Why Is Building Transit So Expensive?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 сен 2024
- The cost of building transit in North America and especially the United States has gotten considerably higher and even prohibitively expensive to smaller cities. So, what is causing these high transit building prices and how can we address this problem of transit building costs going up in cities of all sizes across the continent?
To Support The Channel! / climateandtransit
My socials!
Instagram / climateandtransit
TikTok / climateandtransit
Discord / discord
Check out my podcast! @radiofreeurbanism
Citations
1. enotrans.org/a....
2. www.gao.gov/pr...
3. www.vta.org/pr...
4. www.vta.org/pr...
5. worksinprogres...
6. www.apta.com/n...
Can you imagine the uproar if we did 20 years of environmental studies before doing a freeway widening project?
I believe that's what happened with the freeway upgrade projects in the Sacramento, CA area. The expansions on the freeways were planned in the 1980's but work started only in the last 12 years (and still ongoing as I type this).
They literally do that though
The main problem with most agencies is they don't have the long term funding to have more full time staff. Since there is no guarenteed funding going to transit, they can't commit to the staffing needs. We need the guarantee funding to transit in the same way and magnitude we guarantee funding for roads
false. there is no guaranteed funding for roads. They are funded by gas tax, which is declining due to electrification, sales tax which fluctuates with boom and bust cycles, and direct taxation, which is subject to voter sentiments. Road agencies are simply maintaining an existing system while transit agencies are building it from zero.
@@walawala-fo7ds You do realize that you yourself just listed a few sources of guaranteed funding for roads, right?
It should be run by the church.
On the BART VTA Extenstion: Not only are they doing deep boring which is expensive but fairly common, instead of your standard twin bore with cut and cover stations they are doing a single bore the size of the stations all the way through so they don't need to disturb businesses above with metal plates.
Businesses that will be long closed by the time the extension opens.
That’s crazy, station voids are the most expensive part of any underground rail project!?
That must explode the cost, and frankly they must be making tiny stations, relative to what It could be.
How much cheaper do you think the project would be if they did twin bore with cut and cover stations, percentage wise?
Yeah, the starting-stopping point is a great one. I would add that starting-stopping also means you can't hire an in-house engineering team.
I remember that I did an essay on how Buy American (1939) and Buy America (1982) has inflated transit project costs. It really restricts financial freedom.
Yes, put another way, we are letting 'perfect' be the enemy of 'good'!!!
Nice to see you here! I loved the videos you've done on urbanism here in New England. Hope you're still planning on doing some more sometime!
@@BicyclesAndStreetcars thanks for the appreciation! I really want to but it's hard because I don't live there anymore. My Portsmouth video was done when I went home for two weeks.
Not even "perfect"! The ultra-deep Silicon Valley BART extension isn't even good! It'll take forever just to enter and exit the station! (See SF Muni's Chinatown T station for another example)
As soon as I saw the tiny thumbnail: "Nooo... that's BART.... probably the Silicon Valley extension...."
Public goods, like USPS, public transportation, education, etc. should be done because they're good for citizens, not because of a profit motive.
I feel like the biggest issue is just a lack of experience. The terms of elected officials are generally shorter than the time it takes to complete capital projects, meaning very few politicians have experience seeing even a single project all the way through. We need a non elected government agency that can build up expertise and use it to help local governments all across the country build transit.
Politicians usually don’t ride on mass public transit, and they don’t know the value of them.
Opposing transit because of the temporary noise and construction is ridiculous
And should be outlawed
6:52 the US isn't alone with extremely long planning and building phases, in Germany the High speed line between Karlsruhe and Basel was planned since the 1980s and the expected finishing date for the entire project will be 2041.
That will give me a heart attack
But this has more to do with the fact that every federal transport minister in like forever was a car industry lobbyist or had extremely close ties to the car industry. In addition the constant underinvestment in any public works projects, staling transit investment by doing another study on the next Gadget Bahn.
@@IamTheHolypumpkin sounds exactly like the US.
@@IamTheHolypumpkin So....exactly like the US?
the some difference 186 km ~115 miles, down-lobbing by automotive industry, distribution from the left to right parties and the funding of half of Europe and other nonsense instead of our own infrastructure. The fact that a tunnel boring machine has sunk is just an added bonus.
The starting and stopping of public transport construction goes back to the Great Depression but even so the costs didn't start inflating until Reagan decided to defund underground heavy rail (although I don't know how Philadelphia's Penn Reading Rail Link and L A's Metrorail subway got past him).
