of time, you have to visit to heritageihc.com buying sildenafil online a physician for taking the remedy of the disease. Start slow and then cialis on line go hard.
“We build high schools for $150 million,” says one official, as if that is relevant to the discussion. After all, high schools presumably do something, while a streetcar is merely an egotistical expression of government folly. If you want to talk about comparable investments, how about four-lane freeways that cost as little as $10 million a mile, carry dozens of times more traffic than a streetcar, and largely pay for themselves out of gas taxes and sometimes tolls?
The transit lobby loves to talk about how transit saves people money, conveniently ignoring the subsidies to transit that average close to 100 times as much, per passenger mile, as the subsidies to auto driving. The reality is that transit agencies remain stimulated by federal funds to find ever more expensive ways to provide transit.
One question is: what is behind those soaring costs? I suspect the trend is hardly unique to streetcar lines, so from that standpoint the assessment seems a bit unfair.
Ironically, trolleybuses do exactly the same as light rail, but without the extra costs and construction inconvenience. Diesel electric buses are also reasonably clean, and don’t cost much more than the equivalent diesel bus.
FrancisKing wrote:
Ironically, trolleybuses do exactly the same as light rail, but without the extra costs and construction inconvenience. Diesel electric buses are also reasonably clean, and don’t cost much more than the equivalent diesel bus.
Amen, Brother King!
Trolleybuses do incur the expense of installing overhead wires along the route, but once that is done, they don’t emit tailpiple exhaust and they run much more quietly than vehicles on steel rails (based on personal observation of trolleybuses in Tallinn, Estonia; Helsinki, Finland (though Helsinki does not currently operate them); Philadelphia, Penna.; and San Francisco, Calif.).
A rail line costs about $1-2 million a mile to build.
Trolley buses do cost less to operate than diesel buses, though they’re still not as cost-effective as trams.
A rail line costs about $1-2 million a mile to build.
Why, thank you, professor! I’ll be sure to let the cities who have built them at $20-50 million a mile that they must have their numbers wrong, after all. Renown construction consultant the highwayman has spoken!
That’s keeping things simple, though add on more stuff, bridges, tunnels, etc. & price goes up.
metrosucks wrote (quoting The Highwayman [sic]):
Why, thank you, professor! I’ll be sure to let the cities who have built them at $20-50 million a mile that they must have their numbers wrong, after all. Renown construction consultant the highwayman has spoken!
metrosucks, I don’t think Perfesser Highwayman wants to discuss projects like Virginia’s Dulles Rail (23 miles for a cool $295,000,000 per mile).
Even the Interstate Avenue MAX light rail line in Portland was estimated to cost over $63,000,000 per mile.
And if we want to talk serious money, then there’s the Second Avenue Subway in New York County, N.Y. – about $2,000,000,000 (yes, that’s $2 billion) per mile. Though at least that one line is forecast to serve more riders than the entire MAX system in Portland and Dulles Rail – combined.
So in other words the construction costs between rail & road per mile are pretty much the same.
Except that road pays its own way, gets used heavily, and rail doesn’t pay its own way and gets used lightly by a highly subsidized minority.
metrosucks, again, the road in front of your house doesn’t make money!
metrosucks wrote:
Except that road pays its own way, gets used heavily, and rail doesn’t pay its own way and gets used lightly by a highly subsidized minority.
I respectfully suggest you stop feeding the troll (as in The Highwayman).
But regarding per-mile cost, we have some very current data for Maryland Route 200 (InterCounty Connector). Most of it is six lanes wide, with extensive and expensive environmental mitigation included. Heck, the construction budget included the construction of a new (and very cool) trolley museum, since the old one was in the way of the new highway.
Construction cost for about 15 miles of road designed to comply with urban freeway standards is about $2.5 billion, or a little over $166,000,000 per mile. The users of this road will pay to maintain and operate it out of tolls, not from motor fuel taxes paid by non-users.
That’s still cross subsidization, though more road tolling and higher gas taxes mean less burden on property tax payers.
Highwayman wrote:
“Trolley buses do cost less to operate than diesel buses, though they’re still not as cost-effective as trams.”
This is true…
… IF …
… you have enough passengers, so that the number of passengers multiplied by the farebox covers the cost of the system.
However, most light rail systems are done because “we’re the largest town/city in [region] which doesn’t have light rail”, and without serious consideration of patronage. These days most people go by car, so unless something drastic changes, there won’t be enough paying passengers to cover the costs. Then when the streetcars wear out, and the track wears out, there’s no money left to fix things.
Most streetcars/trams were removed many years ago for very good economic reasons. Also for these reasons, in almost all cases trolleybuses and diesel electric hybrid buses are a better buy.
Trams were removed for political reasons, not economic reasons.
Highwayman wrote:
“Trams were removed for political reasons, not economic reasons”
No, they were removed for economic reasons. Simply, they ran out of money.
At first they tried to keep the tram tracks, but the tarmac rolled over the top peeled off again. So eventually the tracks were dug up, and the roads laid properly.
However, most light rail systems are done because “we’re the largest town/city in [region] which doesn’t have light railâ€, and without serious consideration of patronage.
You know, you’re right. I think I recall hearing about this recently.
FrancisKing said:
No, they were removed for economic reasons. Simply, they ran out of money.
At first they tried to keep the tram tracks, but the tarmac rolled over the top peeled off again. So eventually the tracks were dug up, and the roads laid properly.
