• popcap200@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.”

    • png@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

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

    • Bob@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Bob@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          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?

    • evranch@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Noughmad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      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.