We can definitely afford it, but unfortunately, we don’t have the political will power to do it unless is highway and road projects.
Ironically, aren’t highway and road infrastructure costs a lot more for maintenance over time?
Yes
highways are falling apart too. infrastructure is simply not a political priority across the board.
@@cmdrls212 True. when I-95 collapsed in Philly, they quickly repaired it within a month or so. I’m sure there were other examples highway repairs with quicker responses.
if that was a section on the Northeast corridor it would’ve taken months, if not a year to repair it
@@cmdrls212 oh it’s very much a political issue. Both political parties are funded by fossil fuel companies, automobile manufacturers , and airliners
@@jalfredl In think you mean urbanists only show up in RUclips comments instead of town halls so the status quo gets its way lol
Excellent points. Pretty much the opposite of the San Jose BART Extension is the Metro de Madrid. They did a lot of the stuff you mentioned here and built a 26 mile loop line in just over 2 years.
Exactly! The Spaniards know how to build quickly and cheaply at a fraction of the price of the USA.. Learn from them and you'll save a ton of cash!
@@stickynorth We don’t have to look at the Spaniards. Just look at Brazil, specifically São Paulo. It is a city that is identical to NYC in demographics, importance, and size, yet has built out much of its system in the last few decades. No only do they have an extensive metro, their commuter rail, network is superb.
Buenos Aires is another one that has managed to minimize costs while having such a fluctuating economy.
2B per mile is rookie numbers. 2nd avenue subway phase two might cost 4B per mile
when the interborough is built in the 2050s it’ll make 2nd ave look cute cost wise
Nobody Beats New York: The Greatest City in the World😂
Hence why it should be cancelled
@@TheWolfHowlingin corruption
@glassowaterful id be interested in how they can make a light rail project with minimal tunneling and a mostly established right of way to cost 4B per mile. That would be a feat lol.
Would be interesting if a transit agency was given a set yearly budget for expansions
Or maintenance or general quality improvements. Many agencies certainly need those.
Distract the NIMBYs by saying they are going to build affordable housing in their neighborhood, and sneak in the transit line (kidding of course)
NIMBYs get NO ice cream 🍦🚫
Those projects get delayed by getting sued. That’s how California laws work.
Idk if you'd be able to convince with affordable housing. Just think about what that'll do with their property value
Alternative thought: stop name-calling like a preschooler those whom you're trying to convince to vote (and tax themselves) for transit projects.
@@colormedubious4747yes. if we call them a negative term like that it won’t help.
Public transport should be subsidized like the highway network ! Cities and Towns are meant for people -not cars…
And- every traveler on PT is a car less on the street .
The argument of road and highway infrastructure being cheaper is pathetic. Building and maintaining roads and highways is even more expensive.
but they are already built so abandoning them is not an option. first mover advantage
Building transport is expensive because there is no agency from the government for creating transport projects, with full-time employees. Also, the projects are usually built by companies rather by the government, meaning that money may 'disappear'. Also, the appropriate transport to be constructed is railways, bicycle infrastructure and maybe trolleybusses although rail vehicles are usually superior to road public transport. It is possible to build a metro or railway station in a dense city like Athens at most about 800m from everywhere in the urban area (keep in mind that in Greece there are no American-style suburbs, even more distant suburbs have walkable parts). There may be some 6- (or even 4-) lane roads where one lane per direction could be replaced by a tram track. Keep in mind that a railway could be designed so that the difference between trams, metros and mainline trains is expressness, meaning stop frequency and as a consequence speed, especially for slower modes. There could be stricter parking rules, with penalties other than fees as the rich would have no problem paying to reduce traffic, and make it easier to replace some lanes with tracks. Shared lanes do not work well, as not only are trams affected by traffic but also unable to overtake as they are (usually) restricted to one track due to the absence of more (per direction).
We need a proper federal Department of Transportation, and proper state DOTs, to enforce standards, retain full-time engineering/design staff, and trim regulatory/contracting fat. Unfortunately, many state DOTs are hostile to transit-for example Caltrans, the California DOT, is a frequent opponent of transit projects in the state.
