The $3 billion subway line and other white elephants

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by chris08876

If subway construction was in the hands of the private sector versus a public benefits corporation such as the MTA, we'd see those costs dramatically lower.

Exactly. And projects would be built where ridership has the highest potential.

[GlassCity]

We'd also mainly see them in downtown cores only and with much higher fares.

The political gamesmanship behind transit projects is annoying, but it sure beats a world in which our transit is run privately.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

The political gamesmanship behind transit projects is annoying, but it sure beats a world in which our transit is run privately.

Definitely. I think a bit of both is needed, but not with corporate interest (I'm thinking fund managing)

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Definitely. I think a bit of both is needed, but not with corporate interest (I'm thinking fund managing)

I'm thinking I don't know what you mean. In many places your water, power, even sewer service is a regulated private utility. Your internet and TV service is almost everywhere. I don't see what would be so wrong having transit be that and it could come to pass in some locations. It's one way to get projects built that there is not public funding to do it. In fact, it appears as if Trump's upcoming "infrastructure" proposal may be for about $200 billion of public funding and a hope for $800 billion of private funding. If some of either goes for mass transit, I wouldn't mind at all, especially if somebody wants to dig that darned rail tunnel into the TransBay Terminal.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I'm thinking I don't know what you mean. In many places your water, power, even sewer service is a regulated private utility. Your internet and TV service is almost everywhere. I don't see what would be so wrong having transit be that and it could come to pass in some locations. It's one way to get projects built that there is not public funding to do it. In fact, it appears as if Trump's upcoming "infrastructure" proposal may be for about $200 billion of public funding and a hope for $800 billion of private funding. If some of either goes for mass transit, I wouldn't mind at all, especially if somebody wants to dig that darned rail tunnel into the TransBay Terminal.

Yeah but this becomes a political discussion then. I am personally uncomfortable with private ownership of infrastructure. Transit is a public service, and I don't want to see profit start driving decision-making, nor do I want to see what should be public infrastructure controlled by private entities.

[Innsertnamehere]

Technically Scarborough is going to be a single bore tunnel, not double bore. Still though.

Scarborough also has 3 subway stations today, Victoria Park, Warden, and Kennedy. This will be the 4th station, though it will extend the subway into the "heart" of the former municipality.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Yeah but this becomes a political discussion then. I am personally uncomfortable with private ownership of infrastructure. Transit is a public service, and I don't want to see profit start driving decision-making, nor do I want to see what should be public infrastructure controlled by private entities.

Profit will never entirely drive decision making. Public entities will always determine what projects are needed or which are allowed. Private entities will only determine which they are interested in doing because they see profit potential within the guidelines established by the public oversight.

Again in reference to Trump's likely proposal, it has been suggested the $200 billion of public money would (or should) go to projects that have little profit potential and the $800 billion of private funding would be directed to those that have more.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Profit will never entirely drive decision making. Public entities will always determine what projects are needed or which are allowed. Private entities will only determine which they are interested in doing because they see profit potential within the guidelines established by the public oversight.

Again in reference to Trump's likely proposal, it has been suggested the $200 billion of public money would (or should) go to projects that have little profit potential and the $800 billion of private funding would be directed to those that have more.

Yes, but they will then profit from their involvement and partial ownership of these projects. Justin Trudeau has a similar funding proposal in Canada and I'm not in favour of it. I don't trust private entities to have control over our infrastructure.

[Pedestrian]

How and when to use private money in infrastructure projects

From above:

[dc_denizen]

so the US is not so badly placed when it comes to infrastructure investment. who knew!

(obviously, we need to change where the $ are invested)

[Reverberation]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

We'd also mainly see them in downtown cores only and with much higher fares.

The political gamesmanship behind transit projects is annoying, but it sure beats a world in which our transit is run privately.

They would also get done faster. The shortest distance between no transit and transit correlates with the amount of time between debt with interest starting and when revenue starts.

[WhipperSnapper]

C'mon. There's no bloody way the fare box would even begin to pay off the capital costs of a rapid transit line.

A private entity managing construction & operation for the crown corp. would get better bids at tender. That's the direction Canada has already taken.

This line is stupid at this point in time when there are more pressing needs. It's not a white elephant though. Most of the stations on the existing rapid transit line don't need to be there.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

so the US is not so badly placed when it comes to infrastructure investment. who knew!

(obviously, we need to change where the $ are invested)

I think that our dollars buy less, though, so even if we're spending the same ratio of our economy, if it costs us 50% more to build infrastructure then we're still ending up under-invested.

[muppet]

Also how much is for road building and how much for public transport?

[MolsonExport]

The US has quite a higher population growth rate than those other laggard countries, and has consistently under-invested in infrastructure.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

The US has quite a higher population growth rate than those other laggard countries, and has consistently under-invested in infrastructure.

the dollars get invested in flashy brand new outer outerbelts through cattleland outside of houston (or any city) to support developers, while bridges collapse in established or isolated rural areas. to say nothing of inter/intra-regional transit. many u.s. states spend zero on urban transit. nothing. could you imagine ontario getting away with that? naw.

[caligrad]

Jesus, and I thought LAs subway problems were expensive. 3.3 billion for one Station ??
LA is FINALLY extending its subway system, the purple line, for about 8 billion. But its getting 9 miles of new tunnels and 7 stations. So 3.3 billion does seem a bit expensive just for one station.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by caligrad

So 3.3 billion does seem a bit expensive just for one station.

It isn't for a new station, it's for a new line. The article is inaccurate re. the Scarborough line.

The rebuilt WTC transportation hub cost around $4 billion, but it's a special case. Half that cost went to infrastructure needs unrelated to the station itself.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

the dollars get invested in flashy brand new outer outerbelts through cattleland outside of houston (or any city) to support developers, while bridges collapse in established or isolated rural areas. to say nothing of inter/intra-regional transit. many u.s. states spend zero on urban transit. nothing. could you imagine ontario getting away with that? naw.

Truth. They just finished a massive outer ring (in cattleland) here in the Houston area meanwhile you need a Humvee to navigate all the potholes on the streets in Houston proper.

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by Crawford

It isn't for a new station, it's for a new line. The article is inaccurate re. the Scarborough line.

The rebuilt WTC transportation hub cost around $4 billion, but it's a special case. Half that cost went to infrastructure needs unrelated to the station itself.

Oh well see that was my next question. It felt like there was information missing. LAs purple line extension is costing about 8 billion and I thought that was expensive but that seems rather cheap