5 ms·

Subways cost two to seven times more to build in the USA than Europe or Japan

76 points by jseliger 3y ago

WentFullRetard 3y ago
[dead]
sposeray 3y ago
[dead]
joe__f 3y ago
I assumed the reason was going to be poor urban planning resulting in sprawling cities which need longer routes. From a scan read, this didn't appear to be the point made in the article.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  No, the issue is more bidding process shenanigans and regulatory overload from labor to environmental to local. It’s become prohibitively expensive to do large public works in the US of all sorts due to these things. It’s not just subways, it’s bridges and tunnels and all other infrastructure that would be amenable in sprawling megalopolises.
- calaphos 3y ago
  The article is about building costs per mile. If anything lower density should make construction simpler.
kfarr 3y ago
Not a substantive article, but important topic and there are better resources out there. TLDR: big rail projects get overloaded to become job creation programs and satisfy pet political agendas
robomartin 3y ago
Everything is substantially more expensive to build in the US than nearly anywhere else. There’s a long list of reasons for this. Sadly, we can’t fix it because we have lacked real leadership for decades (pick a number). The fitness function that drives our governmental system and process does not have a set of variables that measure good outcomes, particularly in the long term. Instead, we have devolved into a system full of idiots (politicians) lying, scheming and throwing fecal matter at each other. As long as people keep voting for these clowns nothing will improve. And, yes, there is a point of no return. Note that I have not identified a single political party.
jjk166 3y ago
The high costs of American infrastructure projects (the problem goes well beyond just transit) really stems from how we pay for them. In most other countries, there are national or regional bodies of civil engineering experts who either directly lead or heavily advise decision makers for any projects that want funding. Generally they go where the work is and can spend their whole careers gaining highly specialized experience on numerous projects. When a project is proposed they know the potential pitfalls and solutions to common problems so their estimates tend to be reasonable. If local officials come around with a ridiculous request, they tend to get shut down. In the US management of projects is generally handled at the local level with state and federal governments only lending financial support. In any given location, any particular type of project is unlikely to be done more than once every few decades, so it is likely that none of the people involved in management have much if any experience with the specific subdisciplines a project would require, nonetheless up to date on best practices. Further, local governments simply can't afford to retain large staffs of highly specialized engineers. They may hire extremely costly consultants but there's no guarantee those consultants actually know what they are doing and their insight may be disregarded anyways. There is fairly little incentive to rein in budgets as they try to appease as many local stakeholders as possible, again none of whom are likely to recognize that their requests may be impractical. Contracts are likely to be awarded to local companies who have little experience and will need to reinvent the wheel when they inevitably face unexpected but common issues. These issues cause massive delays which are the real source of expense for most projects. Because the costs are consistently higher than expected, the higher level governments need to be willing to dispense larger grants, which in turn leads to a normalization of excessive costs. While it is a well recognized problem, overhauling how the US finances its projects is no easy feat. For the federal government especially there are concerns about their ability to make decisions about local projects beyond offering voluntary grants, and more generally people do not like a remote government's interference in local affairs. There's also the fear that in rejecting a grant for a necessary project (even if the plan for that project is terrible) it appears to oppose the idea of fixing the underlying problem. Finally, the US gives an enormous amount of power to individuals and private organizations to legally challenge public plans which means any top down effort to impose restraint on local decision makers is basically doomed to failure. People can call it graft or incompetence or mismanagement but this puts the blame on the specific people involved, and implies that if it were different people we would no longer have these issues. Unfortunately it is an issue with the system, which is why we see exactly the same issues across the country no matter who is in charge. We shouldn't throw our hands up in defeat, but we need to recognize the issue is real and will not be trivial to deal with.
wkat4242 3y ago
Umm I'm sure they didn't include the North South line in Amsterdam in this comparison. It took decades, was billions over budget (total bill around 3.1 billion euro), collapsed houses. All for 9.7km / 6 miles of subway with 8 stations. Didn't read TFA but if the US is more expensive than that per mile then yeah you're really doing it wrong :P
- junofan 3y ago
  Hah, sounds cheap. NYC is approaching that per mile.
- inferiorhuman 3y ago
  SF's central subway was about $2 billion, 1.7 miles, and has 3 stations.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    Ok wow. So yeah you have a problem lol. This line was one of the worst infrastructural projects there. The other one was the high speed train line to Belgium which is hardly used for high speed trains because they cheaped out on rolling stock that kept falling apart and got banned. So the whole line was basically wasted.
    - inferiorhuman 3y ago
      Yeah, the Bay Area is uniquely bad at infrastructure. The Bay Bridge replacement was (and still is) an embarrassment that keeps on embarrassing. So far we've spent about $2.5 billion on a bus station in downtown San Francisco (yes, yes, it's supposed to have rail service as well but that obviously hasn't happened yet).
- willio58 3y ago
  We are significantly more expensive than that. And much slower to build. That’s kinda that point of this post.
- 4death4 3y ago
iancmceachern 3y ago
