Portland light rail's mixed track record (Houston, Austin: how much, living, cost)

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

Well, let's reverse the claim. What specifically does light rail accomplish "better, faster and cheaper" than can be achieved with buses?

Enables developers to depend on the infrastructure being there as they plan projects vs. busses which can be rerouted, companies to move closer to the routes etc. This facilitates the usage of higher capacities long term.

Creates a hub and spoke focal point which can carry much higher volume than busses to support higher peak loads

Doesnt get stuck in traffic (behind accidents etc) so can have more reliable timing

Additional capacity costs less to add

much less expensive to have security patrolling a single train than multiple busses

As trains get full, the cost per rider drops

Like I said, I vote against every rail prop

I personally want the super cheap option:

Create tolls on all roads (except I35) that head into austin and use dynamic pricing to smooth out traffic. Once you do this you will have created demand for trains (or whatever)

[ScoPro]

So you hurt the little people with unaffordable tolls and let the Austin homeowners pay for the billions in bonds?

[petro]

Originally Posted by scm53

Not even close. Since someone pointed to DART as a great system, let's look at their bus operating cost - $120/operating hour. LR - $355/hr. I don't know what unicorn land $355 is less than $120, but hey ...

Nice work cherry picking a single metric to try to make your point. From that same Dallas report (I thought we were talking about Austin & Portland here, but whatever):

Operating Expenses
Bus - $242,595,248
Light Rail - $135,927,371

Operating Expense per Passenger Mile
Bus - $1.50
Light Rail - $0.63

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by petro

I will give you that—it's certainly not cheap—but keep in mind that the federal government will be footing the bill for 50% of the cost. The rest will come from a portion of Austin's bond capacity and spread out over many years.

And from whom do you think the Fed Govt gets its money?

Originally Posted by petro

The article clearly states that according to TriMet statistics the operational cost per rail rider is $2.58 vs $4.02 per bus rider. I'm no math wiz, but that equates to 36% lower operational cost for light rail.

Operating costs ignore the cost to build.

I can go buy a Tesla Model S tomorrow and it will achieve a much lower "operating cost" than a new Honda Accord. But how long will I have to operate it to make back the difference between the $70K I paid, and the $35K I could have pad for the cheaper alternative.

Let's imagine that any elected official is given a hypothetical car stipend and chooses a Tesla over the Accord as his official car, and then tries to defend it using the "operating cost" argument. Would the "lower operating cost" stand up to scrutiny, or would the cost of purchase be the main concern of those unhappy with what they perceive as wasteful spending?

Same with light rail.

And it would be interesting to compare balance sheets of all US transit authorities, separating those who run bus only, those that are rail only, and undoing the mix of those who do both to figure out which one really makes sense after all costs, including pensions, are factored in.

Steve

[10scoachrick]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

And from whom do you think the Fed Govt gets its money?



Operating costs ignore the cost to build.

I can go buy a Tesla Model S tomorrow and it will achieve a much lower "operating cost" than a new Honda Accord. But how long will I have to operate it to make back the difference between the $70K I paid, and the $35K I could have pad for the cheaper alternative.

Let's imagine that any elected official is given a hypothetical car stipend and chooses a Tesla over the Accord as his official car, and then tries to defend it using the "operating cost" argument. Would the "lower operating cost" stand up to scrutiny, or would the cost of purchase be the main concern of those unhappy with what they perceive as wasteful spending?

Same with light rail.

And it would be interesting to compare balance sheets of all US transit authorities, separating those who run bus only, those that are rail only, and undoing the mix of those who do both to figure out which one really makes sense after all costs, including pensions, are factored in.

Steve

Stevie...right after you settle this one, would you drop by the 'Why start the school year so early' thread and clear that one up? Much obliged

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

And from whom do you think the Fed Govt gets its money?



Operating costs ignore the cost to build.

I can go buy a Tesla Model S tomorrow and it will achieve a much lower "operating cost" than a new Honda Accord. But how long will I have to operate it to make back the difference between the $70K I paid, and the $35K I could have pad for the cheaper alternative.

Let's imagine that any elected official is given a hypothetical car stipend and chooses a Tesla over the Accord as his official car, and then tries to defend it using the "operating cost" argument. Would the "lower operating cost" stand up to scrutiny, or would the cost of purchase be the main concern of those unhappy with what they perceive as wasteful spending?

