As part of the drumbeat for the fall ST/RTID ballot proposal, yesterday's Seattle Times had a "news article"-style infomercial for Sound Transit's Commuter rail boondoggle.
"Commuters find convenience, companionship aboard the Sounder"
Party on, ladies! But the infomercial doesn't say what the party train actually costs.
According to Sound Transit's 2006 P&Ls [p. 13], the Sounder Commuter Rail spent $39.5 million (including amortized capital costs) on 1.7 million rides, recovering only $4.9 million at the farebox. The profiled commuters who ride both ways on, say, 240 workdays a year, would consume a pro-rated $11,332 share of service, but pay only $1,296 (12 monthly passes @ $108) -- a nearly $10,000 annual subsidy per commuter.
That's a marvelously generous party train, but an obscenely ineffective use of transportation dollars that benefits only a tiny number of commuters.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 16, 2007 07:00 PM | Email ThisCost effectiveness is a NeoCon mantra to them.
You see, the KLOWNS are self-proclaimed "Visionaries". The problem with their "visions" is they remind me of little kids who scream "Mommy, I NEED that toy....no matter how much it costs!".
They are not "Visionaries". They are "Dreamers" who never worry about what something cost and how is it fairly paid for. They just know they NEED it, no matter what!
I'll get an offer in on that trophy shop!
Posted by: GS on April 16, 2007 08:02 PMIs there anything these domoncraps won't do for money?
Posted by: GS on April 16, 2007 08:59 PM5 Star Hotels, private jets, and all!
by Charles Hurt, The Examiner
WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Congress is keeping Andrews Air Force base plenty busy this year ferrying lawmakers all over the globe at taxpayers' expense. Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi took his wife, nine Democrats and two Republicans - Reps. Dan Lungren of California and Mike Rogers of Alabama - on a whirlwind tour of the Caribbean last week. After stops in Honduras and Mexico, they stopped in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where the delegation stayed at the five-star Caneel Bay resort.
In a separate trip to the Caribbean last week, Rep. Eliot Engel of New York squired his wife and four Democratic members to Grenada and Trinidad.
All told, the military flew at least 13 congressional delegations to various destinations during the Easter recess -- at an estimated rate of $10,000 or more per flying hour.
The congressional delegation trips, known as CODELs, are paid for by taxpayers. They are supposed to be directly related to members' official duties, and House guidelines also stipulate that delegations include members of both parties to qualify for military planes -- a requirement that Speaker Nancy Pelosi waived for Engel's group and two other delegations.
"There was a good faith effort made to include Republican members," a Pelosi spokesman said. "For one reason or another, that did not work."
In one instance, he said, a Republican slated for a Democrat-led trip had to cancel because of a "family emergency."
In their successful campaign to win control of Congress last fall, Democrats accused Republicans of extravagant travel paid for by lobbyists. Some of these trips carried a strong whiff of influence peddling. The worst that can be said of CODELS, and critics often say it, is that they're junkets.
Thompson's office said he toured the Caribbean because he now chairs the Homeland Security Committee and wanted to see vacation hot spots to "examine border security and port security." Three other members of the delegation also brought along their spouses.
"They are going from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. everyday," a committee spokeswoman told The Examiner. "They do not have down time."
At the Caneel Bay resort, where room rates reach $1,100 per night, the spokeswoman said Thompson and his wife paid the "government rate." But, according to the reservations department, Caneel Bay doesn't "offer any government rates."
After Caneel Bay, the group headed to Key West, Fla., for a "classified briefing on inter-jurisdictional agency task forces," a Thompson spokeswoman said.
The Caribbean trip led by Engel, who is chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, explored the "best practices for emergency disaster relief" and energy policy, according to his office.
Traveling with Engel and his wife were Reps. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Tex., and Barbara Lee, D-Calif. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who went to Belgium in a delegation led by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., earlier in the week, also joined Engel's Caribbean trip. She brought her husband with her.
Frank's trip to Belgium and London was related to his work as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, according to his office. The trip, which also included Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., was designed "to further understand the interrelationship between various issues related to the financial services regulatory structures" of the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union, according to Frank's office.
Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., also led a trip to Belgium over the two-week Easter recess. In February, Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, took a delegation there.
"We're at war with Iraq and Afghanistan, but apparently our members see Belgium as our most urgent international destination," scoffed one Republican member of Congress.
Last week, Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., defended Congressional travelers after a trip he took to Syria came under intense White House criticism.
"Members of Congress are not simply potted plants, though the White House apparently would like them to be," he told reporters after his return. "Congress plays an important role in determining policy and providing funding for America's international policies."
Posted by: gs on April 16, 2007 09:12 PMHere is a back of envelope estimate: 1.7M rides/yr / (240 days/yr * 2 rides/day per rider) = 3500 riders/day each way. The train runs over 2 hours, so that is ~1750 cars/hour on the freeway. A freeway lane can handle about 2000 cars/hour (http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=00086338-4CE0-10F8-8CE083414B7F0000).
So what is the cost to add one freeway lane each way on I-5 from Tacoma to Seattle? US DOT says it is about 40M/mile (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/steam/table1.htm), 30 miles * 2 lanes (1 each way) = 2.4B. Amortized over 50 years with a 3% bond that ~$90M/year.
$40M/year for a rail line that still has lots of free capacity seems like a pretty good deal...
This is a back of the envelope calculation, I'm sure someone more industrious can provide a much more detailed cost/benefit analysis.
Posted by: Peter Carlin on April 16, 2007 10:30 PMTake note, as well - the Sounder easement (the agreement that lets them operate) to Everett is perpetual - one lump sum, paid up front, for four daily round trips *forever*. Amortize that over its lifetime!
Seriously - all capital transportation projects look like this. When you're taking a monomodal system and making it multimodal, you have higher capital expenditures up front - but those numbers are meaningless if you don't compare them to the costs of the capital improvements necessary to add the same new capacity to the monomodal system. Also pay attention to the lifetime of these infrastructure improvements - how old are the bridges on the BNSF line, compared to, say, the Viaduct? What happens when you amortize these improvements over their service lifetimes, instead of over an arbitrary number of years?
So, Sounder South carries 5000-6000 riders daily today. Expanding service will double that over the next few years - and most of those capital costs are already incurred. Do you know what it would cost to add that highway capacity to the same corridor? Sounder is peak hour - even 6000 new trips during peak (three hours) is a full new lane of traffic (highways carry about 2000 vehicles per lane per hour at peak). You'd need it on both sides of, say, 5 - and you'd need more than that, because a lot of these riders would also be using 167 if they were driving - but let's limit it to the capital costs of putting a lane each way (remember Sounder goes the other way in the evening!). You'd be looking at easily double the costs of Sounder infrastructure.
Like those equivalent road improvements, the improvements to the BNSF corridor also benefit freight moving off-peak, and Amtrak Cascades - so if you're going to amortize those capital costs per passenger, you also have to pay attention to the extra fourth daily train that Cascades was able to operate with the improved track and signals, as well as the fifth that should start operating in a year. Also consider the increased amount of freight being moved - ask BNSF how they've taken advantage of the increased capacity.
You can always make a narrow argument to try to prove a point - this is a great example of statistics being misused. Put some project management background into these calculations so you're comparing apples to apples, and you find that cost arguments strongly favor rail. Why do you think that private companies weren't building highways before the Federal Highway Act? In a competitive environment, rails are more cost-effective.
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman on April 16, 2007 10:48 PMCapital costs are just that, capital. Too amortize them over a few years would be like saying that buying a house for 300k costs you 150k a year because you have only been there two years.You would be correct, except that's not what I'm doing.
Look at the P&L statement I cite. The numbers I'm using for amortized capital costs are Sound Transit's own numbers for 2006 (~$16million). This is a small fraction of the $100 of millions in sunk costs for the Sounder.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on April 16, 2007 11:04 PMb. Sounder ....i believe stefan's number seriously undercount the $$...that 11k ignores the "loan" we all made for the right of way; memory serves me it was $300mm.
c. that 300mm will grow too; its not a 1x fee, rather a first installment as other large capital events hit the sounder.
of course if sound tranasit can spend a billion on engineering studies, this is no big deal
Posted by: righton on April 17, 2007 01:57 AMso there actually isn't a nice argument about that traffic saves a lane of freeway or whatever.
(ps, isn't 5000 like a drop in the bucket on car traffic)
Posted by: righton on April 17, 2007 07:05 AMWhat will happen to that lady if the train got popular? Or if it paid for itself? I guarantee, it wouldn't be so comfortable and would look like a full bus.
Posted by: swatter on April 17, 2007 08:07 AMSounder north+south, in Q3 2006, had 6355 weekday boardings, average. Since then, a seventh car has been added to two of the four Sounder South trains because they're running standing room only. I didn't say "south sound" riders, I said "Sounder South" riders. "Sounder" is the name of the train service.
Here are those ridership statistics. If you don't believe them, go watch one of the Tacoma trains unload at King Street Station sometime.
http://www.soundtransit.org/x4787.xml
As I said, a lane of highway carries about 2000 people per hour. Sounder runs are peak-hour. So no, Sounder riders are certainly not a drop in the bucket.
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman on April 17, 2007 08:16 AM Q 3
riders, commuter 400,384
riders special 34,368
total riders 434,752
weekdays 65
weekend days 26
cost per rider, using 06 all yr $13.9
cost total $6,043,053
days 91.25
cost per day $66,225
daily riders 4,764
if round trip 2,382
Quarterly cost $6,043,053
Annualized $24,172,211
Ann cost per RT rider $10,147
Per ST, above ignores Deprec. so..
Capital cost? no clue
Right of way? $300mm, not included
Posted by: righton on April 17, 2007 09:58 AMgreater than $30k per yr in subsidies per rider
sorry for link http://www.effectivetransportation.org/docs/SounderNorthAmortized2005.pdf
Apparently the congressman doesn't realize just how important Belgium is. Otherwise, why would Bush have appointed his top Swift Boat check-writer to be our ambassador there? Belgium must be critically important if it rates this kind of talent.
Posted by: F.K. Plous on April 17, 2007 12:32 PMBen; the notion that you spend capital once and forever reap its benefit is one that no market trained economist or financial type would take seriously. If the ROW big payment truly was a perpetuity, yeah that's ok to spread that forever, but there's a ton of capex also in their budget; i see at least $100mm beyond the ROW spend.
You know for the $30,000 per year, i'll load my van w/ 5 Everett sounder types and run my own little jitney.
How about you and ST just pay me 1/2 the 30k subsidy not to drive; heck of a lot cheaper than the $$ to nowhere train you and Ron and Joni are driving.
Posted by: righton on April 17, 2007 03:06 PMI had a long argument with several valid points, but you continue to harp on one, mixing numbers from Sounder North and Sounder South and doing exactly the same "capital cost per rider" amortization that earlier commenters incorrectly accused Stefan of. Yes, capital costs are high for a new system. That is, of course, the case when you build any infrastructure. What's important here is the best way to move a lot of new people in a congested corridor, while adding redundancy and preserving ROW. Instead of whining about absolute numbers, talk to me about your cheaper options for the same tasks.
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman on April 17, 2007 04:00 PMHe has one mistake in his "back of the envelope" calculation. He writes: "So what is the cost to add one freeway lane each way on I-5 from Tacoma to Seattle? US DOT says it is about 40M/mile (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/steam/table1.htm), 30 miles * 2 lanes (1 each way) = 2.4B."
If you look carefully at the table to which he provided the URL, you will see that the $40 million cost per mile is the total cost of adding a lane in each direction -- so it is an error to multiply by "2 lanes" again, as Carlin did.
The total cost for Carlin's hypothetical would be half as much, or about $1.2 billion.
Beyond that, how would the capital cost be "annualized" to make it possible to compare the new lanes to the "Sounder"?
And, how would you include the value and benefit of having those 2 new lanes during the other 18 hours of the day rather than only looking at the rush-hour use as Carlin did? The study that produced the table at that URL indicated that half the trips are made during non-peak hours, so shouldn't that half of the highway users be included when comparing the "Sounder" to new lanes?
Finally, how could the fact that some people "go against the flow" in the opposite direction of most rush-hour traffic be included? There are hardly any people going the opposite direction on the "Sounder," but that isn't true of highways. Counting only one side of the highway ignores a substantial part of the benefit gained from the new lanes.
It is an article of faith among some people that building new "lane miles" of roads and highways is more expensive than public transit services, but where's the analysis to support their faith?
Posted by: Micajah on April 17, 2007 06:25 PMOK, why not tax only those you plan on serving.
Posted by: JCbob on April 17, 2007 06:30 PMBest i can tell they (us) sunk $500mm into heavy rail right of way and tracks, lights, etc. And each year we spend another $20mm to run the trains. And for that we get 3000 people off the freeway.
Think about how you'd aproach that as an investor; some guy says, let me borrow $500 mm, no interest, i'll never pay you back, you can have a lien on it, sure, oh, and i also need another $20mm to run it. And sure, you can have the ticket revenue, but wow, that isn't much.
I totally get the need for tax subsidized transit; that's how much of Europe operates and they do get people around without cars that way. BUT, there has to be a reasonableness test.
That said, i would love to run passenger rail up 405 rather, i guess economics there are almost, if Ron wants trails, i'd rather (call it for free sincee he's made up his mind) run trains. The challenge of course is that it may be no more economic than your Sounder
Problem in all this is our trnsit people have PROVEN time and again they are slow, spend a lot, build crummy systems, and don't really care about their customers.
Posted by: righton on April 18, 2007 05:58 AMhttp://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/102909_get06.shtml
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/200597_get22.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/158981_get02.html
Posted by: JDH on April 18, 2007 08:01 AMI check the cool ST/Metro "bus schedules" online, and find when bus scheduled to stop along local freeway. I leave house, but as i arrive 2 or 3 min early, i see bus with my number departing...
Now was that my bus early, or prior bus about 12 min late? (bus every 15 min or so)
In Paris, other cities, they put simple displays saying when next bus due. Since Metro cannot keep to a schdule, they ought to provide these. (why go wonder when the next bus is due, when i can get in my car which has a 100% "leaves on time" rating)
Posted by: righton on April 18, 2007 08:41 AM