[sustran] Re: More on Denver thread

Wendell Cox wcox at publicpurpose.com
Fri Oct 26 05:30:05 JST 2001


You get the last word Eric.

Dont have the time to go further into it at this time, except to say that
after having challenged people on a couple of lists to come up with a single
highway project that is more expensive than a competing rail project on a
cost per pkm basis, there have been no valid takers. A few people have
provided examples, but always fall into the logical error of comparing cost
per mile rather than cost per pkm. I know that there are all sorts of ways
to distort economics to come to such conclusions, but, as many know here,
even Mark Delucci of UCBerkeley, no highway advocate, found total  costs
(direct and external) of transit to be higher than that of highways.


DEMOGRAPHIA & THE PUBLIC PURPOSE (Wendell Cox Consultancy)
http://www.demographia.com (Demographics & Land Use)
http://www.publicpurpose.com (Public Policy & Transport))
Telephone: +1.618.632.8507 - Facsimile: +1.810.821.8134
PO Box 841 - Belleville, IL 62222 USA
----- Original Message -----
From: <BruunB at aol.com>
To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
Sent: Thursday, 25 October, 2001 16:22
Subject: [sustran] Re: More on Denver thread


>
>
> I guess I don't want Wendell to have the last word. I would like to
elaborate
> on these points a little further.
>
> In a message dated 10/25/01 2:34:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> wcox at publicpurpose.com writes:
>
> << With respect to new rail systems, it can generally be posited that the
>  subsidy of trips that are all or part on rail will be more highly
subsidized
>  than those on buses, due to the very high capital subsidy for rail. US
>  transit agencies treat capital as manna from on high --- something free
that
>  does not have to be accounted for.
>
> We all agree that the rail capital investment can be quite high. I also
agree
> that public transport agencies can often view these investments as "free
> money", but it is not only the public transport agency's viewpoint that
> counts here. These investments can also be justified as alternatives to
> highway projects that are also expensive and have higher social and
> environmental costs.
>
> << Whatever one can do with feeder buses to rail can also be done with
feeder
>  buses to trunk line buses. One of the more intractible  problems in the
US
>  has been the bias of transport planners in comparing modes.
>   >>
>
> Trunk bus systems can work fine too, but they also need some investment in
> separation from general traffic and traffic signal pre-emption if they are
to
> work reliably and with attractive speed. But they do not work as well as
rail
> systems when demand is quite high and the number of buses required becomes
> very large. But the real operating performance difference comes in systems
> with highly peaked demand.
> Rail consists can have additional cars added at low marginal cost to
increase
> peak capacity, whereas every unit of bus capacity costs equally much as
the
> last.
>
> Eric



More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list