They also cost 2-7x the cost to ride The average BART fare is $3.96 and that's average, it can go up to double that of you go a long distance. A get you anywhere in the system ticket on the Paris Metro is 2.10 euros/2.34 USD. London is a bit more, it's 3.5 pounds/4.6 usd Tokyo looks cheaper New York is 2.90. I think it's just the bay area that's particularly expensive here. Suprise.
- xhkkffbf 3y ago
  Many of the Metro rides in DC are $5 or more. Some people are saying that it's cheaper to drive to work and pay for parking -- something that is also jamming the roads. One study found that drive times are 20% longer than before COVID -- and that's despite the fact that many are working from home. https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/09/22/dc-commute-cars-traffic-metro/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/09/22/dc-...
  - Schiendelman 3y ago
    People are afraid to be an early victim of the next pandemic - so lots of people who were on transit before covid are driving today. In Seattle I think we have more car commuters to downtown now than we did in 2019 with far fewer in the office - because in 2019 less than half of downtown workers drove alone.
- inferiorhuman 3y ago
  BART's a bad example of pretty much everything. In terms of fares the price per mile goes down the longer you ride while the price to run that service goes up. Most of BART's ridership is between San Francisco and Oakland, which is what the most recent service cuts targeted. The suburbanites that see their fares subsidized by the urban riders got service increases. Go figure.
  - iancmceachern 3y ago
    >BART'S a bad example... Totally, and with the stabbings, not good. They had 2 in 48 hours at one point.
hifromLA 3y ago
Truly nearly all the public transit infrastructure we have in the US was built decades ago (close to 100% if we’re talking about heavy and commuter rail). This is a shame because comprehensive metros would transform our cities, enable infill housing, and help abate the housing crisis that is at the root of so many issues we’re facing.
heroiccocoa 3y ago
How much of this is because European salaries, land value, often pales in comparison to the US? It seems extremely unlikely to me that as Europeans we are 7x more efficient than the Americans, having witnessed the motivation of the construction workers building my nearby light rail transit...
- m_mueller 3y ago
  I give you a counter example: Switzerland. Salaries and land easily on par, in many areas exceeding the US. And yet, public infrastructure projects are about the same as in EU - usually a bit late, roughly within budget and generally high quality.
  - sschueller 3y ago
    Also, a lot of infrastructure projects in Switzerland are done while keeping rail services running on that route. Most European countries shutdown service as it can cost a lot more and there is a safety risk.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > land value, I’m not sure about that. Real estate in Western Europe isn’t really cheaper. Also I doubt any of this is particularly related to individual construction workers, their motivation or lack thereof.
jschveibinz 3y ago
Subways just aren’t necessary in most US cities. Buses and dedicated surface busways are the answer—using new clean technologies such as electric or hydrogen. In a way only the US can do, we need to kill the romance with trains and subways and just be practical. Wheels are wheels. Put the money into comfortable new buses; keep them clean and well-maintained; and reduce car traffic in the city centers by creating designated busways and major parking facilities. It was honestly be great if I could drive to within 15 miles of LA and park my car in a secure parking lot and get on an an express bus into the city center. That’s my dream.
- davidf18 3y ago
  Busses are way too slow. I live in NYC with the subways. We do have dedicated bus lanes and express busses in NYC and they are way too slow. There is something called, "traffic" A 45 minute drive during rush hour, which is when most people take transit and which is faster than buses, is 15-20 mins door-to-door by subway including some walking.
- pauldenton 3y ago
  This is just hard to believe I understand it's your dream but it's not real. You have people ban the original without the alternative being viable. Banning gas stoves. Banning gas cars. California has been working on HSR since 1996 and all they have to show for it is 0 viable miles of track and endless Stone Henge miles of track
- jschveibinz 3y ago
  I’m not sure why there is such a negative opinion of rapid bus service. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a modern, established and well-researched alternative to subways. In fact, when implemented similar to light-rail, the speed of BRT can be comparable to subways. https://thecityfix.com/blog/are-trains-better-than-bus-rapid-transit-systems-a-look-at-the-evidence-dario-hidalgo/ https://thecityfix.com/blog/are-trains-better-than-bus-rapid... With BRT, city traffic flow must be adjusted. But this is a good thing: less cars in the inner city encourages use of public transportation. Commercial interests have traditionally balked at reducing car traffic in the inner city. There is fear that if people can’t drive to their store, they won’t come at all. But in the post-Covid reality, retail in the inner city is primarily for inner city dwellers-not for suburbanites. Work-from-home keeps many in the suburbs anyway. And finally, online retail is continuing to grow. The time has come for commercial real estate interests to recognize that the value of their properties is in the uniqueness of the most valuable aspect of the city experience. Their commercial spaces need to become “experience destinations”. This experience can only be enhanced by clean and comfortable rapid transit. BRT is roughly 20% of the cost of subways. https://www.masstransitmag.com/bus/infrastructure/article/21249339/a-cheaper-flexible-public-transit-option https://www.masstransitmag.com/bus/infrastructure/article/21...
camgunz 3y ago
This article feels like it was written by AI. Transit Costs [0] is a way better resource. [0]: https://transitcosts.com/transit-costs-study-final-report/ https://transitcosts.com/transit-costs-study-final-report/
8jef 3y ago
Same in Canada. Maybe because all major public transportion infrastructure projects in North America use European and Japanese technologies, emanating from say, three different - yet very convergent - conglomerates?