THWM: You’ve got to be joking.
That’s like deliberately pouring gasoline all over your house, setting it on fire then telling your insurance company that there was an accident.
Trams were removed for political reasons, not economic reasons.
Like CP said, we shouldn’t feed the troll.
Metrosucks, I’m not trying to stop you and others from traveling by car.
So don’t try stop me and others from traveling by trains!
I’m not a troll, capiche.
I’m not sure where the idea comes from that cars are more efficient in any way than a train or bus or trolley. A car costs like $30,000 off the manufacturing line, which I’m sure is more than any of us will pay over a lifetime in taxes directed to mass transit, and about exactly what you would pay in transit fares over a lifetime. Of course that’s before the gas bill, maintenance bill, insurance bill, the second and third car for the average family (add all previous expenses again for these), and then all the new replacement cars when those get old. Each car will tend to carry … wait for it … one person at a time (making mass transit more popular by seat capacity). Multiply that by the number of US autos purchased annually (wow that’s a big dollar amount by the way), then we can start talking about how much a highway actually costs, the economic costs of parking lots covering valuable real estate, utility expenses associated with auto-enabled sprawl, etc. But why does everything have to be about money?
What I really meant to comment on is that are non-financial “costs” that planners look at. For example 30,000 to 40,000 Americans are killed on the roads annually, and probably around 1 million animals (lets not get into hospital injuries it’s also a VERY large number). We can also consider light, soil, air, noise, and water pollution caused by cars, surface runoff, factories, and so forth. Ever try living next to a highway? Planners just like to think that the human race can do better.
Hmm, let’s see, straight from “sustainer’s” hate-filled blog:
Damn the automobile, strangling our community vitality with steep logistical requirements, treacherous velocities, incessant noise, the enabling of sprawling development, the pollution of air, water, and soil, and it’s inefficient transportation of human cargo.
Sounds totally reasonable to me /sarcasm
metrosucks, you’re filled with hate!
I was in the army sorry if such terribly vulgar language, like the word damn, offends you metrosucks, hehe. Seriously though it’s actually a poetic writers curse … notice all the big words, its meant to be artistically written: nothing hateful I assure you. Don’t worry though I write alot, so look elsewhere I’m sure you can get more credible material for your next character attack.
Sustainer,
On a passenger mile basis trains are the most dangerous mode of travel, cars are second most dangerouse, with planes the safest. In terms of government subsidy per passenger mile trains get the most, cars second and planes last.
Yup, its always good to remember per unit measurements. I “think” train safety is going to improve faster than cars though. The idea for planning isn’t to look at statistics as much as it is to predict future scenarios, although I agree that statistics are certainly very important in that process. The thing I’d imagine is misunderstood is that transit options actually support the highway and parking system by reducing vehicle densities (like turning the water facet down). But other reasons for a train could include commuter cities outside the car commuter range (helps the rural region economically + walkable option for the upper income folks). Transit neighborhoods are another goal of these projects, where apartments and essentials are basically built next to a major transit station (walkable option for the young and lower income). Another option we haven’t talked about yet though is the internet (telecommuting), which could largely reduce the need for daily commuting, and if we’re lucky this whole problem/debate could become a non-issue (much more likely to be seen in our lifetimes than hoards of trains). But that’s getting way off track.
Oh swell, one more planner who thinks he knows how we’re all going to live in fifty years.
Metrosucks you should change your name to carsrule
Just another know-it-all planner who thinks he knows better than everyone else. As if families don’t think about the cost of their car, or its insurance, gas, and maintenance costs. No, it takes a Very Smart planner like sustainer here to remind them about all that.
Don’t you think we can read your little anti-car hate blog and see it all spelled out there? Don’t tell me it’s all just poetic mumbo jumbo.
If you hate autos and love public transit so much, move to North Korea. You won’t see many private vehicles on their highways. I heard that’s working out quite well for them. That way, when the central planners step in their limos, there’s no congestion to impede their travels.
On a passenger mile basis trains are the most dangerous mode of travel
Evidence please.
TIA
DS
Wow, I feel bad for laughing but I can’t figure out how to communicate with you Metrosucks. I thought an actual city planning lesson inspired by this website could put us on the same page(productive communication): 1.) Less Personal attacks (or none at all but lets take this one step at a time). 2.) Be more optimistic in general. 3.) Admit there is a chance you feel anger first, which is understandable, it is very common among people who are actively political, but try to cool off before commenting. 4. If you truly don’t understand where an author is coming from try discussing it with them in a civil manner, while refraining from extracting small bits of information that help your cause while ignoring everything else. 5.) When you use the word hate so much, people will feel it is you that is hateful, not the person you are calling hateful. 6.) Try not to make the mistake of thinking the other side is evil … in fact see your opponent as a partner seeking solutions from different perspectives. 7. It’s a really bad idea to call someone a know it all on a post where the point is to share knowledge and ideas with others. 8. When making a case, it is important to bring up even common sense issues so that the audience can sense the big picture and follow along clearly, it makes the position more understandable, and takes into account that not all citizens have a firm grasp on what we may feel is common sense. 9. Think about how the other side is likely to respond when you direct personal attacks against them as a means to advance a position, and also think about how those on your own side may feel about associating with you. 10. Research Phil Mckinney’s “11 Simple Rules For Getting Along With Others”. That’s it! You did great. Who knows maybe your on your way to becoming a city planner! You never know what the day will bring!