Does rail cost too much?

Ted Balaker and Bart Reed continue their debate on the Times opinion page about the future of L.A. traffic. Today, it's the subway. Balaker, of the Reason Foundation, not surprisingly is not impressed by rail: "Let's keep in mind that Los Angeles rail riders pay only about 3% of the overall cost of their trips." He argues rail is too expensive (he cites the success of the Orange Line bus service as a contrast). Reed, however, disagrees:

Also, the cost of moving passengers by rail is historically less than doing the same on buses on a mile-per-mile basis, largely due to constantly increasing labor costs. Worse yet, buses must be replaced after 500,000 miles, which is only 5 years of service for Orange Line buses, versus 30-50 years for rail cars.

Does rail just cost too much? Hit the COMMENT button below and speak your mind! Join the debate!

Comments

[Randall Unruh]

Rail is so inconveniently situated in L.A. that few use it. In L.A., rail does not get most people where they want to go. Unless monorails are built that run down major boulevards, rail will not be the answer as it will take few where they need to go.

Any day of the week, spend a few minutes watching the Green Line traffic and you will discover there is little to watch. The Red Line has more activity, but nothing compared to what it could be if it went where people need to go.

The Reason Foundation is missing something more important here, as ideologically driven thinking always does.

[D]

We must also consider the other benefits of Rail. Just look at all the Development and Money being poured into Downtown LA, Hollywood, Pasadena, Long Beach and Wilshire... do you see a link? yes all are tied into the rail system. There are so many benefits to rail and being near transit. How can anyone argue against it? Idiots like this Balaker have been holding LA back for way to long now. Enemy #1, MIKE ANTONOVICH. We will leave that for a different time. Lets get a city bond out there, match it with federal funds, and lets build 10 lines at the same time. We dont need 15 year time lines for Rail, we can do it much faster and cheaper. just look at Madrid. We can build the Wilshire Subway all the way to Santa Monica, the Expo Line, the Downtown Connector, the Green Line Extensions, the 405 parallel line, the Crenshaw line and a line from Pasadena through Glendale to Burbank in 10 years. Imagine the benefits for all of LA.! it gets me angry just thinking about it.

[JP]

Sure, rail is expensive, but the alternative is much more expensive.

Consider the long term costs of automobile commuting:

-Lost productivity due to sitting in traffic
-Air pollution/climate change
-Traffic accidents (significant risk of injury or death)
-Car payments, gasoline, oil changes, car washes, repairs, insurance, Christmas tree air fresheners
-Health problems due to lack of exercise
-Loss of sense of community

Rail is the most inexpensive and cost effective option.

[Greg Kay]

Shaun's comments: Amen! I would like to add: institute a 50 cent a gallon county-wide gas tax to pay for a good subway network that - like all great world-class cities have learned - is a great social investment.

[calwatch]

Bzzt. Buses run for twelve years easily.... MTA has 22 year old buses that are only now being retired due to air quality regulations. Trains also need to be rehabbed too.

I find Bart's support for Metrolink puzzling. Express buses (like from the Antelope Valley to Los Angeles) are cheaper AND have greater farebox recovery (i.e., less public subsidy) both on a per trip and per mile basis than Metrolink. For the Lexus driver, let's put in HOT lanes like the 91 Express Lanes... which will pay for themselves over time (requiring no public subsidy) and the spillover can be used for public transit for those who can't afford or choose not to pay the toll. The I-15 Express Lane in San Diego County is a great example. The tolls pay for the Inland Breeze bus that operates between park and rides and downtown San Diego, which actually give the working class more options than slow buses on local streets.

[Scott Mercer]

No. Rail does not cost too much.

Simply: rail costs much more up front, but much less OVER TIME.

Why? Once you build the infrastructure, it lasts much longer. Subway cars and light rail cars can easily last 30 years, perhaps up to 50 years with rebuildings. Buses last 5 years, 10 years maximum with rebuilding. Rails need to be repaired much less frequently than roads need to be repaved...especially subways where rails are INDOORS and not exposed to the ravages of weather or other vehicles rolling over them.

The costs per passenger, per mile, over the life of a rail system, are lower than cars, lower than buses. And it costs lest than building freeways, per passenger, per mile. And again, freeways need to be repaved every 10-20 years.

No matter what the anti-rail crowd tells you, rail is a bargain.

[Richard]

Does Rail Cost too much?

Depends. It’s pretty expensive to build a heavy urban rail line. Even a light urban rail line.

Urban rail’s value is dependent on how many people actually use it, how much revenue and other economic return is generated by fares and other means and from other sources, and the social savings of being able to move masses of people around in an efficient, timely and safe manner, and the social, economic, and environmental costs of NOT having such a system or if such a system exists, of not using it and instead using other less efficient and more environmentally costly transportation options.

