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

Re: [carfree_cities] Cost per mile of Road, vs Rail

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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.