Jump to content

How much mass transit would $1 Billion buy?


GRDadof3

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Back to the point at hand...does anyone know what the operating cost would be for 4 light rail lines about 8 miles long each? If all that were installed for a billion dollars, what would it cost to keep it running? there would have to be a lot of subsidizing going on if you ask me. thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the report by The RAPID, BRT and LRT lines that are planned for the first phase would be between $5.3 and $15.4 million/annually. I'd assume much of this would be paid by ridership fees and corporate advertising, but I don't know for sure. I wish metrogrkid would come back and give us the skinny on this. He was heavily involved from the get-go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the report by The RAPID, BRT and LRT lines that are planned for the first phase would be between $5.3 and $15.4 million/annually. I'd assume much of this would be paid by ridership fees and corporate advertising, but I don't know for sure. I wish metrogrkid would come back and give us the skinny on this. He was heavily involved from the get-go.

Ridership fees probably wouldn't cover much. At least with the buses, I think fares only cover around 10-15% of the operating costs, the rest is subsudies. Maybe rail is more efficient in this manner? I think corporate advertising would be even less, but this would improve as the system gained riders and popularity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Chicago Transit Authority says system-generated revenue funds more than half of its operating budget. 80 percent of that income is from fares and passes. Only 4 percent is from advertising or concessions.

There's obviously opportunity with a new system to reduce operating expenses in order to reduce the ratio of public subsidies. Specifically in terms of labor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say "subsidize" Andy (Torgo), are you referring to tax dollars (gas tax, State income tax, etc.) that would be needed to maintain the system? Similar to tax dollars that go toward maintaining highways? I would say if ridership covers 50%, that's a far better scenario than 100% subsidized highway systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GRDad,

Isn't one of the "many" gas taxes we pay at the pump go towards Road/Highway Maintenance?

Don't get me wrong, I am in support of a Mass Transit system here in Grand Rapids.

When you say "subsidize" Andy (Torgo), are you referring to tax dollars (gas tax, State income tax, etc.) that would be needed to maintain the system? Similar to tax dollars that go toward maintaining highways? I would say if ridership covers 50%, that's a far better scenario than 100% subsidized highway systems.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GRDad,

Isn't one of the "many" gas taxes we pay at the pump go towards Road/Highway Maintenance?

Don't get me wrong, I am in support of a Mass Transit system here in Grand Rapids.

Yes. That's my point. If the thought process is that mass transit has to be "subsidized" and is not "self-sustaining", isn't that in essence the same as the current highway system in Michigan? We don't have any "pay-as-you-go" toll roads here, so they are all subsidized by tax dollars. Just weighing the costs and benefits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the local churches strongly behind this, it makes mass transit look like a charity case. Will the stigma of mass transit in GR change to a nice, comfortable, easy way of getting to work, school, DT?

^If subsidizding roads is cheaper then LRT lines then this could look attractive to a tax payer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gas taxes don't pay the full cost of road maintenance. I would prefer higher gas taxes that did. That way people would at least realize how much it costs to maintain such a system. If they still want to drive, that's fine by me, but I prefer not to subsidize urban sprawl with cheap gas and highways everywhere. If it's such a great model it should pay for itself.

-nb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add fuel to the fire, one of the more recent problem with monorail systems is current regulations. The government requires tracks to have drip pans under all track to prevent "system droppings," as well as an escape platform that runs the length of the track, in case of a breakdown. All of a sudden the "monorail" has become a massive elevated concrete and steel eyesore. The city did a feasibility study for LRT a few years back, called GT2: Great Transit, Grand Tomorrows. When I get a chance, I'll have to dig it up and post some of the results of the study.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering how much was invested in the South Beltline, and what the proposed US-31 bypass is estimated to cost, how much light rail transit could be bought for $1 billion?

Consider that the Federal government also provides funding for mass transit, if the State provides funding. I don't know for sure, but I believe it's 20% local, 80% federal. But let's be conservative and say 60/40 match. Our $1 billion becomes $2.5 billion. I'm not a light rail funding expert, so others can probably enlighten us more.

At $70 million/mile, that's 35 miles of light rail. Enough to serve almost every quadrant of Metro GR, or at least a very good start.