Outside of the United States, it’s value has been proven. The most efficient, modern and heavily used systems are in Asia. Tokyo, Seoul, and Hong Kong all have very modern heavy rail systems that are among the most heavily patronized in the world. Seoul and Hong Kong both began building their systems in the 1970’s and are probably the most modern in the world. The Tokyo system was massively expanded during the same period of time. Given the antipathy of certain American economic think tanks to heavy rail and the economic rationale that’s employed in arguing against building heavy urban rail in the United States, all three cities should be bankrupt. Are they? Given the heavy reliance and emphasis on rail transport and transit in Japan, the country should be an economic basketcase. Is it?

Something else is at work in the United States.

It is costly to build heavy urban rail and there needs to be a very high patronage to justify the expenditure. Outside of New York City, the ridership numbers, and economic returns haven’t been there to justify construction of these systems, not even in Los Angeles. The LAC Metrorail Red Line has especially embarrassingly low ridership. 120,000 a day on a system designed for four times that many? Disneyworld’s monorail has more riders!

All these systems have been financial drains on public funds, even the NYC Subway system and San Francisco’s BART. The NYC Subway system and BART can justify themselves on other grounds, but the Red Line? Most people in Los Angeles don’t even know it exists. If they shut it down for a month, I don’t anybody other than the regular riders would even notice.

Something compels people in the United States to stay in their cars. But there has been a tremendous mostly hidden economic and environment cost to this. Just the fact that workers in Japan and South Korea get to work on time using urban rail while workers in the United States are stuck in gridlocked traffic losing countless hours of productive time is a critical economic disadvantage.

[Jon consumer]

First of all, kudps to Shaun and movielocke for their excellent analysis and comments.
I come from Bombay (India) and although we don’t have subways there, our rail system is very extensive (atleast when compared to LA). I feel sad that the people of LA are unable to experience the joy is travelling in good public transportation. I live on Wilshire and 6th and can attest to every word that movielocke said.
Is there any way that all this can change in the near future (maybe if we get the 2016 Olympics or something)? Or are we going to be without a subways system for the next 30 years?

[Benjamin Brown]

Looking at construction costs on artba.org (American Road & Transportation Builders Association) it's revealed that materials costs (concrete, asphalt, re-bar etc.) increased 5-10% from '06-'07. Delay costs are compounded by the fact that construction takes so long anyway. Ergo, a $1 billion project cost at inception can easily cost $3 billion or more in the 5-10 years it takes to these rail projects off the ground and built. I suppose some deep pocket Fascist Road Czar is needed to cut through the BS and take Los Angeles into the 21st century with the best transportation system in the World. Damn the Torpedos.

[steve]

What I don't understand is why the transit authorities keep spending billions of dollars to keep widening the freeways. These projects continue to wreak havoc on commuters, and in my oppinon, end up doing little to free up congestion. Wider freeways seem to just equal more cars! That same money spent on building the expo all the way west, finishing the red line to the beach, extending the green line to lax, and tying it all in with a few north/south lines would be a far greater investment for LA's long term.

[Shaun]

Balaker keeps throwing out all these numbers, stats, and cost benefit analysis to argue against rail. You can spin those numbers anyway you want but simple numbers and percentages don’t always tell the whole story.

Ridership on the Red Line is very good for a line that is only 20 miles long. Look at BART, it’s system is over a 100 miles long and carries about 325,000 passengers a day. That’s 5x longer than the red line but only has 3x the ridership. And I’m curious if those ridership projections included all the extensions of the Red Line that were never built.

A bus will NEVER attract automobile users out of there cars in numbers than a heavy rail line can. No matter how “train-like” you attempt to make a bus it is still a bus. Those Rapid Buses that are suppose to be “train like” are anything but that. I’ve ridden the 720 down Wilshire and it is horrible. The ride on the bus is absolutely terrible compared to the red line and that’s with a good bus driver which many of them are not. Not to mention how crowded the buses are; these buses are suppose to come every 3-6 minutes but instead come bunched up in groups of 2-4 buses every 15 minutes b/c they get stuck IN TRAFFIC. So now you have 3 buses back to back with two of them bursting at the door with passengers and one of them completely empty. How is this better than a train? Oh b/c it’s cheaper according to Balaker. Well if you want to attract commuters who drive then maybe we should stop being so damn cheap with our public transit. More people would take transit if we invested the PROPER amount of money to build a FIRST CLASS RAIL SYSTEM. No bus will ever have the appeal a train has, just look at all the rail fan sites out there compared to bus fan sites.

