From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (Alert)
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 12:34:05 PST

In <1993Jan4.191311.19802@ntmtv>, Adrian Brandt writes:

>In article <u2h5oeg@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) wr
>|> one billion per mile of freeway [vs.] 10 to 15 million per mile of light rai
The $1B vs. $10M comparison is a bogus Vandemanian concoction.

>|> just doesn't wash. 1 billion per mile is at the upper end of freeway costs,
>|> while 10 - 15 million is at the low end of light rail costs.  Typical costs
>|> are about the same, at least in Santa Clara county.

>I don't buy it.  There are too many apples and organges type of factors
>when comparing 85 with Guadalupe Light Rail costs.  Here's the comparison
>you need to make for the sake of this argument:

Not only that, but when looking at the Guadalupe Corridor, there are other
circumstances too.  For example, they basically share the same right-of-way
and land acquisition costs are shared by both the freeway and the rail
portions of it.  The LRT stations along 85/87 sure aren't cheap, either.  In
short, we have to somewhat arbitrarily decide how to divide the costs, which
can be slanted in favor of the freeway or the rail depending on your agenda.

>Select a new alignment across the Santa Clara valley.  Compare the cost
>of builing a light (or even heavy) rail line along that alignment versus
>a 4 to 8 lane freeway.  Clearly the civil engineering, property for
>right of way, demolition, home/business relocation compensation costs,
>etc. would be much greater for a freeway along most any randomly selected
>alignment.

Frequently, yes.  Always?  I doubt it, though I don't have any proof to the
contrary.

>With highway 85 there are a lot of complicating factors that prevent
>(or at best, make very difficult) a fair apples-to-apples comparison
>of highway to rail cost.  The planning and right of way considerations
>for 85 have been in the works for a long long time (20 years or more?).
>Dollars spent and effort and planning for 85 are spread over a long
>period of time and are not easyily to acurately map into present-day
>dollars to do the same thing from scratch.

That's correct.  Because 85 was been planned since about 1965, few improve-
ments were built in the 85 corridor since then.  That decreases the land
acquisition and relocation costs considerably.  If we wanted to build a freeway
right through the middle of existing developments for 20 miles, then the costs
would be prohibitive.  Fortunately, that wasn't the case with 85/87.  But it
was still expensive enough, thank you very much.

I don't know the exact numbers or averages for Santa Clara County projects,
but I think the main point of contention was Vandeman's "proof by providing
one extreme example" of a 1-billion per mile freeway vs. a $10M per mile
rail project--misleading at best and downright fraud and deception at the
worst.  That's what started this thread (though I haven't been able to follow
it since Dec. 23).  Maybe freeways are usually more costly.  They also move a
lot more people.  That doesn't mean that there isn't a place for both in a
complete and efficient transportation system.


Tim Irvin
****************************************************************************