76 points by jseliger 3y ago

WentFullRetard 3y ago

[dead]

sposeray 3y ago

[dead]

joe__f 3y ago

I assumed the reason was going to be poor urban planning resulting in sprawling cities which need longer routes. From a scan read, this didn't appear to be the point made in the article.

fnordpiglet 3y ago
No, the issue is more bidding process shenanigans and regulatory overload from labor to environmental to local. It’s become prohibitively expensive to do large public works in the US of all sorts due to these things. It’s not just subways, it’s bridges and tunnels and all other infrastructure that would be amenable in sprawling megalopolises.
calaphos 3y ago
The article is about building costs per mile. If anything lower density should make construction simpler.

kfarr 3y ago

Not a substantive article, but important topic and there are better resources out there. TLDR: big rail projects get overloaded to become job creation programs and satisfy pet political agendas

robomartin 3y ago

Everything is substantially more expensive to build in the US than nearly anywhere else. There’s a long list of reasons for this. Sadly, we can’t fix it because we have lacked real leadership for decades (pick a number). The fitness function that drives our governmental system and process does not have a set of variables that measure good outcomes, particularly in the long term. Instead, we have devolved into a system full of idiots (politicians) lying, scheming and throwing fecal matter at each other. As long as people keep voting for these clowns nothing will improve. And, yes, there is a point of no return. Note that I have not identified a single political party.

