Comments on: Chart: Comparison Shopping For Transit Systems

By: Miscellany « city block

Miscellany « city block — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 01:38:51 +0000

[...] Miami reminds us all of a post from the Infrastructurist back in May with a nice comparative chart of transit costs by mode, with references to specific [...]

By: What’s A ‘Double Trumpet’? A Field Guide To Freeway Interchanges, Part 2 » INFRASTRUCTURIST

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:48:16 +0000

[...] and COMPARISON SHOPPING FOR TRANSIT SYSTEMS (CHART) [...]

By: E d T e n n y s o n

E d T e n n y s o n — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 02:35:07 +0000

All of this information omits completely the annual cost of providing service. “It ain’t the first cost - its the upkeep.” The Hartford CT. BusWay is just a total waste of money. It should have been Light Rail at less cost per mile and huge annual savings on operation.
Light Rail in Minneapolis, Portland, San Diego, Salt Lake City and Saint Louis moves people year after year for an average current cost of 40 cents per mile per person. Buses in larger cities with higher wages average close to a whole dollar per passenger-mile. With hundreds of millions of passenger-miles at stake, Light Rail is much less costly than BusWays for sure.
Why would anyone build Light Rail if that were not true.?
Also, Light Rail attracts more riders. Saves more oil. BusWays on average attract only one third of what is promised for them. Light Rail attracts an average of 22 % more than expected. Look at Los Angeles with the Blue Light Rail Line to Long Beach and the parallel costly Harbor FreeWay BusWay to San Pedro. Light Rail = 79,000 passengers a day. BusWay = 3,300. Only stupid people waste money on BusWays.

By: 36 Reasons Streetcars Are Better Than Buses » INFRASTRUCTURIST

36 Reasons Streetcars Are Better Than Buses » INFRASTRUCTURIST — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 23:40:47 +0000

[...] thing. But for cities facing a choice between building a streetcar system or high-end BRT–and the cost difference can be smaller than might think–it’s handy to know that transit riders overwhelming prefer streetcars. Well, [...]

By: A Vibrant US Train Industry Would Employ More People Than Car Makers Do Now » INFRASTRUCTURIST

Wed, 20 May 2009 21:46:22 +0000

[...] and COMPARISON SHOPPING FOR TRANSIT SYSTEMS (CHART) [...]

By: Nancy

Nancy — Wed, 20 May 2009 14:18:21 +0000

Great graphic and very meaningful comparative indicator (cost per mile of infrastructure). The second meaningful indicator needed to let people judge whether the line is a good deal or not is the cost/passenger mile - how many passengers per year or day the line is likely to carry. An expensive line that carries few people will look even worse on a passenger mile basis, obviously. And that cost will be pure subsidy, in most cases. But a high-demand corridor (if you believe the demand estimates), even if expensive, can be pretty cost-effective.

By: New York City has $300,000 to Look into Brooklyn Streetcars « the transport politic

Fri, 15 May 2009 07:27:25 +0000

[...] for Brooklyn to build its own streetcar network, arguing that such a system would be effective in (relatively) cheaply improving the commuting options of people living in transit-unfriendly sections of the [...]

By: Jon

Jon — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:23:56 +0000

The MetroLink Extension (light rail built on deserted RR bed) in St Louis MO was built for approximately $80 million per mile, station expenditures were kept at a minimum (honor system cheaper) and the stations were built too close to each other making traveling slow and a waste of time. Cycling is virtually free and faster than the train. The time between trains was also extended to save money. The Extension which led to cost overruns (lawsuits) meant that more bus routes had to be eliminated. The system design destroyed any chances of having BRT in the near future.

Too often these designs fail to take advantage of existing routes since elected officials and advocates don’t want to be seen as “anti-car”.

By: Scott Sookman

Scott Sookman — Thu, 14 May 2009 10:39:52 +0000

No, the Second Avenue subway won’t be built in Brooklyn. It will just connect to an already existing line that goes over to Brooklyn on the Brooklyn Bridge. Meanwhile, it’ll be a Loooooooooooooooooong time before that happens. That involves the final phase of the “T” line which goes all the way down to the Brooklyn Bridge area. Won’t be done for at least 12 years, probably 20 the way things go. I do anticipate that the first phase, (what is it, about 120th St to 63rd St?) will actually be running within 6 years though.

By: alexjonlin

alexjonlin — Thu, 14 May 2009 06:05:39 +0000

Here in Seattle we have a light rail extension that will cost about $500 million a mile, but that’s because it’s all deep-bore tunnel.

By: Phil

Phil — Thu, 14 May 2009 00:20:09 +0000

I saw a story a while ago that china builds subways for $100 million a mile. That’s not so much cheaper than Miami actually.

Funny about Second Ave line, in New York is that in later phases they want to extend it to Brooklyn and then up Atlantic Avenue. At $2 billion/mi that’s a mighty expensive proposition.

By: Wirehead

Wirehead — Thu, 14 May 2009 00:07:15 +0000

So, Hardford is making a busway along an old rail corridor for $59mil/mi, whereas SLC is turning an old rail line into a light rail line for $50mil/mi. That doesn’t sound like Hartford is getting that good of a deal to me.

No, I think the problem with Bus Rapid Transit at anything more than a few mil/mi is that people in America cannot get past the Bus part. Rapid Transit or no, people consider it to be the transit method taken by the stinky class and has a limited audience.