A bus also will NEVER have the CAPACITY of a rail line. Think about how a single 10 car train can carry up to 1,000 passengers with only ONE DRIVER. A standard Orange Line bus can carry less than 60 passengers!! You would need 16 bus drivers to do the job one train operator can do. So just think about the operating cost savings there. And think about why the Bus Driver’s Union always oppose more rail; self interest is the reason. And I won’t even go into how buses are subject to delays due to traffic or construction b/c I think that’s already obvious. I remember a time I got stuck on the 720 down Wilshire b/c of some stupid movie premiere on Wilshire. Buses will never have the capacity a train has and will never be able to move as many people.

Balaker makes an argument that we should focus on helping people w/o cars; which I do agree with of course. But he argues that wealthier people with cars already have a good transportation options. Being stuck in traffic for two hours a day is NOT a good transportation option even if you’re sitting in a Lexus it’s not fun or enjoyable whatsoever. Shouldn’t we try to get a person who makes $60k a year to work faster too just as much as someone who makes $15k a year? That person who makes 60k a year contributes more to our economy than lesser paid commuters and contributes more to our tax base. Maybe if that 60K a year driver got home in time instead of sitting in traffic they would have time to go out to dinner and leave a nice tip for that 15k a year bus rider that served them. We should provide our well paid commuters who make up the majority of our tax base a first class system to get them to work on time. How many billions of dollars do these well paid commuters never spend b/c they are stuck in traffic? I wonder if Balaker included that in one of his cost benefit analysis. Our economy loses out on billions of dollars in economic activity b/c many of us spend a full two weeks a year stuck in traffic. I think the billions of dollars lost to congestion is more than enough of an incentive to spend billions on a first class heavy rail system.

I know heavy rail costs a lot of money to build, but it is so worth it b/c it can provide a first class transit system that will move people just as fast and many times faster than a car will and much faster than a bus ever could. I grew up in Walnut Creek 25-30 miles east of SF and the 35 minute BART ride into Downtown SF was faster than driving. Every morning the parking lot at the BART station by my house was filled by 9am. Imagine several heavy rail lines through the Valley with all the station parking lots full of cars not on the freeways.

What amazes me is that Balaker says rail doesn’t attract drivers onto it’s trains that much but then uses BART as an example!! Did you see what happened to Bay Area freeways when BART when on strike years ago. The freeways became instant parking lots and all the parking lots in Downtown SF were full before 6am!! By step dad had to leave for work at 430am to make into the city in time for work instead of his usual 7am. So don’t tell me rail doesn’t take cars off the road then go use BART as an example!! If it wasn’t for BART Bay Area freeways would be worse than LA’s.

Balaker can make all the assumptions and conclusions he wants based on numbers, stats, and data that are spun to fit his agenda. But that doesn’t compare to what actually occurs in the real world. LA needs a first class rail system and we need to bite the bullet and spend billions to build it NOW! The longer we wait the more expensive and difficult it will be to build. I know $10-15 billion dollars is an incredible amount of money to spend on transit but it’s a gamble we should be willing to make. I guarantee the economic benefits of building a first class rail system would easily exceed double what we put into it. There would be billions of dollars of development opportunities near the stations and even more billions of dollars on increased economic activity that would occur b/c people aren’t stuck wasting time in traffic.

This is LOS ANGELES, CA people, one of the world’s great cities and we don’t even have a third world heavy rail system!! The time is now to get thing built as fast as possible.

[movielocke]

The other problem with Balaker's promotion of a supersized bus system is that buses add vehicles to the road and add congestion.

And what we need is not more stops and more routes, there's a pretty damn good density of bus routes already, but fewer stops and more buses. Not necessarily Rapid buses, but ride the 3rd street bus, the 14, sometime (that visits the bev center, grove/farmers market/samys, downtown, a trader joes, numerous supermarkets, restaurants and affluent neighborhoods. it moves so many workers and shoppers that I can count on one hand the number of times I've been able to find a seat to sit in. This is true of midday, morning, afternoon and even late night. Actually late night is the worst. I've been at major intersections waiting twenty minutes for a 14 at 9PM/10/11 PM only to have one barrell past at top speed because there are 60-70 people in it and no one is getting off right there. Or the bus goes a half block past the stop to let out the handful of people attempting to remove themselves from the sardine can before any of the waiting passengers can run to the bus in a sad and desperate attempt to board. Then because it's post-rush hour and there's 'no riders' meaning the mta doesn't think there are restaurant workers, janitors, theatre goers, mall employees, shoppers, consumers, diners etc (ha!) that will need to make a return trip, so there's only about 2 buses an hour. So every late night bus is like this and you're lucky if the next one isnt' equally packed and you can board. A rapid would help alleviate this, but what really needs to happen to the bus system is an increase in volume.

The single most annoying thing about metro buses is that the rapids (except wilshire) stop running at 7 pm.