jjk166 3y ago

The high costs of American infrastructure projects (the problem goes well beyond just transit) really stems from how we pay for them. In most other countries, there are national or regional bodies of civil engineering experts who either directly lead or heavily advise decision makers for any projects that want funding. Generally they go where the work is and can spend their whole careers gaining highly specialized experience on numerous projects. When a project is proposed they know the potential pitfalls and solutions to common problems so their estimates tend to be reasonable. If local officials come around with a ridiculous request, they tend to get shut down. In the US management of projects is generally handled at the local level with state and federal governments only lending financial support. In any given location, any particular type of project is unlikely to be done more than once every few decades, so it is likely that none of the people involved in management have much if any experience with the specific subdisciplines a project would require, nonetheless up to date on best practices. Further, local governments simply can't afford to retain large staffs of highly specialized engineers. They may hire extremely costly consultants but there's no guarantee those consultants actually know what they are doing and their insight may be disregarded anyways. There is fairly little incentive to rein in budgets as they try to appease as many local stakeholders as possible, again none of whom are likely to recognize that their requests may be impractical. Contracts are likely to be awarded to local companies who have little experience and will need to reinvent the wheel when they inevitably face unexpected but common issues. These issues cause massive delays which are the real source of expense for most projects. Because the costs are consistently higher than expected, the higher level governments need to be willing to dispense larger grants, which in turn leads to a normalization of excessive costs. While it is a well recognized problem, overhauling how the US finances its projects is no easy feat. For the federal government especially there are concerns about their ability to make decisions about local projects beyond offering voluntary grants, and more generally people do not like a remote government's interference in local affairs. There's also the fear that in rejecting a grant for a necessary project (even if the plan for that project is terrible) it appears to oppose the idea of fixing the underlying problem. Finally, the US gives an enormous amount of power to individuals and private organizations to legally challenge public plans which means any top down effort to impose restraint on local decision makers is basically doomed to failure. People can call it graft or incompetence or mismanagement but this puts the blame on the specific people involved, and implies that if it were different people we would no longer have these issues. Unfortunately it is an issue with the system, which is why we see exactly the same issues across the country no matter who is in charge. We shouldn't throw our hands up in defeat, but we need to recognize the issue is real and will not be trivial to deal with.

wkat4242 3y ago

Umm I'm sure they didn't include the North South line in Amsterdam in this comparison. It took decades, was billions over budget (total bill around 3.1 billion euro), collapsed houses. All for 9.7km / 6 miles of subway with 8 stations. Didn't read TFA but if the US is more expensive than that per mile then yeah you're really doing it wrong :P

junofan 3y ago
Hah, sounds cheap. NYC is approaching that per mile.
inferiorhuman 3y ago
SF's central subway was about $2 billion, 1.7 miles, and has 3 stations.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Ok wow. So yeah you have a problem lol. This line was one of the worst infrastructural projects there. The other one was the high speed train line to Belgium which is hardly used for high speed trains because they cheaped out on rolling stock that kept falling apart and got banned. So the whole line was basically wasted.
  - inferiorhuman 3y ago
    Yeah, the Bay Area is uniquely bad at infrastructure. The Bay Bridge replacement was (and still is) an embarrassment that keeps on embarrassing. So far we've spent about $2.5 billion on a bus station in downtown San Francisco (yes, yes, it's supposed to have rail service as well but that obviously hasn't happened yet).
willio58 3y ago
We are significantly more expensive than that. And much slower to build. That’s kinda that point of this post.
4death4 3y ago

iancmceachern 3y ago

They also cost 2-7x the cost to ride The average BART fare is $3.96 and that's average, it can go up to double that of you go a long distance. A get you anywhere in the system ticket on the Paris Metro is 2.10 euros/2.34 USD. London is a bit more, it's 3.5 pounds/4.6 usd Tokyo looks cheaper New York is 2.90. I think it's just the bay area that's particularly expensive here. Suprise.

xhkkffbf 3y ago
Many of the Metro rides in DC are $5 or more. Some people are saying that it's cheaper to drive to work and pay for parking -- something that is also jamming the roads. One study found that drive times are 20% longer than before COVID -- and that's despite the fact that many are working from home. https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/09/22/dc-commute-cars-traffic-metro/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/09/22/dc-...
- Schiendelman 3y ago
  People are afraid to be an early victim of the next pandemic - so lots of people who were on transit before covid are driving today. In Seattle I think we have more car commuters to downtown now than we did in 2019 with far fewer in the office - because in 2019 less than half of downtown workers drove alone.
inferiorhuman 3y ago
BART's a bad example of pretty much everything. In terms of fares the price per mile goes down the longer you ride while the price to run that service goes up. Most of BART's ridership is between San Francisco and Oakland, which is what the most recent service cuts targeted. The suburbanites that see their fares subsidized by the urban riders got service increases. Go figure.
- iancmceachern 3y ago
  >BART'S a bad example... Totally, and with the stabbings, not good. They had 2 in 48 hours at one point.

