this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023
1221 points (98.3% liked)

Memes

45681 readers
577 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I'm not that guy, and I'm all for rail, but here's an article that talks about it. https://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/26/the-highway-vs-fixed-transit-debate/

"While a few rail-transit lines may have had a marginal effect on rush-hour congestion, the cost is exorbitant. The average light-rail line under construction or in planning stages today costs $25 million per mile ($50 million per mile in both directions). Heavy rail costs more than twice as much.  By comparison, the average lane mile of freeway costs only about $5 to $10 million."

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

But the average freeway is not 1-lane, but has many lanes. Also roadways have much higher maintenance costs than rail.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Where can I find those figures in the post you linked?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I might be mistaken, but by that quote and given that every motorway has three lanes in each direction, or at least two I assume in the USA, the cost of the road is at least comparable and at most a bit dearer. I'd even say it constitutes fudging the numbers to pull the wool over.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Only if you compare 3 roads to 1 track. If you're arguing about which costs more then it doesn't make sense to include the cost of the whole 3 lanes as all that traffic doesn't need to go by rail.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Well, the difference is that three lanes of traffic have about the same capacity for passengers as a single railway track, no?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wonder if these high costs are due to it being passenger rail inside a major city. I'm curious if this cost applies to freight rail as well.

Out here in the countryside it seems that a mile of freight rail should be worth much less than a mile of highway. Everything from easement size to site prep, equipment needed and bill of materials seems a fraction of that required for highway construction.

As mentioned elsewhere the maintenance is minimal compared to a highway as well, with the trains plowing snow themselves and the rails being very hard-wearing. The only work we ever see them doing on the rail lines is occasionally replacing sleepers and fixing up the road crossings - and it's heavy trucks that ruin those, not the trains.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I'd definitely be curious on more detailed numbers.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

This is about light rail though, which is usually built in cities (or, at least between a city and its suburbs). So I wonder how much of the cost (for both rail and road) is for land rights.