Riding the bus system is such an enormous hassle, such an unending headache such a fearful proposition (if you're riding at night and service suddenly stops or slows to a ludicrous volume of buses (once per hour or more) in terms of missing a bus because it might be fifteen minutes early or fortyfive minutes late (at least MTA gives you a big window to fret about). That I have rarely been so grateful or felt freer in LA than when I got a car, paying gas and maintenence is worth it to not constantly have my stomach in a knot as to whether or not a bus is coming or if I just missed one. I LOVED it when I could schedule a trip that was just rail or primarily rail. I never had the comparitive anxiety that occured when riding an all bus route.

In terms of fewer stops, take a look at the regular Vermont line, the 204. From Wilshire to USC most stops are about a block apart - yup about 35-40 stops for about 30 blocks. This is so incredibly annoying. and makes a trip that is 10 minutes in a rapid with minimal traffic into a 50 minute ordeal in a regular bus with minimal-no traffic.

Fewer stops and more bus volume will help the bus system, but what is really needed to convince people to get out of their cars is a rail _network_ not just a few lines, but an entire system -- in other words, a BART for LA, or as Balaker himself admitted, the successful sort of rail transit program.

And the first priority should be the parallel branch of the gold line, on the west side, a rail line along the sepulveda/405 corridor. Somehow, someway get a rail in there! Connect it to the green line, orange and future red line, but get something to move people along there.

to preempt the bulldog post, Simon Snoble-oble Says that if you have the (sqrt of pi)^3 strangers per car there will be no traffic congestion because everyone has the same work schedule or we can enjoy a computer dictating who to ride with. :rolleyes: no more wasting money on carpools!

[Benjamin Brown]

If the U.S. Military secret space program would cut back on drilling and base expansion on the Moon we could easily afford it. None of that money never comes back; not much of a market for Moon Ore....just kidding...build the subway.

[Jason]

Given it's life expectancy, you need to amortize the cost of a bus over about five years. Conversely, a subway, like the tube in London, can be used for 200 years or more. Sure, rail has significantly higher start-up costs but when considered over the long term, not to mention its faster travel times, added capacity and lower emissions, rail is very compelling.

Another significant advantage is that a subway doesn't cause havoc on the streets like buses do with constant stops and starts to pick people up. Do buses really relieve congestion? It's clear that subways do.

[witch_ie]

When looking at the cost between rail and bus lines, you have to look at the cost/benefit ratio, and when looking at the benefits, keep in mind those that are not necessarily immediately apparent. For buses, not only are they impacted by traffic, except when they have their own streets to drive on, but also impact other traffic. I can't count the number of times I've gotten stuck behind a bus that has held up traffic as passengers board and unboard. With rail, usually, unless you're in Boston, the train has very little impact on traffic. This means that people get to their destinations faster both for those on the train and for those driving. While the dollar amount may be more for setting up a rail system or even operating it (depending on whether you're able to price appropriately), the extrinsic benefits should not be ignored. Traffic in LA seems to get worse by the month and will continue to do so until the number of people on the road is cut down. This can happen as 1) people move closer to work, cutting down on their commutes, 2) people find alternative means of commuting (ie. rail, telecommuting), or 3) the population overall of the city decreases as people move away because they can't stand the stress or financial cost of living in LA traffic any longer. From the city and state's perspective, rail is probably going to give them the best return both in terms of overall benefit and longevity - something that additional carpool lanes on the 405 don't have.

[Bob Zwolinski]

Subways too expensive? I'd like to see the price tag in another 20 years!
We truly need to get the Wilshire Subway at least to Westwood in our lifetimes, no matter what the cost! Even if it takes 20 to 30 years to pay it off!
If we don't, all we're doing is handing this problem to the next generation to deal with.
Let's be responsible citizens and get it built.

I must say, it's like being in a 3rd-world country when a 6-car train, full of people, exits Wilshire/Western Station, all trying to cram onto a westbound 60-foot rapid bus to complete their trip. It’s ludicrous!

It's true that the $350M price tag for the entire Orange Line will only build a little over 1 mile of subway. But give me a break... Those 60-foot rapid busses are jammed-packed, trying to accommodate the capacity that only rail can handle.

Let’s give L.A. the subway it’s needed for decades!

[rednikki]

Rail, Orange Line-style bus lane...I don't care! Just get something, anything, going down Sepulveda from Sherman Oaks/Van Nuys that doesn't have to deal with traffic jams like the one this morning. If I had either, and it ran as far as Santa Monica Boulevard, I would have no reason to get into my car. But right now, to get from Sherman Oaks to Santa Monica by bus is an hour and a half...and worse, if there's traffic.

For that matter, having either a dedicated bus lane or light rail go down Wilshire/Santa Monica would be brilliant.