Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Ticket to Ride or a Ticket to Nowhere? (exploring the myths of light rail systems)
Intellectual Conservative ^ | 22 January 2004 | John Semmens, The Independent Institute, and Satya Thallam, The Goldwater Institute

Posted on 01/23/2004 9:27:24 AM PST by presidio9

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 last
To: John Semmens
That's for the commuter. What's the cost to the city treasury?
41 posted on 01/23/2004 11:25:24 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: John Semmens
Real estate development near a light rail track is development diverted from other locations.

Have a link for that?

The losses incurred by light rail and covered by taxpayers eat into a community's capital and reduce the economy's ability to create jobs.

Some companies consider light rail a positive amenity when looking for locations. In those cases, it creates jobs.

42 posted on 01/23/2004 11:28:54 AM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Bird
Yep, it started before the light rail moved in, but Cockeysville/Timonium is starting to go downhill fast. I don't see how York road can get any more congested anyway. And what is with the 1 track/2 track? They couldn't figure out before that having 1 track wasn't going to cut it? The light rail in Baltimore has been nothing but an expensive (for taxpayers) mess.

/rant

43 posted on 01/23/2004 11:45:17 AM PST by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: John Semmens
I find those points very hard to believe. In fact, when you look at the statistics for any given state you'll find that the exact opposite is true. Any of the "numerous studies" you cite probably only take operating/maintenance costs into effect, or they only account for limited-access highways in urban areas.

Let's go through a brief exercise here . . .

According to the Federal Highway Administration's Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the American Petroleum Institute, Arizona has the following:

1. A total of 65,000 miles of roadway (combined local, state, and FHWA-funded);

2. 49.8 billion vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) in 2000. Based on the growth of this figure before 2000, I'd estimate this to be about 55 billion today. Let's call it 60 million to be conservative.

3. Total state gasoline taxes of 19.1 cents per gallon. This, coupled with the Federal gas tax rate of 18.3 cents per gallon, yields a combined tax of 37.4 cents per gallon (somewhat lower than the U.S. average of 42 cents per gallon).

4. A total of 3.8 million registered vehicles in 2001. Let's call it 4.5 million just to be on the high side.

5. Average auto registration fee of $8.00 -- we'll raise that to $20 just to be safe.

6. About 3.5 million registered drivers. Let's call this 4.5 million just to be on the high side.

7. About $5 per year fee for license renewals (I may have this wrong -- I'm not sure if the license fee is assessed for each renewal, or just up front).

. . .

OK. Now, with all of this information in hand, let's look at Arizona's revenue from all of these different sources:

License Fees: 4.5 million drivers X $5 per driver = $22.5 million
Registration: 4.5 million vehicles X $20 per vehicle = $90 million
Fuel Taxes: (55 million VMT / estimated average fuel efficiency of 20 miles per gallon) X 37.4 cents per gallon = $1,029 million

This yields a total annual revenue stream of $1.142 billion in Arizona.

As far as expenditures are concerned, let's just look at operating and maintenance costs:

65,000 roadway miles X 2 lanes = 130,000 lane-miles (this is a very low estimate, since it is based on the assumption that every road in the state is a two-lane road)

Unit costs for annual operating/maintenance expenses in the U.S. generally range from $12,000 per lane-mile to as high as $17,000 in urban areas where the labor costs are higher. Even if we use the lower figure, we come up with total annual estimated operating/maintenance expenses of $1.56 billion for Arizona.

Not only don't the motorists of Arizona pay 100% of their own costs -- my very conservative estimate indicates that they only pay about 73% of the recurring maintenance costs of the state's roadway system!

And I haven't even mentioned the cost of building the roads in the first place. If we were to use estimated capital costs of $2 million per lane-mile (very low), an annual interest rate of 5%, and a 50-year amortization schedule, the capital cost estimate for Arizona's roads (based on the very conservative estimates I've presented here) would be $14.2 billion per year, which really dwarfs the operating/maintenance costs.

44 posted on 01/23/2004 11:49:24 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE North strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
We don't need to go through such complex calculations.

In the latest year for which data is available, Az motorists paid $1.7 billion in taxes and $1.8 billion was spent on roads in the state by all levels of government. That says highway users paid about 94% of the cost of roads.

This is a far better coverage from beneficiaries than the 5% that will be collected (assuming the honor system planned for fare collection works) from light rail riders.
45 posted on 01/23/2004 12:46:52 PM PST by John Semmens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
http://kinetic.seattle.wa.us/nxtlevel/prt/landuse.html
46 posted on 01/23/2004 12:52:01 PM PST by John Semmens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Cost to the government for light rail is projected at around $100 million per year.
47 posted on 01/23/2004 12:54:16 PM PST by John Semmens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: John Semmens
Do you have a link to a source for that information?

48 posted on 01/23/2004 1:11:43 PM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE North strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Move to the country where the only traffic congestion is your feet trying to beat the many other feet making their way to best fishing spot on opening day.

Cities - Blah!
49 posted on 01/23/2004 1:27:06 PM PST by sergeantdave (Gen. Custer wore an Arrowsmith shirt to his last property owner convention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
I never understood the focus on using a train for public transit. Buses are much more flexible and much cheaper to purchase.

The only advantage to a train is the dedicated tracks and the "right of way" that comes with it. If a city builds a dedicated road for buses only (not those stupid diamond lane things) they would have the right of way and traffic would have no effect on them. They would also be flexible enough to pick up passengers on regular streets, then get on the dedicated road.

There is a bus line like this in Minnesota. It goes between the Minneapolis and St.paul campus of the U of M. Everytime I have ridden it has been easy, pleasant, and rather cheap. Yet Minneapolis is scheduled to open it's first light rail line this next spring. The costs of which have been hugely debated for years.

Some people wouldn't know a solution if it bit them in the a$$.

50 posted on 01/23/2004 1:35:29 PM PST by toast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Semmens
Thanks for the link. I'll read through it.
51 posted on 01/23/2004 1:56:25 PM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
Tempe, Arizona and San Jose, California don't share those aspects.

Add to the list Miami, Florida, which has a light rail system that simply runs from the ghetto to downtown to the Dadeland Mall. All at VERY high cost to Dade County taxpayers.

Let it be said that I HATE cars and love riding the subway (laugh if you wish, I suffer from Road Rage). I DO NOT miss sitting in traffic during the three years I lived in Miami. Nevertheless, rail systems are not feasible in sprawling sunbelt communities.

52 posted on 01/23/2004 7:02:37 PM PST by Clemenza (East side, West side, all around the town. Tripping the light fantastic on the sidewalks of New York)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Monorail!
53 posted on 01/23/2004 7:08:16 PM PST by BookmanTheJanitor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: southernnorthcarolina
I live in Cornelius and NYC. Light rail would be really stupid.

Boy the gov sure did a good job building the New York Subway!

Wait a tic. The NYC was built by PRIVATE lines and THEN MTA looted them...

Metcalfe's law anyone?
54 posted on 01/23/2004 9:32:37 PM PST by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
I took the San Jose light rail to work in Santa Clara a few times from the Capitol Expressway station, and it took an hour to traverse 12 miles, since the train had to crawl through the unprotected right-of-way downtown at about 20mph.

I normally made the commute in about 15-20 minutes on my motorcycle, lanesplitting through the downtown and construction congestion near 280, Hedding, and the airport.
55 posted on 01/24/2004 11:16:10 AM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson