GM, Trolley Companies, and Chicago
George Conklin
"Scott in Aztlan" <qine...@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
news:7hj5ivcsfa78v98ip...@4ax.com...
> On 26 Jul 2003 11:32:06 -0700, donquij...@yahoo.com (Don Quijote)
wrote:
>
> >Transit didn't die, it was killed...
> >
> >(The following extract explains how this problem with public
> >transportation came about. Source: book "Fast Food Nation," by Eric
> >Schlosser.)
> >
> >The automobile industry, however, was not content simply to reap the
> >benefits of government-subsidized road construction. It was determined
> >to wipe out railway competition by whatever means necessary. In the
> >late 1920s, General Motors secretly began to purchase trolley systems
> >throughout the United States,
Trolley companies had their best year in 1914. By the late 1920s, they
were basically losing money and on their last legs. It did not matter who
purchased them. The cost of running fixed rail transit was sky high, just
like passenger trains. But trolleys had no freight money to subsidize them.
The longest trolley route in the USA is now in Philadelphia, which has the
wires and tracks in place, but runs buses, because it is vastly cheaper.
>
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"George Conklin" <george...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:toBUa.121052$Io.10...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Portland shows that it's cheaper to run LRT than to run buses.
fbloogyudsr
> Portland shows that it's cheaper to run LRT than to run buses.
The operative word is *run*. Definitely not cheaper to buy than
busses and run them on the already-built roads.
Floyd
Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"fbloogyudsr" <fbloo...@nwlink.com> wrote in message
news:vi7s7n4...@corp.supernews.com...
A lot of the costs are one-time costs - like ROW. The fact is, however,
that in many areas, adding buses and 'running them on he already-built
roads' won't work because the roads are already full to capacity. In those
instances, the more appropriate comparison would be comparing the costs of
building LRT against building new roads.
fbloogyudsr
> "fbloogyudsr" <fbloo...@nwlink.com> wrote in message
> news:vi7s7n4...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Baxter" <lbax01.s...@baxcode.com> wrote
> > > Portland shows that it's cheaper to run LRT than to run buses.
> >
> > The operative word is *run*. Definitely not cheaper to buy than
> > busses and run them on the already-built roads.
> >
> A lot of the costs are one-time costs - like ROW. The fact is, however,
> that in many areas, adding buses and 'running them on he already-built
> roads' won't work because the roads are already full to capacity. In
those
> instances, the more appropriate comparison would be comparing the costs of
> building LRT against building new roads.
Not really. Up here in Seattle, they've been looking at basically all
options.
Now, the 15 mile LRT they're planning from downtown to SeaTac is going
to cost about $200M per mile. I might add that the LRT going north from
Seattle is estimated to cost even more per mile. To add a lane each
direction
on I405 has been estimated to cost about $5B - that's about $100M per mile.
So it's still cheaper (even counting the cost of busses) to build roadway.
There's a lot of infrastructure (tunnels, stations) and such that roadways
don't need - also busses can climb steeper grades so you don't need
tunnels and such.
Now, the situation might be different in a city like Phoenix where there is
usable space in the medians, no hills and other obstacles to speak of.
But your blanket statement is incorrect. I also note that you didn't
mention the cost of the tunnel for the new (Beaverton, isn't it?) line
to the west of Portland. IIRC, the situation there is as bad as the
Big Dig in Boston.
Floyd
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"fbloogyudsr" <fbloo...@nwlink.com> wrote in message
news:vi8lcc3...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Baxter" <lbax01.s...@baxcode.com> wrote
> > "fbloogyudsr" <fbloo...@nwlink.com> wrote in message
> > news:vi7s7n4...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > "Baxter" <lbax01.s...@baxcode.com> wrote
> > > > Portland shows that it's cheaper to run LRT than to run buses.
> > >
> > > The operative word is *run*. Definitely not cheaper to buy than
> > > busses and run them on the already-built roads.
