This excellent animation from TrueMajority shows in
graphic detail (using Oreo cookies) how ridiculously, large
the military budget is, and how we could solve many domestic
problems with a modest 12% cut. A must-see. (watch
it now)
The Los Angeles subway worked
out to $31,250 per rider. I can't wait until Austin can join other
world class "mass transit" cities.
In November, we have the chance
to vote on light rail in Austin. The first leg is projected to
cost a mere $44,324,000 per mile. Who knows how much per rider?
Los Angeles was off in its ridership estimate by more than 100
percent. Before we build light rail in Austin, we need to know if
it would be cheaper to simply issue BMWs to interested
riders.
Haskett is totally wrong. Los
Angeles subway is a SUBWAY, not light rail.
The cost of $44,000 per rider
is no more than the cost of an automobile plus the road under it
and parking for it. HOWEVER, the light rail moves people at less
cost per passenger-mile, with less pollution and much less
reinvestment as the auto wears out every ten years.
The investment per rider is a
perjorative term meant to deceive unless it is figured over the
life of the project, in which case it is much less than auto cost
if done right.
Rebuttal by
Light Rail Progress to the Statesman letter
"The Los
Angeles subway worked out to $31,250 per rider. I can't wait
until Austin can join other world class "mass transit"
cities."
Charlatanism. A subway is not
being proposed for Austin.
Nevertheless, for large cities
like LA, even subways compare favorably in cost to what would be
needed to provide roadway capacity, street capacity, and parking
facilities for the automobiles diverted to transit.
In November,
we have the chance to vote on light rail in Austin. The first
leg is projected to cost a mere $44,324,000 per mile. Who knows
how much per rider?
The writer is citing extremely
rough and preliminary estimates done to enable CapMetro's board to
decide whether more detailed study (the current EIS/Preliminary
Engineering study) was warranted.
Furthermore, that $44
million/mile includes not only route construction, but
right-of-way acquisition, vehicles, and maintenance facilities for
those railcars. Now compare comparable arterial and freeway
construction. Central-city freeway construction in cities of
Austin's size - including right-of-way acquisiton - typically runs
$20 million per lane-mile. The initial light rail starter line
will provide capacity equal to at least 2, and more likely 4
freeway lanes. Then add in the cost of extra feeder street and
arterial expansion, parking facilities, and other costs that would
be needed th\o handle those automobiles. Then add in the cost of
the equivalent number of automobiles and the maintenace facilities
for those cars.
Light rail may sound expensive,
but it saves money.
Los Angeles
was off in its ridership estimate by more than 100
percent.
More "numbers voodoo". What
line in LA? Red Line subway" Blue Line light rail? Or
what?
What "estimate" is being cited?
The ridership forecast for the Blue Line, for the service and
system configuration finally built, was LOWER than the ridership
that has resulted. LA's Blue Line light rail system has EXCEEDED
the original ridership forecasts.
Before we
build light rail in Austin, we need to know if it would be
cheaper to simply issue BMWs to interested riders.
A very familiar canard. This is
pure chicanery, and decives readers with the presumption that all
the cost of a car is in the purchase of the vehicle -- ignoring
operations, maintenance, road construction, road maintenance, road
traffic operation, parking construction, parking maintenance ...
and on and on. (See
our deconstruction of this "buy everyone a car"
argument.)
What about traffic accidents
(which kill as many American EACH YEAR as died in the entire
Vietnam war)? What about reducing ozone and other forms of air
pollution?
And just where does this writer
think all those extra BMWs will be put? Who's going to provide the
roadway and parking space? What neighborhoods, parks, business
real estate, or other valuable land is going to be used for thse
facilities?
Certainly roads are and will be
needed. But doesn't common sense dictate that better alternatives,
such as light rail, should be applied where they can work? Don't
Austinites deserve a choice?