Yeah a lot of that stuff is so ridiculous. I mean I think that these consulting agencies do that just so they can get rich and Rich and rich. You know we need to start doing that all in house mainly just because of the projects should get done quick. It's really ridiculous and then people that want the system can't have it until they're about ready to get in their grave. It's so stupid.
great video--love the section on the stopping-and-starting cost bloating bc its especially critical for US cities/regions finally building out new systems! the cheapest way to build mass transit is to build a lot of it very quickly :)
The BART VTA and Sky train Broadway extensions should have been elevated and would have been significantly cheaper
I feel like the local community opposition is still, to an extent, an issue of political will. All levels of government have no problem inconveniencing us in a million different ways and generally ignoring residents' complaints. The fact that they let it stop them when it comes to public transit likely means they never really wanted to do it to begin with.
you kidding right? people complain about everything and politicians are only worried about the next election. you think people love a freeway down their backyard?😂
@@cmdrls212 They hate it certainly but people who live further out and have political connections and stand to benefit from the road will demand it and so they get the freeway in their back yard.
Then there's Texas DOT which crams obscene highway expansions through down the throats of strong opposition in places like Houston and Austin.
The cost of getting the right of way set aside for any major transit project drives the cost into the stratosphere. I mean, look at how long it took for most of the Hokuriku Shinkansen line from Tokyo to Tsuruga to be built, a plan that was approved originally way back in 1973! Getting the right of way and building all those long tunnels was a huge, complicated and expensive process.
4 miles of transit is costing Seattle 7 billion. about a quarter of a million dollars per rider. 😂
Yep there was just a $2billion estimated price hike on the west Seattle link on top of the already $5billion estimate. And considering how long the project is going to take and inflation it will probably get even more expensive. At this point I’m not sure it’s even worth it anymore. Maybe it’s time to go back to the drawing board and consider cheaper alternatives like an urban gondola 🚠?
@@greasher926 IDK I'm thinking just build what's already contracted for design and construction and commit to no-build alternatives for the rest. 😔 I just don't think the US has the will and know-how to do anything civilian at all except build highways and suburban sprawl and gentrify cities.
Isn’t a huge problem also the skyrocketing value of land, especially in downtown areas?
cut and cover subway lines require minimal land purchases because most of their right of way is under roadways, which the government already owns.
Bureaucracy. That is the reason we can’t get housing or transit in America
Short answer: NIMBYs not wanting an at grade or elevated line so the only way to get the transit is to deep bore an expensive tunnel so that they don’t have to see a train go by
In the 60's, BART in downtown SF, Oakland & Berkeley was built using cut and cover. The streets were a massive mess as that was going on, but people sucked it up and then there was an efficient underground transit system.
Now, people won't suck it up during the transit construction, so we do these deep bore tunnels, which means a lot more time riding escalators and a lot more missed trains for the life of the system, all to save some hassle during construction.
Ban NIMBY
Calgary Tranist's Green Line is a good example
I mostly agree with these points except for the Buy America Act part. With these type of programs that encourage domestic spending, they often look like they increase costs but in reality might not. That's because most funding that comes from domestic governments originates as taxes. And much of that tax is income tax. So if you fund a project domestically and pay workers within your own country for the labour then a percentage of that money is subject to income tax and comes right back to domestic governments. Let's say you spend a million dollars on various labor costs and those workers pay let's say 25% income tax. Then you basically only paid $750. So if you tried to save money by paying only $800k on something made in a different country by foreign workers, you're not actually saving money.
And tax is just one aspect with the other being that if you give business to domestic companies, it may help develop those companies and the larger industry so that it can better compete on the global stage. If you develop an industry such as rolling stock manufacturing for instance, it might even get future contracts from foreign projects which would bring money in from other places. Which domestic governments then get to tax. Plus, most of the money paid to domestic workers gets spent domestically and helps to employ even more people. So you're doing a lot more for your economy both in the long and short term.
Now obviously there's a limit to how much more cost that these benefits can offset. If these benefits can offset 40% of the cost but you could save 50% by buying internationally then a Buy America Act type programs would have a negative effect in that case. But the point is simply that you can't just take sticker price costs at face value when it comes to government spending. In other words, the Buy America Act does a lot more than just allow the government to hold companies accountable. I'm not even sure that it's biggest advantage.
BART mentioned.
brother I KNEW SEPTA's budget was getting funnelled to your Patreon
Love the Davis CA clip at 0:12
Most of North America isn’t dense enough to make most of these boondoggles work.
Honestly at this rate we would be better off trying to focus our inner Ki like Goku and learn how to fly 😂
Aside from in-house engineering consultancy firms, there could be something on the national scale for many newer projects that use similar rolling stock or right-of-way standards.