> > >
> > A lot of the costs are one-time costs - like ROW. The fact is, however,
> > that in many areas, adding buses and 'running them on he already-built
> > roads' won't work because the roads are already full to capacity. In
> those
> > instances, the more appropriate comparison would be comparing the costs
of
> > building LRT against building new roads.
>
> Not really. Up here in Seattle, they've been looking at basically all
> options.
They should.
> Now, the 15 mile LRT they're planning from downtown to SeaTac is going
> to cost about $200M per mile.
My sources say $2.1 billion - $150 million per mile. (That's in year of
expenditure (YOE) dollars, not 2002 dollars, so it includes inflationary
increases into 2009 as well as such extra expenses as financing costs. )
http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_sea002.htm
> I might add that the LRT going north from
> Seattle is estimated to cost even more per mile. To add a lane each
> direction
> on I405 has been estimated to cost about $5B - that's about $100M per
mile.
My sources say that it's about $7 billion - $212 million per mile.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_sea001.htm
> So it's still cheaper (even counting the cost of busses) to build roadway.
> There's a lot of infrastructure (tunnels, stations) and such that roadways
> don't need - also busses can climb steeper grades so you don't need
> tunnels and such.
Your numbers don't agree with my sources. Even with the more expensive
tunnels, LRT appears to be cheaper. You're welcome to support your numbers.
>
> Now, the situation might be different in a city like Phoenix where there
is
> usable space in the medians, no hills and other obstacles to speak of.
> But your blanket statement is incorrect.
You better re-read my "blanket statement". I said: "the more appropriate
comparison would be comparing the costs of building LRT against building new
roads."
>I also note that you didn't
> mention the cost of the tunnel for the new (Beaverton, isn't it?) line
> to the west of Portland. IIRC, the situation there is as bad as the
> Big Dig in Boston.
>
And why should I have mentioned it? We were discussing whether building LRT
was cheaper than putting buses on "already-built roads."
As far as WestsideMAX is concerned, you recall INcorrectly - the whole
WestsideMAX came in at less than $1 billion - tunnel and all -- that's less
than $100 million per mile (about $67 million per mile).
fbloogyudsr
> My sources say $2.1 billion - $150 million per mile. (That's in year of
> expenditure (YOE) dollars, not 2002 dollars, so it includes inflationary
> increases into 2009 as well as such extra expenses as financing costs. )
> http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_sea002.htm
You should use better sources than advocacy groups - the Sound Transit
website is www.soundtransit.org. Unfortunately it's down right now so
I'll quote from the Seattle Times: 13.9 miles at $2.44B. We'll split the
difference at $175M.
> > I might add that the LRT going north from
> > Seattle is estimated to cost even more per mile. To add a lane each
> > direction
> > on I405 has been estimated to cost about $5B - that's about $100M per
> mile.
>
> My sources say that it's about $7 billion - $212 million per mile.
> http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_sea001.htm
It's hard to figure out what that figure includes. Most of the stuff I've
seen includes figures for park & ride lots, noise walls, re-building
existing interchanges for safety, etc. However, you're probably
right that the cost of two lanes is probably similar to light rail,
because I forgot that they're not really talking about the whole
distance of 50 miles - they're talking about more than two lanes
in the heaviest sections, where it's particularly hard to add lanes
and no lanes in the most northerly section.
Your comparison, however, also ignores the fact that busses could use
*existing* under-utilized HOV lanes at no capital cost whatsover.
Floyd
FloydR
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"fbloogyudsr" <fbloo...@nwlink.com> wrote in message
news:vi8q40m...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Baxter" <lbax01.s...@baxcode.com> wrote
> > My sources say $2.1 billion - $150 million per mile. (That's in year of
> > expenditure (YOE) dollars, not 2002 dollars, so it includes inflationary
> > increases into 2009 as well as such extra expenses as financing costs. )
> > http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_sea002.htm
>
> You should use better sources than advocacy groups - the Sound Transit
> website is www.soundtransit.org. Unfortunately it's down right now so
> I'll quote from the Seattle Times: 13.9 miles at $2.44B. We'll split the
> difference at $175M.
www.soundtransit.org is back up. It took a while, but I finally found a
document (pdf) that supports your latest number - with some modification.
