Source? Those figures are bogus, whoever compiled them has done some artful data manipulation. My guess is that they are mixing in capital and operating costs. Given that some rail systems have been running for 130+ years, will operate for another century(if it is so outdated, why is ridership on those lines at all time highs?)those 2 should not be combined. Yeah, you might be able to depreciate track and equipment over a set # of years, but its the ROW that is ultimately most valuable and it is misleading to apply that cost over any set period of time.
I don't know about you, but I'll vote for the freeway any day over a dirty grafitti-covered train car.
I absolutely hate this type of argument, regardless whether it comes from pro or anti transit groups. Naw, a freeway is never dirty, never noisy, never built with a huge eminent domain landgrab(< / sarcasm >) And why do you assume that building rail is done in place of building a freeway? What freeway was canceled to build any of the DART light-rail lines? Answer, none. My opinion is that freeways should be built first, arterials maximized, and then build transit(if the project and system make sense). There are some corridors where freeway expansion is just too prohibitive. Right now TX DOT is looking at tunneling for much of the length of I-635 on the north side of Dallas. That gets into Big Dig dollars. I am not yet advocating transit in that corridor(haven't studied it), but that is one example of where a freeway expansion may end up being cost/politically prohibitive. I-610 on the westside in Houston is another example of a nightmare of ROW issues. Again, not yet advocating rail transit in Houston, but I can see where a well-planned system would be a popular and well-utilized alternative to the roads. The operative word is 'well-planned', which given Brown and METRO's politics, I have my doubts about and likely will actively oppose their Nov. rail referendum. But each case is different, and these blanket condemnations of transit is the kind of silly tactics I expect from the left.
The 2000 budget combined with FTA statistics. The same study has been put out by the Heritage Institute, Heartland etc.
Those figures are bogus,
Do you have any evidence of that? Simply declaring it so is no more a valid argument than declaring "it looks full to me" with regards to the trains.
whoever compiled them has done some artful data manipulation.
Demonstrate it then.
Given that some rail systems have been running for 130+ years
...and have required constant track maintanence and upgrading for that entire period. And for the records, its a lot cheaper to fix a few potholes than it is to perpetually buy new cars and replace their tracks. Thats why all the streetcar systems declined. (Streetcars, since their electrification in the 1880's, use a technology that is virtually identical to most light rail, BTW)
will operate for another century
...with more costs, upgrades, replacements, and subsidies.
(if it is so outdated, why is ridership on those lines at all time highs?)
Population growth.
I absolutely hate this type of argument
Then why do you use one as your basis by simply declaring "it looks full to me" as justification for DART's alleged success?
Naw, a freeway is never dirty, never noisy, never built with a huge eminent domain landgrab
Whoever said they weren't? My point is that rail is often all those things plus a cost inefficiency often 10 times as bad as the worst road project.
And why do you assume that building rail is done in place of building a freeway?
Cause rail lines are often right up the middle of the two freeway lanes.
What freeway was canceled to build any of the DART light-rail lines? Answer, none.
What roads were crossed over and built on top of to accomodate DART? Answer, roads all over the place including that big stretch that runs through downtown.
There are some corridors where freeway expansion is just too prohibitive.
In theory that is possible, but as a justification for 99.9% of the rail systems, it is simply not the case.