Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Cost per mile of Road, vs Rail

Expand Messages
  • Colin Leath
    Can someone help me with these figures? Someone (the San Diego County Regional Airport authority) is giving the following: o Freeways: $8 million per
    Message 1 of 16 , Jun 9, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Can someone help me with these figures? Someone (the
      San Diego County Regional Airport authority) is giving
      the following:

      o Freeways: $8 million per lane/per mile

      o Separate bus lanes: $8.2 million per mile

      o Trolley/light rail: $30 million per mile

      o High-speed transportation systems: $110
      million per mile

      Can the light rail figure really be correct?

      If so, why should it cost so much more to put down
      some steel rails instead of asphalt?

      Thanks,
      Colin Leath

      please CC me in any replies! Thanks.
    • Doug Salzmann
      ... Well, I guess it could be. On the other hand, lots of other light rail systems have been built for much less. The 4-mile-long F-Market line in San
      Message 2 of 16 , Jun 9, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, Colin Leath wrote:

        > o Trolley/light rail: $30 million per mile
        >
        > o High-speed transportation systems: $110
        > million per mile
        >

        > Can the light rail figure really be correct?


        Well, I guess it could be.

        On the other hand, lots of other light rail systems have been built for
        much less.

        The 4-mile-long F-Market line in San Francisco cost about $55 million
        ($13.75 million/mile), using old PCC cars. Not so terrible, when you
        consider that it carries about 20,000 paying passengers per day.

        Portland built a system for something like $12.5 million/mile (with modern
        cars from Todd's current stomping grounds), Tampa spent about $14 million,
        etc.

        Many variables, no predictable cost without knowing lots of specifics.

        Also, if they want to make comparisons with automobile facilities, they
        need to include ongoing and indirect costs -- maintenance, parking,
        emergency services, pollution, the War in Iraq... Somehow, they always
        forget those things.


        -Doug



        ==================
        Doug Salzmann
        P.O. Box 1007
        Larkspur, CA 94977
      • Richard Risemberg
        Besides, the freeways are $8 million per lane per mile; since most urban freeways are 8 lanes (four each way) or more, that s a minimum of $64 million per
        Message 3 of 16 , Jun 9, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Besides, the freeways are $8 million per lane per mile; since most
          urban freeways are 8 lanes (four each way) or more, that's a minimum
          of $64 million per usable mile, right?

          Rick
        • J.H. Crawford
          Hi All, Well, it s easy to lie with statistics. ... The Century Freeway, the last one finished in LA cost $200 million per KILOMETER (Newman & Kewnworth p60)
          Message 4 of 16 , Jun 10, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi All,

            Well, it's easy to lie with statistics.
            Some countervailing lies:

            >o Freeways: $8 million per lane/per mile

            The Century Freeway, the last one finished in LA
            cost $200 million per KILOMETER (Newman & Kewnworth p60)
            That's $321 million/mile. Just cite that as
            "the cost of building a new urban freeway".

            >o Separate bus lanes: $8.2 million per mile

            dunno, probably they should cost slightly more than
            a regular lane due to more complex access ramps.

            >o Trolley/light rail: $30 million per mile

            "The San Diego Trolley and the Sacramento systems cost
            respectively $9,000,000 and $9,600,000 per mile, according
            to recent postings on the cons-spst-sprawl-trans list. [1999]
            These figures might be considerably reduced if fuel-cell-powered
            trams can be developed, as such trams would not require an
            expensive overhead power system" (from Carfree Cities, p184)

            So just say, "A properly engineered tram system should
            cost no more than $9 million/mile including rolling stock."
            In fact, even this price is high. If abutters, who will
            enjoy increased real estate values from the presence of
            the line, can be impelled to permit the attachment of
            overhead power hangers to their buildings for a nominal
            fee, as is standard practice throughout Europe, then the
            expensive poles can be largely or entirely eliminated,
            along with the visual clutter. This should save plenty.

            The fuel-cell tram is turning out to be a dream (I got taken
            in by the fuel-cell hype myself). However, other forms of
            self-propelled trams look to be possible.

            So, if you really want to lie with statistics, you can
            say, "A properly designed tram system need cost no more
            than $2 million/mile." (don't bother to mention that this
            assumes rolling stock that is not yet in production.)

            >o High-speed transportation systems: $110
            >million per mile

            could be, no data. It seems too high to me by a
            factor of about ten. I'm sure that the Shanghai
            maglev connection to the airport cost this much,
            but you shouldn't be building maglev, anywhere, ever.

            >Can the light rail figure really be correct?

            Yes, it could, if GM, Arthur Andersen, and George W. Bush
            and their friends are in charge.

            >If so, why should it cost so much more to put down
            >some steel rails instead of asphalt?

            When this was done on a huge scale around 1900, it
            couldn't have cost very much...

            Hope this helps.



            ------ ### -----
            J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
            mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
          • Lloyd Wright
            I have been collecting some of this data directly from municipalities for a new public transport book. I do find there is a great deal of distortion of
            Message 5 of 16 , Jun 10, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              I have been collecting some of this data directly from municipalities for a
              new public transport book. I do find there is a great deal of distortion of
              figures. Many times officials are embarrassed by cost over-runs, and thus the
              numbers given in the press are frequently under-representations. I have been
              contacting project developers directly to get closer to actual costs.

              Rail figures can be fudged a bit by excluding rolling stock, fare
              instrastructure, stations, and land costs. For example, I quizzed San Diego
              staff over the low figure given for the trolley, which in reality was around
              US$ 15 million per km. The newer additions to the San Diego system over
              double this. It is interesting to note that second phases of projects are
              usually significantly higher due to the high costs of transfer stations.

              There is also a big difference between developed countries and developing
              countries. A highway underpass built in Quito (Ecuador) last year cost US$ 1
              million. The same infrastructure in Europe or North America would be about 20
              times that number.

              Likewise, tram systems in developing countries can legitimately be in the area
              of US$ 12 million per kilometre (Tunis) and most BRT systems are being
              developed for between US$ 1 million and US$ 5 million per kilometre (Quito,
              Curitiba, Goiania, Sao Paulo, Jakarta, Taipei, Beijing, Dar es Salaam). LRT
              in developed nations is running these days from about US$ 18 million per
              kilometre (Lyon) to about US$ 40 million per kilometre (LA Gold Line).

              Elevated rail is generally in the range of US$ 45 million per kilometre (Kuala
              Lumpur PUTRA) to US$ 75 million per kilometre (Bangkok Skytrain). The
              Shanghai maglev is an outlier for technology reasons at about US$ 320 million
              per km.

              The lowest cost underground systems were Mexico City and Madrid (both in the
              range of US$ 45 million per km). Madrid's underground is really a remarkable
              story from the standpoint of cost management. Of course, the soft clay
              underneath Madrid also played a role. At the higher end of underground
              development is Washington (over US$ 200 million per km), Hong Kong (US$ 222
              million per km), and London's Jubilee Line (US$ 350 million per km).

              Best regards,

              Lloyd
            • Thomas C
              why would you include rolling stock and stations in the cost of rail infrastructures? do you also include cars and gas stations in road infrastructure?
              Message 6 of 16 , Jun 10, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                why would you include rolling stock and stations in the cost of rail
                infrastructures? do you also include cars and gas stations in road
                infrastructure?

