From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: Pro-rail bias in Adrian's transit
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:41:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.194606.12012@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> In article <p3dttmk@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> |> the LRT line), and the government would be almost as committed in funding
> |> (it would have cost somewhat less), and would not just stop using their
> |> new 300 million dollar busway.
> 
> Of course government wouldn't stop using their new busway, because it
> could easily be converted into an auto expressway.  It's doubtful this
> would really happen, but it would easy and welcomed by transit-hating
> auto-enthusiasts looking for more lanes to fill :-(

At two lanes and without typical exits, left turn lanes, etc., the busway
wouldn't be too useful for cars.  Besides, theoretically, at least, if
the people decide they would rather drive on the two-lane busway than
have their transit system, or vice versa, they can vote accordingly, or
get an initiative passed, etc.  It doesn't really seem a major problem,
does it (I assume some humor intended).  After all, it wouldn't be that
hard to convert the LRT line into a couple of extra lanes, either.

> On the issue of busways costing less, I'm not so sure.  Ottawa's busways
> *looked* rather expensive to me.  Also, as I recall, the Vasona Corridor
> study (I know you say it was flawed, Jeremy) indicated that the busway
> alternative would have about the same capital cost, but higher operating
> cost and lower ridership than light rail.

The capital cost was less for the busway.  If I can find the report, I'll
post the numbers if you want (or you could probably find one for yourself
at the library).  I don't remember the operating costs.  In Ottawa, both
capital and operating costs were deemed to be lower.  For the Guadalupe
corridor, capital costs were deemed to be lower, and operating costs and
ridership were projected about the same as light rail, about 40000 riders
per day.  They also projected operating costs at 60000 riders per day.
At that point, light rail was cheaper than bus.  I don't have to say which
was cheaper at 23000/day.  Perhaps 40 years from now, rail will have turned
out to be the right thing.  At the glacial pace of public works projects,
I suppose it's good to look far ahead, though difficult to decipher the
tea leaves.

> 
> Also, I wonder how busway maintenance costs compare with railroad right
> of way maintenance costs.  There was an article in June issue of Railway
> Gazette International that about maintenance costs of high speed track.
> It pointed out that the cost of maintaining high quality track used only
> by TGVs is less than 1 percent of total costs, including depreciation.
> The rail on TGVs Sud-Est line is expected to carry more than 500 million 
> gross tons before needing replacement.  (I wouldn't be surprised if light
> rail track maintenance figures differ somewhat, but the point is that
> rails are quite easy to maintain and durable.)  Of course, 99% of buses
> in the world get away with using and wearing down general-use roads so
> that their share of right of way maintenance costs is difficult, if not
> impossible, to gauge.  I've seen severe pavement damage and subsequent
> costly-looking repair work at or near many bay area bus stops.  A bus
> stop in front of my father's house is getting a large concrete slab
> installed because the few buses that stop there are too heavy for the
> asphalt roadway to handle.

More important, what percentage of the budget goes to ROW maintenance.  If
it's one percent, say, then it doesn't really matter either way for system
costs.

My main concern is that of operational characteristics.  With its partially
exclusive ROW, and the operational cost savings that entails, the Guadalupe
LRT should do better than the 13% recovery it is getting.  I know that the
bus system as a whole is only 11%, but that includes feeder and south county
dial-a-ride routes that are pretty hopeless from that standpoint (A rail line
from Seven Trees to Bascom/Camden (line 37, for example) would be pretty
hopeless too).  I haven't seen farebox recovery broken down according to line,
but riders/revenue hour has been.  Working from that, it appears that primary
grid routes, especially the 22, are well above the 13% figure even with their
shared ROW.  The low farebox recovery of the LRT can be attributed to its
greater per unit operating cost compared to bus and its high frequency.


Also, don't you see the low speed of LRT as a problem?  Don't you think it
would be nice if some LRT's could speed past downtown in the 87 median in
a 5 minute run around the downtown area to the N. First area?  Or get
onto 101 to Lockheed?  Your response has been that no matter the operational
limitations of rail, it is cooler, and therefore better, even if it is
slower, requires more transfers, is more expensive, etc.

A question for you.  Why is the operating cost for LRT so high (over $150
per revenue hour in Santa Clara county)?  And why do LRT's weigh so much?
Even the overweight ADB's that we have today are about 27000 lbs. for 40'.
The LRT is 90000+ lbs for 88'.  Canadian buses are only about 23000 lbs.
for a 40' bus, and the 60' articulated coaches are about 35000 or 36000 lbs.

> 
> -- 
> 
> Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
> UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
> ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov

jeremy

Newsgroups: ba.transportation