http://www.freep.com/article/20120604/NEWS05/120604046/Woodward-light-rail-M-1-Rail-feds?odyssey=nav|head
Perhaps a bus line would be more affordable?
Perhaps a bus line would be more affordable?
Light rail for Detroit? $137 million for 3.3 miles?
- Thread starter Euphod
- Start date
C'mon - that's only about $41 Million a mile - whatzyaproblem.....
I'll see your three miles and raise you a ticketing system - here in Victoria the government payed out well over a billion (with a 'B') for a public transport ticketing system....
My beef with many of these grand plans is the apparent inability of government to use "kitchen table" economics. I understand about the need for progress and all that, but really...as I said if you can't afford to keep the streetlights on, I'm thinking you can't afford this. What's so wrong and radical about balancing the checkbook, saving for what you want in the future and living on what you have now? Everybody else has to do it. When private enterprise is able to gamble on a new project, that's fine with me. They are risking their own money, not the taxpayer's money. If the government wants to tax ticket sales for the light rail, okay, that's paid for by those that use the light rail. I grow quite upset watching the government tax EVERYBODY to provide goodies for SOME. How many people am I supposed to be supporting anyway?
Interesting bit of context here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail#Costs_of_light_rail_construction_and_operation
It seems that this kind of cost is around normal in the USA, and that it is more or less equivalent to the same capacity freeway. Obviously, the light rail takes less land, emits less pollution, and doesn't tend to create more congestion by encouraging more car travel. It's also worth noting that (in some countries at least) light rail covers its operating and maintenace costs from the farebox, and can even make a small operating profit. As far as I know (just like freeways) it has never made enough money to be an outright commercial venture.
Paul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail#Costs_of_light_rail_construction_and_operation
It seems that this kind of cost is around normal in the USA, and that it is more or less equivalent to the same capacity freeway. Obviously, the light rail takes less land, emits less pollution, and doesn't tend to create more congestion by encouraging more car travel. It's also worth noting that (in some countries at least) light rail covers its operating and maintenace costs from the farebox, and can even make a small operating profit. As far as I know (just like freeways) it has never made enough money to be an outright commercial venture.
Paul
Yes, it is interesting, thank you for posting it. I did notice this included in the article as well:
"There is no evidence that light rail lines have any significant effect on traffic congestion. Light rail increases traffic congestion when the implementation is at-grade and traffic signal preemption (traffic light priorities) are set in favor of the trains. A University of Virginia study indicates "that the average additional delays from light rail transit crossings increase with increasing light rail crossing frequencies and increasing traffic volumes up to the roadway’s capacity."[SUP][22][/SUP]
Traffic congestion studies factoring the opportunity costs of light rail emphasize that the occupied space should be efficiently utilized, such as by the greatest number of travelers. A 2005 report by the Foundation for Economic Education explains the opportunity costs:
"There is no evidence that light rail lines have any significant effect on traffic congestion. Light rail increases traffic congestion when the implementation is at-grade and traffic signal preemption (traffic light priorities) are set in favor of the trains. A University of Virginia study indicates "that the average additional delays from light rail transit crossings increase with increasing light rail crossing frequencies and increasing traffic volumes up to the roadway’s capacity."[SUP][22][/SUP]
Traffic congestion studies factoring the opportunity costs of light rail emphasize that the occupied space should be efficiently utilized, such as by the greatest number of travelers. A 2005 report by the Foundation for Economic Education explains the opportunity costs:
"For light rail to reduce traffic congestion, the number of persons it diverts from driving must exceed the drawbacks of in-street alignment. When light-rail tracks are built in the street, they occupy space that could have been used by motor vehicles. The loss of two lanes of roadway for motor-vehicle travel (three where stations are located) squeezes the remaining traffic into a narrower facility. In addition, light-rail trains are typically granted the authority to preempt traffic signals. This further impedes the flow of motor vehicles."
"The prospect of carrying up to 500 persons at once in a three-car light-rail train is the transit bureaucrats’ plan for reducing automobile trips. Of course, not all 500 light-rail passengers on a given train are diverted from driving an automobile. Some will be diverted bus riders. Others will be taking newly generated trips. So the gain in reduced automobile trips is not as large as the total passenger ridership. Nevertheless, adding light rail is bound to reduce the number of trips made in privately owned automobiles."[SUP][23][/SUP]
No transit line in the United States, except New York City, carries as many people as one freeway lane"
Hmmm. Firstly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Economic_Education
- they are a thinktank somewhat on the right of US politics, so perhaps not totally unbiased. They do make some valid points however, but I think they are largely well understood by transit proffesionals.
Actually the value of light rail is generally not that it reduces car trips - roads have a tendency to fill up however many you build. The benefit is that is can carry extra passengers without adding extra congestion and pollution. Using lanes previously available for all traffic, and preempting signals may reduce the capacity for motor traffic, but this has a tendency to reduce demand, as congestion works in a self-limiting way.
For Australian readers, it's interesting to note the difference in traffic patterns in Melbourne and Sydney CBDs. Many if not most of Melbourne's main central streets have the centre two lanes (often of 4) reserved for trams. Sydney has no trams in the CBS proper. Every time I've been to Melbourne I've been suprised at how little traffic there is on these streets (it gets worse on the CBD fringe), whereas I've always been staggered at the congestion in central Sydney. There are probably other factors at work as well, but it certainly seems that dedicating lanes to light rail is not an automatic recipe for chaos.
Paul
p.s. if it's not light rail, what should we do to ease movement in our cities?
p.p.s - an opion of the Foundation for Economic Eduction from the opposite end of the political spectrum... http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/ca...--Koch-Industries-Climate-Denial-Front-Group/
- they are a thinktank somewhat on the right of US politics, so perhaps not totally unbiased. They do make some valid points however, but I think they are largely well understood by transit proffesionals.
Actually the value of light rail is generally not that it reduces car trips - roads have a tendency to fill up however many you build. The benefit is that is can carry extra passengers without adding extra congestion and pollution. Using lanes previously available for all traffic, and preempting signals may reduce the capacity for motor traffic, but this has a tendency to reduce demand, as congestion works in a self-limiting way.
For Australian readers, it's interesting to note the difference in traffic patterns in Melbourne and Sydney CBDs. Many if not most of Melbourne's main central streets have the centre two lanes (often of 4) reserved for trams. Sydney has no trams in the CBS proper. Every time I've been to Melbourne I've been suprised at how little traffic there is on these streets (it gets worse on the CBD fringe), whereas I've always been staggered at the congestion in central Sydney. There are probably other factors at work as well, but it certainly seems that dedicating lanes to light rail is not an automatic recipe for chaos.
Paul
p.s. if it's not light rail, what should we do to ease movement in our cities?
p.p.s - an opion of the Foundation for Economic Eduction from the opposite end of the political spectrum... http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/ca...--Koch-Industries-Climate-Denial-Front-Group/
Last edited: