Quote:
Originally Posted by 5seconds
I've been seeing the anti-SWBRT hammer the project on cost in the last few days, arguing that the $40m would be wasted/better spent elsewhere etc. Yet the same group seems to support the SW Ring Road and has never mentioned the cost of that project as a negative. I wanted to compare costs of the projects.
The Province has noted that some parts of the SW Ring Road will see 80k-100k daily trips, so I am using the average at 90k.
Though $5b is often quoted as the ring road cost, I am using $3.5b, as the current project does not include the West leg and that approximate cost has been mentioned in relation to the current project.
Therefore, $3.5b divided by a daily usage of 90k is $38,889 per daily trip
The SWBRT is noted to cost $40m, but that does not include operating costs. Ready to Engage has stated a $5.4m per year cost. Assuming a 50% fare recovery that means an operating cost of $2.7m. $2.7m x 30 years is $81m. So the capital and operating costs (unadjusted) for 30 years is $121m
The SW BRT/Transitway cost of $121m requires only 3111 trips per day (1556 round trip passengers) to equal the SW Ring Road on a cost/trip basis.
(That assumes that a vehicle trip on the ring road is equal to a passenger trip on the BRT. If we adjust the numbers to assume 1.5 passengers per car on the ring road, the numbers work out to 4667 trips per day on the BRT (2334 round trip passengers) to equal the ring road expenditure.)
If anyone can pick holes in these numbers or assumptions, please tell me. I don't mind refining them to get it right.
Has the City released any kind of projections for the usage of the transitway?
|
I want to preface this with the point that pretty much all of the "known" numbers involved in these estimates have a very high amount of uncertainty, especially the use projections, for both the road and the transitway. There is very little rigour involved in either.
Secondly, even if those numbers were all but certain, I'm always very wary of these rather simplified analyses. Certain self-professed logicians and mathematicians (you know who you are - how's that bicycle cost-benefit mega meta-analysis going?) and other casual observers often hold on to such numbers to lend support to preconceived notions or drive agendas. The irony being that, as the below will show, it's often only in one very skewed direction - that of the road lobby and general motordom.
Firstly, I think in any case (although I dont' believe you to have an agenda - I enjoy your vast knowledge and historical context), I think you're being a bit generous on the SWRR numbers:
That forecasted volume - which, it must be restated is very dubious in any case - is for 30 years. Assuming 90,000 trips on opening day is very, very liberal. But the 3.5 billion needs to be spent just to provide a functional road on opening day, whether 2,000 or 90,000 vehicles drive on it. The 90,000 is also based on both legs being complete (to the best of my knowledge, but it's not like those projections have ever been made transparent), so really the full cost should be included or else the forecast doesn't stand (were it at all accurate).
In any case, given those two points, I think a more reasonable assumption, and probably still generous, is 45,000 trips - averaged from opening day to the 30 year period.
You've also left out maintenance and operating costs, which you've rightly included for the transitway. Based on some very high-level estimates, this would probably be around $1 million per year for a 4 lane cross-section for the SWRR. This includes streetlighting, so is not too restrictive, but not major repairs for things like resurfacing and structures, etc, which probably adds another $1 million per year. All these things depend on what quality of facility is desired etc. But let's assume gas tax and vehicle licensing covers this (it doesn't, but that gets things complicated - networks, etc), so forget it.
Let's also forget the amount of emergency service that is now dedicated toward policing these facilities and responding to collisions, etc.
You've also assumed the farebox recovery for the transitway is 50%. There is at least some reason to believe it would be higher. In fact, at the project ridership below, it would be over 100% (also dubious). (I've roughly calculated this all out, but I refrain from posting this stuff due to my points above). In any case, this is somewhat analogous to network effects and cross-subsidization as for highways. So let's forget it.
So let's disregard operating costs for both.
----------------------------------------
The transitway has projected ridership of 12,000,000 per year (RouteAhead). At 365 days per year, which is not how you prorate annual ridership to daily, but it's another simplification, equals about 33,000 daily trips. Even if this ridership projection were right, it's also unlikely it would all materialize on opening day (especially given a competing mega-project to the west...). I'd also like to point out that the transitway will benefit the South Crosstown BRT and Route 20, as well as provide a marginal benefit to general traffic flow on 14 St.
So let's be more realistic, and assume half the ridership, as we did for the ring road and re-plug your numbers at a capital cost level.
SWRR
$3,500,000,000/45,000 veh = 77,777/person-trip @ 1.2 occupancy, which is more typical, it's still about $65,000/person-trip
Transitway
$40,000,000/16,500 two-way passengers = $2,424 /person-trip
For kicks, the
City Centre Cycle track
$5,750,000/2,000 (riders on all the tracks) = $2,875 / person-trip
So the SWRR is a good 25 times more costly per person-trip than these other modes.
I cannot understate enough how many assumptions and simplifications is in all this. Even to calculate operating costs and cost-benefit with direct costs only, requires untold assumptions - for the cycle tracks for example, it's often felt that the user is not paying - not true. Without getting in to it, the average cyclist subsidizes the average driver more than vice-versa even at the tangible cost level.
All this removes any notion of external costs. Simplified, for things like the SWRR these are all negative. For public transit, and especially the cycle track, these are all positive. There are ample studies that show this. And we still haven't accounted for induced low-density growth patterns as a result of road overbuilding which only perpetuates all this.
The one societal benefit that can be argued for, although not to the degree that it should be allowed a 25 times greater "investment", is that the SWRR can move more goods, more quickly. In my mind, and probably not just mine, there's also a good reason to believe at this point that this is not actually any sort of benefit - unless Walmarts, Costcos and a general affinity toward over-consumption can be considered wholly beneficial.
What we can takeaway from this, is that the SWRR (and to some degree its quadrant friends) is a colossal waste of money, with few real benefits predicated and justified purely on tautology. But we should probably tie up council for 2 days for cycle-tracks instead.
Prev
Linear Mode