The report to the FTA says $174 million per mile. They also say that this
is the most expesive (per mile) segment.
> > > I might add that the LRT going north from
> > > Seattle is estimated to cost even more per mile. To add a lane each
> > > direction
> > > on I405 has been estimated to cost about $5B - that's about $100M per
> > mile.
> >
> > My sources say that it's about $7 billion - $212 million per mile.
> > http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_sea001.htm
>
> It's hard to figure out what that figure includes. Most of the stuff I've
> seen includes figures for park & ride lots, noise walls, re-building
> existing interchanges for safety, etc. However, you're probably
> right that the cost of two lanes is probably similar to light rail,
> because I forgot that they're not really talking about the whole
> distance of 50 miles - they're talking about more than two lanes
> in the heaviest sections, where it's particularly hard to add lanes
> and no lanes in the most northerly section.
You didn't do you argument by using bogus numbers.
>
> Your comparison, however, also ignores the fact that busses could use
> *existing* under-utilized HOV lanes at no capital cost whatsover.
I didn't ignore it. In fact, I specifically indicated that comparing LRT
construction costs against the No-Build was not valid. No-Build may not be
a valid option if a) it fails to move sufficient people, and/or b) it
creates more congestion than it relieves. You first need to show that
No-Build will solve the Transportation problem in the corridor.
fbloogyudsr
> > website is www.soundtransit.org. Unfortunately it's down right now so
> > I'll quote from the Seattle Times: 13.9 miles at $2.44B. We'll split
the
> > difference at $175M.
>
> www.soundtransit.org is back up. It took a while, but I finally found a
> document (pdf) that supports your latest number - with some modification.
> The report to the FTA says $174 million per mile. They also say that this
> is the most expesive (per mile) segment.
That's the figure for the *south* segment that they're building first. The
7 mile
*north* segment (they aoriginally wanted to build it all at once) is
probably
more per mile mainly because they have a deep and long 4.5 mile tunnel
from downtown under Capital Hill and Portage Bay to the UW. Back in
2000 the estimate for the 21 miles from SeaTac to UW went from $2.3B
to $3.6B - basically right at the limit for what they had available (from
taxes.)
Then the bids for the tunnel came in $300M over estimate and they decided
to build what they could afford - the 13.9 mile downtown to SeaTac section.
I notice that Sound Transit doesn't have the older stuff on their site.
You have to search the Times or PI site to find estimates - restrict your
search to 2000/2001.
>... No-Build may not be
> a valid option if a) it fails to move sufficient people, and/or b) it
> creates more congestion than it relieves. You first need to show that
> No-Build will solve the Transportation problem in the corridor.
It's quite clear that no-build won't solve the problem, as even the
best estimates from sound transit show that LRT (even if complete
from SeaTac to Northgate or Lynnwood) will carry less than 10%
(the figure is 6-7% IIRC - and my memory is obviously suspect ;->)
of the commute-time trips, to say nothing of non-commute where it's
smaller.
Floyd
Stefan Ewing
> To add a lane each direction
> on I405 has been estimated to cost about $5B - that's about $100M per mile.
> So it's still cheaper (even counting the cost of busses) to build roadway.
One small point: you're forgetting the initial cost
of building the Interstate way back when: of course
adding one additional lane in each direction is
relatively cheap now, but what about the initial
costs of property acquisition, surveying, grading,
etc., etc., etc., not to mention the ongoing
maintenance costs involved in repaving and so on?
Stefan Ewing
george...@earthlink.net
Stefan Ewing <spam_is_the_scou...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:ae9cff1e.03072...@posting.google.com...