                On 6/10/05, Lloyd Wright <LFWright@...> wrote:
                > I have been collecting some of this data directly from municipalities for a
                > new public transport book. I do find there is a great deal of distortion of
                > figures. Many times officials are embarrassed by cost over-runs, and thus the
                > numbers given in the press are frequently under-representations. I have been
                > contacting project developers directly to get closer to actual costs.
                >
                > Rail figures can be fudged a bit by excluding rolling stock, fare
                > instrastructure, stations, and land costs. For example, I quizzed San Diego
                > staff over the low figure given for the trolley, which in reality was around
                > US$ 15 million per km. The newer additions to the San Diego system over
                > double this. It is interesting to note that second phases of projects are
                > usually significantly higher due to the high costs of transfer stations.
                >
                > There is also a big difference between developed countries and developing
                > countries. A highway underpass built in Quito (Ecuador) last year cost US$ 1
                > million. The same infrastructure in Europe or North America would be about 20
                > times that number.
                >
                > Likewise, tram systems in developing countries can legitimately be in the area
                > of US$ 12 million per kilometre (Tunis) and most BRT systems are being
                > developed for between US$ 1 million and US$ 5 million per kilometre (Quito,
                > Curitiba, Goiania, Sao Paulo, Jakarta, Taipei, Beijing, Dar es Salaam). LRT
                > in developed nations is running these days from about US$ 18 million per
                > kilometre (Lyon) to about US$ 40 million per kilometre (LA Gold Line).
                >
                > Elevated rail is generally in the range of US$ 45 million per kilometre (Kuala
                > Lumpur PUTRA) to US$ 75 million per kilometre (Bangkok Skytrain). The
                > Shanghai maglev is an outlier for technology reasons at about US$ 320 million
                > per km.
                >
                > The lowest cost underground systems were Mexico City and Madrid (both in the
                > range of US$ 45 million per km). Madrid's underground is really a remarkable
                > story from the standpoint of cost management. Of course, the soft clay
                > underneath Madrid also played a role. At the higher end of underground
                > development is Washington (over US$ 200 million per km), Hong Kong (US$ 222
                > million per km), and London's Jubilee Line (US$ 350 million per km).
                >
                > Best regards,
                >
                > Lloyd
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
                > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
                > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • J.H. Crawford
                There s great logic in what you say, but including the rolling stock in rail projects is the way it s done. This is NOT a level playing field, nor is it
                Message 7 of 16 , Jun 10, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  There's great logic in what you say, but including the rolling
                  stock in rail projects is "the way it's done." This is NOT a
                  level playing field, nor is it intended to be.

                  >why would you include rolling stock and stations in the cost of rail
                  >infrastructures? do you also include cars and gas stations in road
                  >infrastructure?
                  >
                  >On 6/10/05, Lloyd Wright <LFWright@...> wrote:
                  >> I have been collecting some of this data directly from municipalities for a
                  >> new public transport book. I do find there is a great deal of distortion of
                  >> figures. Many times officials are embarrassed by cost over-runs, and thus
                  >the
                  >> numbers given in the press are frequently under-representations. I have been
                  >> contacting project developers directly to get closer to actual costs.
                  >>
                  >> Rail figures can be fudged a bit by excluding rolling stock, fare
                  >> instrastructure, stations, and land costs. For example, I quizzed San Diego
                  >> staff over the low figure given for the trolley, which in reality was around
                  >> US$ 15 million per km. The newer additions to the San Diego system over
                  >> double this. It is interesting to note that second phases of projects are
                  >> usually significantly higher due to the high costs of transfer stations.
                  >>
                  >> There is also a big difference between developed countries and developing
                  >> countries. A highway underpass built in Quito (Ecuador) last year cost US$ 1
                  >> million. The same infrastructure in Europe or North America would be
                  >about 20
                  >> times that number.
                  >>
                  >> Likewise, tram systems in developing countries can legitimately be in the
                  >area
                  >> of US$ 12 million per kilometre (Tunis) and most BRT systems are being
                  >> developed for between US$ 1 million and US$ 5 million per kilometre (Quito,
                  >> Curitiba, Goiania, Sao Paulo, Jakarta, Taipei, Beijing, Dar es Salaam). LRT
                  >> in developed nations is running these days from about US$ 18 million per
                  >> kilometre (Lyon) to about US$ 40 million per kilometre (LA Gold Line).
                  >>
                  >> Elevated rail is generally in the range of US$ 45 million per kilometre
                  >(Kuala
                  >> Lumpur PUTRA) to US$ 75 million per kilometre (Bangkok Skytrain). The
                  >> Shanghai maglev is an outlier for technology reasons at about US$ 320 million
                  >> per km.
                  >>
                  >> The lowest cost underground systems were Mexico City and Madrid (both in the
                  >> range of US$ 45 million per km). Madrid's underground is really a remarkable
                  >> story from the standpoint of cost management. Of course, the soft clay
                  >> underneath Madrid also played a role. At the higher end of underground
                  >> development is Washington (over US$ 200 million per km), Hong Kong (US$ 222
                  >> million per km), and London's Jubilee Line (US$ 350 million per km).
                  >>
                  >> Best regards,
                  >>
                  >> Lloyd
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
                  >> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                  >carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
                  >> Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
                  >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >
                  >
                  >To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
                  >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
                  >Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
                  >Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  ------ ### -----
                  J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                  mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
                • Thomas C
                  sorry, i thought the goal of this discussion list was to change the way it s done ... ;) based on a couple cases i could find quickly on the web (about trams
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jun 10, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    sorry, i thought the goal of this discussion list was to change "the
                    way it's done"... ;)

