3 ms·

Again you're making an apples to oranges comparison. The metro budget also includes expenditures for bus and paratransit service, station improvements, fare col

Again you're making an apples to oranges comparison. The metro budget also includes expenditures for bus and paratransit service, station improvements, fare collection modernization, fire alarm upgrades, information technology projects, police services, and so-called "business support investments". Per the budget the plan is to spend at most $249 million annually (less for most years) on track and structures rehabilitation. That's the closest you'll get to a repaving budget and includes things beyond track maintenance and replacement. With that in mind the six year plan would call for per-capita spending of between $335 and $620 annually, cheaper than repaving the roads.

rayiner 7y ago
I excluded those items from the Metro budget. I included signaling and stations, because those are a necessary part of subway maintenance that don’t have much of an analog with roads. (Traffic lights must be maintained, but train signaling systems are very complex and very expensive to maintain in comparison. There are millions of feet of wiring throughout the Metro system and each track segment is wired up for the traffic control system to work.) In any event, the point isn’t to say that road paving is cheaper, but to address GP’s question, which is how cities can afford it. It’s an order of magnitude comparison to put the number into context. (For one thing, the road maintenance budget for Cedar Rapids is overstated by a factor of two, because I used the projection of what the city thinks it ideally needs to spend rather than what it does spend.)
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  I included signaling and stations, because those are a necessary part of subway maintenance that don’t have much of an analog with roads. Sure, because municipalities typically externalize those costs (e.g. police doing traffic duty or parking control). Road signaling itself is simpler than rail signaling but still needs periodic maintenance. You've got stuff like generators (a necessity out here now that PG&E is introducing recreational blackouts. Presumably sensor lights increase the cost of repaving. Likewise Cedar Rapids almost certainly has to plow the roads for a good chunk of the year where a subway and even a surface rail system typically wouldn't. Of course with plowing comes the cost of more frequent repaving. In any event, the point isn’t to say that road paving is cheaper, but to address GP’s question, which is how cities can afford it. It’s an order of magnitude comparison to put the number into context. Sure, because governments typically externalize the cost of roads but not public transit. In San Francisco, SFPD will bill the MTA for any sort of police presence on Muni. They sure as shit don't bill Caltrans for the cost of traffic enforcement.

rayiner 7y ago

I excluded those items from the Metro budget. I included signaling and stations, because those are a necessary part of subway maintenance that don’t have much of an analog with roads. (Traffic lights must be maintained, but train signaling systems are very complex and very expensive to maintain in comparison. There are millions of feet of wiring throughout the Metro system and each track segment is wired up for the traffic control system to work.) In any event, the point isn’t to say that road paving is cheaper, but to address GP’s question, which is how cities can afford it. It’s an order of magnitude comparison to put the number into context. (For one thing, the road maintenance budget for Cedar Rapids is overstated by a factor of two, because I used the projection of what the city thinks it ideally needs to spend rather than what it does spend.)

inferiorhuman 7y ago
I included signaling and stations, because those are a necessary part of subway maintenance that don’t have much of an analog with roads. Sure, because municipalities typically externalize those costs (e.g. police doing traffic duty or parking control). Road signaling itself is simpler than rail signaling but still needs periodic maintenance. You've got stuff like generators (a necessity out here now that PG&E is introducing recreational blackouts. Presumably sensor lights increase the cost of repaving. Likewise Cedar Rapids almost certainly has to plow the roads for a good chunk of the year where a subway and even a surface rail system typically wouldn't. Of course with plowing comes the cost of more frequent repaving. In any event, the point isn’t to say that road paving is cheaper, but to address GP’s question, which is how cities can afford it. It’s an order of magnitude comparison to put the number into context. Sure, because governments typically externalize the cost of roads but not public transit. In San Francisco, SFPD will bill the MTA for any sort of police presence on Muni. They sure as shit don't bill Caltrans for the cost of traffic enforcement.