[C.]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The only reason we have them is because the Feds set up dedicated funding for small projects under Obama, and cities saw them as a way to lure developers. But it turns out they aren't actually very useful for residents compared to regional transit lines.

Transit and land-use are linked. You want cities changing their zoning and luring development to maximize the success of the transit line. Simply linking two city centers without transit oriented development along the way is a recipe for disaster.

An intercity rail line like NOLA-BR is a whole different animal. It connects the state's biggest city to its flagship university and the state's only international airport - that alone should guarantee a healthy ridership, so long as they make sure the connections are good at each of those points - frequent shuttles, etc. If the fares are priced appropriately (monthly pass, etc) you could even end up with a group of commuter students that rides the train every day.

Perhaps. Is the UNO study the only public source for ridership numbers of this project?

The Trinity Railway Express in Dallas-Forth Worth might be a similar project. It's a 10 mile line connecting downtown Fort Worth, DFW Airport and downtown Dallas as well as several of the suburban communities along the way. It has an annual operating budget of $113.9 million in 2019 and serves an an average weekday ridership of 6,400. The system had a total of 2 million riders last year, which equates to $56.95 per ride to operate.

The metrics look much better than the Atlanta streetcar when you consider passenger miles traveled divided by operating cost. Removing 6,400 cars from rush hour traffic is also a benefit that's hard to quantify.

Still not stellar numbers and ridership is on the decline from a high of 2.7 million in 2009. I guess transit does best in times of economic contraption.

Originally Posted by prokowave

I think it's hard to compare, especially since our most recent streetcar line also involved a total rebuild of Rampart and St. Claude along the route, including landscaping and lighting. Those streets were in need of repair anyway and certainly inflated the budget. We also have a history with streetcars and they are much more likely to attract tourist riders than buses.

The same argument goes for passenger rail. The expenses include plenty of drainage and crossing improvements that benefit the wider community as well as the freight railroad's speed and capacity benefits.

Fair argument - the capital costs of construction has benefits beyond just for providing transportation.

If anything I think the passenger estimates might be low if they are not considering connectivity with existing Amtrak routes and the future Mobile service. If Amtrak runs some BR trains as extensions of those other routes, that could even lower the operating costs.

It's very rare that ridership is underestimated. Usually that only happens when there is rezoning and significant emphasis on attracting new high density development along the line, like Jersey City's HBLR line. Can't think of any other system that exceeded estimates.

Originally Posted by ardecila

New Orleans streetcars are more like a citywide network and a legacy network instead of new build... sort of a different animal. St Charles and Canal lines do cover many miles across the city and the Rampart/Desire line is intended to do that as well, eventually.

Would it be more of a benefit if the investment went to improving the existing New Orleans streetcar network than the rail line between Baton Rouge and New Orleans? At 70 miles between the two cities along with some very sensitive environmental sites along the way, that's gonna be in the multi-billion dollar range. A lot of money unless justified by high transit useage.