                    based on a couple cases i could find quickly on the web (about trams
                    in france), rolling stocks seem to account for 20% of the costs.
                    the infrastructures seemed like expensive ones however (tunnel in one
                    case, paris in the other...)

                    On 6/10/05, J.H. Crawford <mailbox@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > There's great logic in what you say, but including the rolling
                    > stock in rail projects is "the way it's done." This is NOT a
                    > level playing field, nor is it intended to be.
                    >
                    > >why would you include rolling stock and stations in the cost of rail
                    > >infrastructures? do you also include cars and gas stations in road
                    > >infrastructure?
                    > >
                    > >On 6/10/05, Lloyd Wright <LFWright@...> wrote:
                    > >> I have been collecting some of this data directly from municipalities for a
                    > >> new public transport book. I do find there is a great deal of distortion of
                    > >> figures. Many times officials are embarrassed by cost over-runs, and thus
                    > >the
                    > >> numbers given in the press are frequently under-representations. I have been
                    > >> contacting project developers directly to get closer to actual costs.
                    > >>
                    > >> Rail figures can be fudged a bit by excluding rolling stock, fare
                    > >> instrastructure, stations, and land costs. For example, I quizzed San Diego
                    > >> staff over the low figure given for the trolley, which in reality was around
                    > >> US$ 15 million per km. The newer additions to the San Diego system over
                    > >> double this. It is interesting to note that second phases of projects are
                    > >> usually significantly higher due to the high costs of transfer stations.
                    > >>
                    > >> There is also a big difference between developed countries and developing
                    > >> countries. A highway underpass built in Quito (Ecuador) last year cost US$ 1
                    > >> million. The same infrastructure in Europe or North America would be
                    > >about 20
                    > >> times that number.
                    > >>
                    > >> Likewise, tram systems in developing countries can legitimately be in the
                    > >area
                    > >> of US$ 12 million per kilometre (Tunis) and most BRT systems are being
                    > >> developed for between US$ 1 million and US$ 5 million per kilometre (Quito,
                    > >> Curitiba, Goiania, Sao Paulo, Jakarta, Taipei, Beijing, Dar es Salaam). LRT
                    > >> in developed nations is running these days from about US$ 18 million per
                    > >> kilometre (Lyon) to about US$ 40 million per kilometre (LA Gold Line).
                    > >>
                    > >> Elevated rail is generally in the range of US$ 45 million per kilometre
                    > >(Kuala
                    > >> Lumpur PUTRA) to US$ 75 million per kilometre (Bangkok Skytrain). The
                    > >> Shanghai maglev is an outlier for technology reasons at about US$ 320 million
                    > >> per km.
                    > >>
                    > >> The lowest cost underground systems were Mexico City and Madrid (both in the
                    > >> range of US$ 45 million per km). Madrid's underground is really a remarkable
                    > >> story from the standpoint of cost management. Of course, the soft clay
                    > >> underneath Madrid also played a role. At the higher end of underground
                    > >> development is Washington (over US$ 200 million per km), Hong Kong (US$ 222
                    > >> million per km), and London's Jubilee Line (US$ 350 million per km).
                    > >>
                    > >> Best regards,
                    > >>
                    > >> Lloyd
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >> To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
                    > >> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                    > >carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
                    > >> Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
                    > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
                    > >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
                    > >Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
                    > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    > ------ ### -----
                    > J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                    > mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
                    > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
                    > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • Ryan Lanyon
                    Asphalt s cheaper than steel rails, but I m willing to bet a few things: 1. No freeway is ever one lane. It s a minimum of two lanes, one in each direction,
                    Message 9 of 16 , Jun 10, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Asphalt's cheaper than steel rails, but I'm willing to bet a few
                      things:

                      1. No freeway is ever one lane. It's a minimum of two lanes, one in
                      each direction, for a total of $16 million per mile. But most true
                      'freeways' are more. Usually in a large city, they're a minimum of six
                      lanes. That's $48 million per mile.