But I would like to see domestic production of rolling stock by some company willing to be established and build a factory here and deliver to transit agencies around the country. Something similar to Boeing trying to make a national light rail vehicle design, but there are more customers for it nowadays so it ought to work better.
Good video. I also feel we shouldn't be giving another cent to highway projects in favor of transit projects.
Now in regards to consultants being behind expensive transit project costs, this is also due to the fact that public transit agencies themselves don't get much funding. Because these consultants (VHB, AECOM, HNTB, STV, WSP, etc.) also work on several other transportation projects, which unfortunately also includes highways, they have more revenue coming in on an annual basis, snd can therefore afford to pay their engineers significantly higher (by 20-30k per year) when compared to the in house engineering departments of transit agencies, so most of the engineering talent often goes to the consultants who pay much higher amounts, which leaves the in house departments mostly reviewing the design work from consultants.
But depending on the transit agency, especially if the agency is relatively small, some would argue that hiring an outside consultant would make more sense, since once a project that a small transit agency would work on is finished, then that transit agency's engineering department has little to no work coming in, which may result in that department shutting down and all of those engineers would be laid off.
Nevertheless, keep up the great videos and always build transit projects no matter how costly or hopeless the situation seems, because the same government has no problem building highway extensions and airports that are way more expensive and destructive to the environment.
airport expansions are wildly as unpopular well. look at LAX. there is no transit only discrimination to criticize. Seattle needs a second airport and that was shut down due to costs. same with bridge maintenance. America doesn't care about any infrastructure
Graft. Corruption.
Great video! There's multiple reasons including planning "scope creep" that generally has people add aspects to the project after the fact that drives up cost. This sinks many a project from the Cybertruck to Dodge Viper to Calgary's ill-fated Green Line... The solution? Learn from China... Uniform rolling stock used on uniform projects which are classified as to their design usage, etc.
To me there's no reason why rapid transit shouldn't be both automated and electrified in 2024 other than the lack of long-term vision in planning and construction... Along with platform screen doors, on-board WiFi, AC, etc. which are all features common to Chinese mass transit networks but not anywhere else to the same degree...
Unions fight automation tooth and nail.
@@colormedubious4747As well I would if I was in their shoes.
@@DiamondKingStudios Why? They make everything cost more and end up getting positions cut over the long term. The only jobs they preserve are those of their officers. I know because I was a member of one for six years.
@@colormedubious4747 I was saying if I was in their shoes.
But I’m not, so I don’t have the same perspective on the matter.
@@DiamondKingStudios Fair enough.
Interesting video!
Thank You!
Hey it's Urban Man! Everyone follow him. He's bringing heavy rail to Staten Island, yo!
The difference is, that you don't have austrian construction companies using eastern european and italian laborours, like it is done in all of europe 😂
3:25-3:40 two unnecessary "literallys" in rapid succession! Must be some kind of record
It's literally a literal record. Literally.
Most of it is simply high consulting prices and contracts. Contractors know they're getting done a favor by their buddies. The immense bureaucracy contributes further to it. I guess construction costs for materials and labors also do it, but it's mostly the bureaucracy regarding laws, rules and regulations. Another thing is that people look at the massive upfront price and can't comprehend that most of that will contribute to a 20-50 year timeline which makes it more affordable per year compared to roads and parking that will always need heavy maintenance every 5-10 years.
Thank you
How dare you forget about the New York City Subway
Something you did not mention is quotas on projects like these. Now, I am speaking here for Atlanta, but I think it is also the same in other cities. To work on an infrastructure project you must have a certain percentage of minority contractors which in principle I think is fine. They also give preference to minority owned firms. What happens here though is that this system gets gamed which greatly inflates costs. You get shell companies that are minority owned that might have 5 people employed. They then sub out the work to regular contractors but when they submit their bid, it's as if it was just one company doing the work. That adds an entire layer of costs because the shell company (and their 5 people) gets their cut and the regular (non-minority) contractor who wasn't allowed to bid on the project still ends up doing the work. If they had just done it to start with, it would have been quicker, cheaper, and it wouldn't seem so corrupt. Like I said, I think hiring minority contractors is a good thing, but there needs to be more due diligence in vetting these companies.
Blaming WOKE? WEAK!
@@stickynorthI don’t think it’s that simple. The comment you replied to described something they considered could be an issue and gave a rather even-handed commentary on the matter while recommending improvements to the process in ways that would be fairer and more conducive to getting projects accomplished. That’s more than one can expect than someone just ranting about “DEI” and “woke” while seeming to know nothing about the subject, which tends to be much more common.