Same with light rail.

And it would be interesting to compare balance sheets of all US transit authorities, separating those who run bus only, those that are rail only, and undoing the mix of those who do both to figure out which one really makes sense after all costs, including pensions, are factored in.

Steve

It's an imperfect analogy, but it's more like an accord vs a Nissan Leaf + _the road to drive it on_. Oh, and the "leaf" will actually last for 40 years but the accord needs to be replaced after 10.

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by Novacek

But "we" (the general public) _want_ them to use the train. The alternative is 16 more lanes of highways and 3 hour commutes.

Don't think you speak for the "general public". With 16 more lanes of roads you aren't going to have "3 hour commutes".

Originally Posted by Novacek

There is _way_ less volatility in the price of electricity than diesel. Running transit on the former has a more predictable price.

You said "fuel prices". Electricity isn't "fuel". "Fuel" is matter that is converted into energy typically by metabolization or burning.

In any event you were touting benefits to the public and the public won't see any difference in fuel prices. The public won't see any difference in electricity prices either.

Originally Posted by Novacek

So a train that runs on electricity (large portions of it renewable) will belch the exact same pollutants on me as the buses I see emitting large black clouds of smoke? That's your claim?

My point was exposing the equivocal nature of your statement given your "local emissions" caveat.

If the electricity is produced by diesel engine on the train - yes you will get particulate matter and so will anyone along the path of the train.
If the electricity is generated elsewhere by burning fossil fuels then the particulates are still belched - where the electricity is generated.

But how does the drive mechanism for the train have any impact on pollutants generated by the buses?

Buses that use diesel will continue "belching on you" when you are in their presence whether you walk, ride a car, ride a bike, or ride a train. So taking a train doesn't immunize you from bus emissions. Buses can also use propane or compressed natural gas as fuel - which would pretty much eliminate what you complain about regardless of whether you are riding a train, bike, car, etc. In this case your "pollution reducing" argument in an effort to promote trains pretty much vaporizes.

I don't know where you get this "renewable" crap. You won't be running your train off of wind power or solar power. You won't run it off of hydroelectric systems in droughts. If the electricity is being generated by coal-fired plants you haven't saved anything - and the plant will be running whether or not you have a choo-choo train. If the electricity is being generated by "non-renewable" natural gas fired turbines you won't have the pollutants you complain of. So the fuel doesn't need to be "renewable" to cut pollutants.

[Komeht]

Everything in this thread and the article misses the important point - is Portland better off today for having made the investment in light rail AND favoring urban infill over sprawl and roads and traffic and all that crap? The answer is certainly an unqualified and enthusiastic YES.

Would Austin be better off following Portland's lead - absolutely. In fact, Austin inevitably will follow Portland's lead, the question is can we do so early enough to not end up being Houston's hillbilly cousin in the process - that is very debatable.

But it all starts somewhere. I will be voting yes this fall in hopes that we don't wait another 15 or 20 years to get going.

[Devout Urbanist]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

And it would be interesting to compare balance sheets of all US transit authorities, separating those who run bus only, those that are rail only, and undoing the mix of those who do both to figure out which one really makes sense after all costs, including pensions, are factored in.

The list of major American cities that provide comprehensive, satisfactory public transit service with buses only is probably very short. BRT is rare in the U.S. I'm talking about systems that run like rail, with high frequencies, dedicated lanes and busways. Proponents of BRT rarely point to examples of successful systems in the U.S. Proponents of LRT and HRT, however, can point to many great systems in this country. And the LRT systems are growing.

I'd be curious to know if anyone in this thread has ever actually relied on BRT in an American city.

[petro]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Everything in this thread and the article misses the important point - is Portland better off today for having made the investment in light rail AND favoring urban infill over sprawl and roads and traffic and all that crap? The answer is certainly an unqualified and enthusiastic YES.

Would Austin be better off following Portland's lead - absolutely. In fact, Austin inevitably will follow Portland's lead, the question is can we do so early enough to not end up being Houston's hillbilly cousin in the process - that is very debatable.

But it all starts somewhere. I will be voting yes this fall in hopes that we don't wait another 15 or 20 years to get going.

Exactly this. The OP's article very much favors light rail. He would know that if he read it before posting it.