                      2. Usually these statistics do not include the cost of acquiring the
                      land. The cost of the land for a freeway is much greater than for rail,
                      which would help balance the costs.

                      3. These numbers might be good for construction estimates, but they say
                      nothing to capacity and efficiency. With rail, you get a much higher
                      capacity from your initial investment. For equivalent capacity in
                      asphalt, you need to go to many, many lanes.

                      4. Rail (especially high-speed) can likely be more expensive because it
                      is less able to adjust to quick or severe changes in grade, requiring
                      more levelling, tunnels, etc. than a freeway.

                      The number seems about right. Minneapolis built a 12-mile light rail
                      line at grade (and in mixed traffic) for about $700USD.

                      Does their figure include the cost of stations and platforms?

                      -RL

                      >>> cleath@... 06/09/2005 7:54:45 pm >>>
                      Can someone help me with these figures? Someone (the
                      San Diego County Regional Airport authority) is giving
                      the following:

                      o Freeways: $8 million per lane/per mile

                      o Separate bus lanes: $8.2 million per mile

                      o Trolley/light rail: $30 million per mile

                      o High-speed transportation systems: $110
                      million per mile

                      Can the light rail figure really be correct?

                      If so, why should it cost so much more to put down
                      some steel rails instead of asphalt?

                      Thanks,
                      Colin Leath

                      please CC me in any replies! Thanks.


                      To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
                      To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                      carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
                      Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
                      Yahoo! Groups Links
                    • Vince Cook
                      ... This Cost per mile discussion seems to me to be focused on the the capital cost of building freeways, bus lanes, light rail and high-speed rail. If you
                      Message 10 of 16 , Jun 10, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > "If so, why should it cost so much more to put down some steel rails
                        >instead of asphalt?"

                        This "Cost per mile" discussion seems to me to be focused on the the capital
                        cost of building freeways, bus lanes, light rail and high-speed rail. If
                        you have done financial analysis it should jump out at you that capital
                        costs are only part of the picture, but it does resonate with a public that
                        likes to ask the simple question "How much is it going to cost to build?"

                        The real financial costs should be looked at from several perspectives:

                        1. Consumer out-of-pocket cost to commute from point A to point B: this
                        is how much a person pays to get somewhere and must include things like
                        parking costs in a city center. Most commuters (subconciously) consider the
                        cost of their car a sunk-cost and don't factor in capital or maintenance
                        costs. In fact, most commuters only consider the cost of filling up their
                        gas tank or the cost to park.

                        2. Goverment cost when voting for transportation bonds: the goverment or
                        transportation authority usually has to ask the public to vote for bonds to
                        pay for light rail or dedicated commuter bus lanes, and sometimes
                        road-building bonds. This usually boils down to "how much are my taxes
                        going up" and it usually includes maintenance costs.

                        3. Total cost to the Government to provide a transportation service: I
                        think it is overlooked that the government can off-load the costs of
                        vehicles and driver salaries when they build a road (versus light rail
                        where they have to pay for that). Looking at costs from this third
                        perspective gets very complicated and controversial. How do you include the
                        cost of car accidents on roads and the lost wages from permanent injuries?
                        How do you account for lost use of productive land due to freeways that are
                        wider than rail? Cost of police to enforce traffic laws? I think this one
                        goes very deep and requires lots of assumptions to get to a final number.

                        I did some financial analysis 2 decades ago where I graphed the
                        manufacturing cost per part versus the number of parts sold. I had a
                        different line on the graph for a 2-cavity plastic mold, a 4-cavity mold,
                        etc. It showed very clearly when it was worth it (based on projected sales)
                        to pay for more cavities up front so each part could be molded cheaper.

                        I think it would be interesting to do the same thing for varying ridership
                        numbers on light rail. A graph showing the true commuting cost for varying
                        distances would be interesting too. The trick is making reasonable
                        assumptions, including only the costs that matter to that particular
                        perspective, and picking a perspective to analyze that makes sense to
                        people.

                        Most or all of us on this list believe that minimizing car use enhances
                        quality of life. I think the majority of Americans don't feel this way and
                        they must be convinced in dollars or traffic jams.

                        Vince Cook.
                      • Robert Madison
                        ... Don t forget 5: Rail (if built properly) is going to last many times longer, with less overall maintenance, than the roads. What s the cost of building a
                        Message 11 of 16 , Jun 10, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          on 10-Jun-05 08:18 Ryan Lanyon said the following:

                          >Asphalt's cheaper than steel rails, but I'm willing to bet a few
                          >things:
                          >
                          >1. No freeway is ever one lane. It's a minimum of two lanes, one in
                          >each direction, for a total of $16 million per mile. But most true
                          >'freeways' are more. Usually in a large city, they're a minimum of six
                          >lanes. That's $48 million per mile.
                          >
                          >2. Usually these statistics do not include the cost of acquiring the
                          >land. The cost of the land for a freeway is much greater than for rail,
                          >which would help balance the costs.
                          >
                          >3. These numbers might be good for construction estimates, but they say
                          >nothing to capacity and efficiency. With rail, you get a much higher
                          >capacity from your initial investment. For equivalent capacity in
                          >asphalt, you need to go to many, many lanes.
                          >
                          >4. Rail (especially high-speed) can likely be more expensive because it
                          >is less able to adjust to quick or severe changes in grade, requiring
                          >more levelling, tunnels, etc. than a freeway.
                          >
                          >

                          Don't forget 5: Rail (if built properly) is going to last many times
                          longer, with less overall maintenance, than the roads. What's the cost
                          of building a highway twice vs. building a railroad once?

                          --
                          Robert Madison
                          Milwaukee, WI

                          http://community.webshots.com/user/rmadisonwi
                          This message was composed using Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2


                          "The fish was delish and it made quite a dish."
                        • Todd Edelman
                          ... On a related note - depending on how you look at things - the working life of rail vehicles (with rebuilding and re-engining, MUCH cheaper than buying new)
                          Message 12 of 16 , Jun 10, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- Robert Madison <rmadisonwi@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Don't forget 5: Rail (if built properly) is going
                            > to last many times
                            > longer, with less overall maintenance, than the
                            > roads. What's the cost
                            > of building a highway twice vs. building a railroad
                            > once?

                            On a related note - depending on how you look at
                            things - the working life of rail vehicles (with
                            rebuilding and re-engining, MUCH cheaper than buying
                            new) is two or three times as long as road vehicles
                            such as buses!!

                            - Todd Edelman



                            ___________________________________________________________
                            How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
                            snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
                          • J.H. Crawford
                            ... The cost of maintaining rail rights-of-way including track is a long way from insignificant. Rails wear and must be replaced, ballast needs augmenting,
                            Message 13 of 16 , Jun 11, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Robert Madison said:

                              >Don't forget 5: Rail (if built properly) is going to last many times
                              >longer, with less overall maintenance, than the roads. What's the cost
                              >of building a highway twice vs. building a railroad once?

                              The cost of maintaining rail rights-of-way including track
                              is a long way from insignificant. Rails wear and must be
                              replaced, ballast needs augmenting, ties rot or break down
                              under intense pounding, brush must be trimmed, the many
                              rock cuts require frequent attention. Where the savings
                              come is from the fact that often a single track is enough
                              to move all the traffic moving across a national railroad
                              in both directions. I saw last night regarding Canadian
                              Pacific that they now run trains 2 km long with 3 locomotives.
                              The trains weigh 14,000 tons and are pulled by only 18,000
                              horsepower with crew of just two. Now, lets do the numbers
                              for trucks. The payload of a this train is probably about
                              10,000 tons. The payload of a 40-ton truck is about 25 tons,
                              so we need 400 trucks with a crew of 400. The trucks have
                              engines around 400 HP, so we have a total of 160,000 HP
                              on the job, nearly 10 times as much.