MARTA on its own has plenty of issues. Neither the state government nor the mayor really seem to care that much about good public transit, there aren’t much funds to do what they need to, and Gwinnett and Cobb Counties remain unwilling to cooperate, though barely. I could easily see this system as described existing to give an impression of a commitment to serving underrepresented groups (something most Atlantans certainly and rightly care about) but which ends up creating delays. We’re Americans, after all. Do you really expect us to improve our local public transit systems that easily?
@@DiamondKingStudios Thank you...since my politics is just to the right of Che Guevara 😉
@@scpatl4now I just assumed you were by and large a pragmatist.
Either way, MARTA isn’t much like it was when my grandfather worked for it.
Okay I'm sold. I will build 100 new subway lines by January 2025. All for $7.99. Also, fantastic Chanel. Keep up the transit advocacy!
WMATA🔥🐐🇺🇸
Unions
when a new metro for a city is built imma be 40 I swear
Although everything in this video is correct in the ways that we can decrease cost, and most of them are things we should be doing, decreasing community input is not one of them. We need to come to compromises with communities designing something that will be acceptable but is realistic. instead of giving the community every single concession we need to meet in the middle. For the San Jose example, deep bore tunnels make sense in downtown, but it should have switched to cut and cover outside of that.
And I will add that when light rail was built through downtown San Jose it so thoroughly killed the business on our main street that 40 years later it still hasn't fully recovered, and caused a switch in what was seen as our Main Street. Tunneling will take longer than a surface line and that's what the business that complained were worried about. There are ways that the impact could be minimized such as direct payments to affected businesses (and that would have probably been cheaper than switching to deep bore) things like that are the compromises that I'm talking about, things that today we just aren't pursuing in an effort to appeal to the ideal plan that has no impact during construction.
You can't do cut and cover in downtown San Jose. there are literally two rivers in the way.
I don't understand why the online transit community is so bad with the commentary on this project. You can literally look on google maps right now and see that two rivers converge right above where the tunnel will be.
Unions. Really simple.
Sorry, no. Consultants.
"Unions. Really simple." Crazed GOP elephants really do blame anyone but themselves
Europe and Japan have far more powerful unions - without this problem.
Bureaucracy.
Bringing design and construction management in house only makes sense if you are continuously expanding your network, something VTA is definitely not doing, and will never do.
can someone explain why you need more than 10 minutes of study for the environmental impact for a tunnel?
Because in places where they don't do that buildings tend to fall into the resulting sinkholes. It recently happened in China.
Private transit it the future.
Community opposition really is #1, huh?
It does seem like the “everything bagel liberalism” theory applies here. Transit agencies really should just be trying to build a fast train. Instead they try to make every project all about social goals: how do we make sure our construction workers are all veterans, women-owned, union workers, Buy American, oversized elevators for accessibility, stations filled with public art, etc etc. And then they act surprised when the costs double because the requirements are sky-high.
Blaming WOKE? WEAK!
I mean all stations SHOULD be accessible though, you're alienating riders by not making them accessible.
@@youtubesewersocialist For sure. Of these requirements, ADA is the most justified in my opinion.
Some of the things you listed are good and should be mandatory. (e.g. ADA)
First 🎉🎉🎉
Let’s gooooo!
So you're pretending that you can do cut-and-cover literally through two rivers in downtown San Jose? Cool 🤣🤣🤣
Wouldn’t be that hard for it to go further underground before it reaches the river. Seems to work in Chicago. BART down Market street was constructed as cut-and-cover and it goes into the bay…
TohaBgood2 don't be a BART bootlicker challenge (IMPOSSIBLE)
@@youtubesewersocialist So you're denying the existence of those two rivers?
Non-delulu challenge apparently also impossible for you.
@@ScoobyDooIsDead those sections in Chicago were built in a dry-dock and floated into place at incredible expense because the soils were too low quality for normal boring and that as cheaper at the time.
Do you have any indication of how much more expensive this would be to do in San Jose vs just boring a tunnel?
@@TohaBgood2 Did you like your own posts lol
7:50 while I agree with the overall point you're trying to make, it's important to note that Downtown San Jose has a few rivers flowing through it that intersect with where the tunnel would go, which effectively kills cut and cover as an option, at least for the tunnels themselves
A more apt comparison for this would've been building the line elevated, since it would've been by far the cheapest option but got almost immediately shut down by NIMBYs.