Current law limits the federal portion of a mass transit project to 60%. However for it to receive serious consideration, the amount will have to be less than 50%. And even if GR and Michigan come up with $500M for their share of the transit, there is no guarantee there will be any money available.

Nationally there are projects to where the federal amount would come to $45B. In 2007 the Bush Administration only made $1.5B available to satisfy those needs. The Republican congress is not expected to increase it. So unless GR comes up with a lot of local funding, a $1 Billion transit system isn't going to be happening anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the local churches strongly behind this, it makes mass transit look like a charity case. Will the stigma of mass transit in GR change to a nice, comfortable, easy way of getting to work, school, DT?

^If subsidizding roads is cheaper then LRT lines then this could look attractive to a tax payer.

I think Fred Meijer would have to get on a bus, and complain about the lack of a LRT system before anything gets done :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heres a link to the GT2 study's most recent information.

http://www.ridetherapid.org/Main/Adobe_Acr...sletter_10r.pdf

The project is currently in tier 3 evaluation, which has been narrowed down to BRT and streetcar, and only two main corridors. The original tier 1 evaluation took into consideration 10 corridors and 12 modes of transportation, including monorail, heavy rail, maglev, automated guideway, personal rapid transit, bus, enhanced bus, express bus, BRT, LRT, streetcar, and commuter rail. The last 7 of those, including LRT, made it to tier 2 evaluation, along with 5 corridors; Allendale, RidgeSub(Alpine), Southwest(Grandville/Jenison,) South, and Kentwood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Current law limits the federal portion of a mass transit project to 60%. However for it to receive serious consideration, the amount will have to be less than 50%. And even if GR and Michigan come up with $500M for their share of the transit, there is no guarantee there will be any money available.

Nationally there are projects to where the federal amount would come to $45B. In 2007 the Bush Administration only made $1.5B available to satisfy those needs. The Republican congress is not expected to increase it. So unless GR comes up with a lot of local funding, a $1 Billion transit system isn't going to be happening anytime soon.

Yes, we know that. I think Vern Ehlers said we'd be looking at 7 - 15 years minimum. The $1 billion is/was being looked at locally for two highway bypasses. My post was an illustration of how that $1 billion could be spend in better ways. Even if the Feds provided $0, that's still $1 billion to use for mass transit. Plus in 7 years, who knows who will be in congress and the White House. That's almost two terms away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heres a link to the GT2 study's most recent information.

http://www.ridetherapid.org/Main/Adobe_Acr...sletter_10r.pdf

The project is currently in tier 3 evaluation, which has been narrowed down to BRT and streetcar, and only two main corridors. The original tier 1 evaluation took into consideration 10 corridors and 12 modes of transportation, including monorail, heavy rail, maglev, automated guideway, personal rapid transit, bus, enhanced bus, express bus, BRT, LRT, streetcar, and commuter rail. The last 7 of those, including LRT, made it to tier 2 evaluation, along with 5 corridors; Allendale, RidgeSub(Alpine), Southwest(Grandville/Jenison,) South, and Kentwood.

It seems as if GR has more than enough already existing transit space to accomodate some sort of rail system. Some may be a little more feasible than others....I-96, I-196, US-131, Lake Michigan Drive, Chicago Drive, East Beltline...those are just a few. It would take a lot of work but I've gotta believe it could be done but I think its pretty evident that isn't the obstacle here, money is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't work that way. If that is federal highway money, the state receiving it can't divert the money to build something else even if it is transit. They have to go through the New Starts process.

The M-6, which was a State built highway, was $650 million. I don't believe any of it was Federal dollars. That money could have been set aside by the State to help fund future transit. The other is US-31, which would be partial State and partial Federal funding. The State should not spend the proposed $1 billion they are considering for this and earmark it toward transit instead. And again, I'm talking 7 years from now. "New Starts" may not even exist as it does today.

But I know a lot of people are not in favor of mass transit, and would rather see the money go toward further highway expansion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The M-6, which was a State built highway, was $650 million. I don't believe any of it was Federal dollars.

The Fed's did, in fact, help pay for this...

Page 7 of the following report:

http://www.rossmanmartin.com/PDF/TRIP%202004%20study.pdf

Also the Michigan facts site for M-6 mentions Federal funds:

...Construction of Phase I of the new freeway between I-96 and M-37 started in 1997 and was

opened in 2001

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.