                              The only reason all freight is not already moving by truck
                              is that the trucks pay a small fee to use the roads while
                              doing great damage to them. Railroads pay their full costs
                              of operation and at the same time pay hefty real estate taxes
                              on their rights-of-way. Their climate-change emissions are
                              a fraction of road freight, per ton-mile.

                              The cost of maintaining one track, capable of moving as
                              much freight as you're likely to need, is fairly small
                              in comparison to maintaining a huge fleet of expensive
                              trucks with limited life spans, to say nothing of the
                              cost of rebuilding the roads beat to cinders by these
                              trucks.

                              If you want to talk "free market economics," the long-haul
                              truckers couldn't survive without their subsidies. The
                              railroads in the USA still manage to make a profit despite
                              the highly adverse market in which they must compete.

                              Regards,



                              ------ ### -----
                              J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                              mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
                            • Todd Edelman
                              Study shows extent of hidden subsidies for urban car use 19/05/05, Freiburg - For immediate release Study shows extent of hidden subsidies for urban car use
                              Message 14 of 16 , Jun 11, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Study shows extent of hidden subsidies for urban car
                                use

                                19/05/05, Freiburg - For immediate release

                                Study shows extent of hidden subsidies for urban car
                                use

                                Local authorities across Europe are subsidising
                                private car use by up to EUR 250 per citizen a new
                                study published today by ICLEI - Local
                                Governments for Sustainability shows. ICLEI calls on
                                local authorities to cut such hidden
                                subsidies and to boost investment in sustainable
                                public transport. Examples of the type of
                                subsidises being paid include maintenance of roads and
                                green spaces alongside streets,
                                traffic signals, lighting, traffic police and parking.

                                Gino van Begin, ICLEI Regional Director for Europe
                                said, “Car drivers are getting a free ride
                                from local authorities and the result is increased
                                congestion and pollution in European cities.
                                Redressing the balance in favour of investments in
                                sustainable transport will be good for the
                                economy and the health of urban-dwellers.”

                                Based on analysis of local authority budgets of 12
                                German cities as well as Graz (Austria),
                                Geneva (Switzerland) and Ferrara (Italy) – the report
                                shows that most of the money used to
                                subsidise private transportation is not recovered. In
                                Germany, sources such as parking fees
                                and fines bring in an average of just 29.1% of
                                expenditure. In Graz, the net spending for car
                                transport is double the amount contributed to the
                                public transport system.

                                The publication comes as evidence is emerging of
                                cities exceeding
                                EU pollution limits that
                                came into effect in January. The legislation sets
                                levels of soot particles - which can only be
                                exceeded on 35 days in a year. In February a number of
                                Italian cities saw car bans and in
                                March, Munich and Stuttgart both recorded their 36th
                                day of excessive soot particles.

                                Download the PDF at:
                                <http://www.increase-public-transport.net/fileadmin/user_upload/Procurement/SIPTRAM/Hidden_subsidies_final.pdf>



                                ___________________________________________________________
                                How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
                                snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
                              • Andrew Dawson
                                ... I was in Alberta & British Columbia back in March and I must say that it was quite impressive watching CP trains crossing the rockies. What s too bad for
                                Message 15 of 16 , Jun 11, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  J.H. Crawford wrote:
                                  > >Don't forget 5: Rail (if built properly) is going to last many times
                                  > >longer, with less overall maintenance, than the roads. What's the cost
                                  > >of building a highway twice vs. building a railroad once?
                                  >
                                  >The cost of maintaining rail rights-of-way including track
                                  >is a long way from insignificant. Rails wear and must be
                                  >replaced, ballast needs augmenting, ties rot or break down
                                  >under intense pounding, brush must be trimmed, the many
                                  >rock cuts require frequent attention. Where the savings
                                  >come is from the fact that often a single track is enough
                                  >to move all the traffic moving across a national railroad
                                  >in both directions. I saw last night regarding Canadian
                                  >Pacific that they now run trains 2 km long with 3 locomotives.
                                  >The trains weigh 14,000 tons and are pulled by only 18,000
                                  >horsepower with crew of just two. Now, lets do the numbers
                                  >for trucks. The payload of a this train is probably about
                                  >10,000 tons. The payload of a 40-ton truck is about 25 tons,
                                  >so we need 400 trucks with a crew of 400. The trucks have
                                  >engines around 400 HP, so we have a total of 160,000 HP
                                  >on the job, nearly 10 times as much.

                                  I was in Alberta & British Columbia back in March and I must say that it was
                                  quite impressive watching CP trains crossing the rockies. What's too bad for
                                  both Yoho and Banff national parks is that there is next to no passenger
                                  service through them. No wonder they're four laning the Trans Canada highway
                                  through the park to handle all the tourists.

                                  >The only reason all freight is not already moving by truck
                                  >is that the trucks pay a small fee to use the roads while
                                  >doing great damage to them. Railroads pay their full costs
                                  >of operation and at the same time pay hefty real estate taxes
                                  >on their rights-of-way. Their climate-change emissions are
                                  >a fraction of road freight, per ton-mile.

                                  All the money that railways have paid in property taxes starting back in the
                                  1920's should have gone into some form of a railway maintenance trust fund.

                                  >The cost of maintaining one track, capable of moving as
                                  >much freight as you're likely to need, is fairly small
                                  >in comparison to maintaining a huge fleet of expensive
                                  >trucks with limited life spans, to say nothing of the
                                  >cost of rebuilding the roads beat to cinders by these
                                  >trucks.
                                  >
                                  >If you want to talk "free market economics," the long-haul
                                  >truckers couldn't survive without their subsidies. The
                                  >railroads in the USA still manage to make a profit despite
                                  >the highly adverse market in which they must compete.

                                  What's needed is an "open market" so we can get a fair market value of goods
                                  & services.

                                  Till later, Andrew Dawson
                                • J.H. Crawford
                                  This just came in: NB: the subsidies are per INHABITANT, not per CAR!!! Study shows extent of hidden subsidies for urban car use 19/05/05, Freiburg - For
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Jun 13, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    This just came in:
                                    NB: the subsidies are per INHABITANT, not per CAR!!!


                                    Study shows extent of hidden subsidies for urban car
                                    use

                                    19/05/05, Freiburg - For immediate release

                                    Study shows extent of hidden subsidies for urban car
                                    use

                                    Local authorities across Europe are subsidising
                                    private car use by up to EUR 250 per citizen a new
                                    study published today by ICLEI - Local
                                    Governments for Sustainability shows. ICLEI calls on
                                    local authorities to cut such hidden
                                    subsidies and to boost investment in sustainable
                                    public transport. Examples of the type of
                                    subsidises being paid include maintenance of roads and
                                    green spaces alongside streets,
                                    traffic signals, lighting, traffic police and parking.

                                    Gino van Begin, ICLEI Regional Director for Europe
                                    said, “Car drivers are getting a free ride
                                    from local authorities and the result is increased
                                    congestion and pollution in European cities.
                                    Redressing the balance in favour of investments in
                                    sustainable transport will be good for the
                                    economy and the health of urban-dwellers.”

                                    Based on analysis of local authority budgets of 12
                                    German cities as well as Graz (Austria),
                                    Geneva (Switzerland) and Ferrara (Italy) ­ the report
                                    shows that most of the money used to
                                    subsidise private transportation is not recovered. In
                                    Germany, sources such as parking fees
                                    and fines bring in an average of just 29.1% of
                                    expenditure. In Graz, the net spending for car
                                    transport is double the amount contributed to the
                                    public transport system.

                                    The publication comes as evidence is emerging of
                                    cities exceeding
                                    EU pollution limits that
                                    came into effect in January. The legislation sets
                                    levels of soot particles - which can only be
                                    exceeded on 35 days in a year. In February a number of
                                    Italian cities saw car bans and in
                                    March, Munich and Stuttgart both recorded their 36th
                                    day of excessive soot particles.

                                    Download the PDF at:
                                    <http://www.increase-public-transport.net/fileadmin/user_upload/Procurement/SIPTRAM/Hidden_subsidies_final.pdf>




                                    ------ ### -----
                                    J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                                    mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.