hifromLA 3y ago

Truly nearly all the public transit infrastructure we have in the US was built decades ago (close to 100% if we’re talking about heavy and commuter rail). This is a shame because comprehensive metros would transform our cities, enable infill housing, and help abate the housing crisis that is at the root of so many issues we’re facing.

heroiccocoa 3y ago

How much of this is because European salaries, land value, often pales in comparison to the US? It seems extremely unlikely to me that as Europeans we are 7x more efficient than the Americans, having witnessed the motivation of the construction workers building my nearby light rail transit...

m_mueller 3y ago
I give you a counter example: Switzerland. Salaries and land easily on par, in many areas exceeding the US. And yet, public infrastructure projects are about the same as in EU - usually a bit late, roughly within budget and generally high quality.
- sschueller 3y ago
  Also, a lot of infrastructure projects in Switzerland are done while keeping rail services running on that route. Most European countries shutdown service as it can cost a lot more and there is a safety risk.
ffgjgf1 3y ago
> land value, I’m not sure about that. Real estate in Western Europe isn’t really cheaper. Also I doubt any of this is particularly related to individual construction workers, their motivation or lack thereof.

jschveibinz 3y ago

Subways just aren’t necessary in most US cities. Buses and dedicated surface busways are the answer—using new clean technologies such as electric or hydrogen. In a way only the US can do, we need to kill the romance with trains and subways and just be practical. Wheels are wheels. Put the money into comfortable new buses; keep them clean and well-maintained; and reduce car traffic in the city centers by creating designated busways and major parking facilities. It was honestly be great if I could drive to within 15 miles of LA and park my car in a secure parking lot and get on an an express bus into the city center. That’s my dream.

davidf18 3y ago
Busses are way too slow. I live in NYC with the subways. We do have dedicated bus lanes and express busses in NYC and they are way too slow. There is something called, "traffic" A 45 minute drive during rush hour, which is when most people take transit and which is faster than buses, is 15-20 mins door-to-door by subway including some walking.
pauldenton 3y ago
This is just hard to believe I understand it's your dream but it's not real. You have people ban the original without the alternative being viable. Banning gas stoves. Banning gas cars. California has been working on HSR since 1996 and all they have to show for it is 0 viable miles of track and endless Stone Henge miles of track
jschveibinz 3y ago
I’m not sure why there is such a negative opinion of rapid bus service. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a modern, established and well-researched alternative to subways. In fact, when implemented similar to light-rail, the speed of BRT can be comparable to subways. https://thecityfix.com/blog/are-trains-better-than-bus-rapid-transit-systems-a-look-at-the-evidence-dario-hidalgo/ https://thecityfix.com/blog/are-trains-better-than-bus-rapid... With BRT, city traffic flow must be adjusted. But this is a good thing: less cars in the inner city encourages use of public transportation. Commercial interests have traditionally balked at reducing car traffic in the inner city. There is fear that if people can’t drive to their store, they won’t come at all. But in the post-Covid reality, retail in the inner city is primarily for inner city dwellers-not for suburbanites. Work-from-home keeps many in the suburbs anyway. And finally, online retail is continuing to grow. The time has come for commercial real estate interests to recognize that the value of their properties is in the uniqueness of the most valuable aspect of the city experience. Their commercial spaces need to become “experience destinations”. This experience can only be enhanced by clean and comfortable rapid transit. BRT is roughly 20% of the cost of subways. https://www.masstransitmag.com/bus/infrastructure/article/21249339/a-cheaper-flexible-public-transit-option https://www.masstransitmag.com/bus/infrastructure/article/21...

camgunz 3y ago

This article feels like it was written by AI. Transit Costs [0] is a way better resource. [0]: https://transitcosts.com/transit-costs-study-final-report/ https://transitcosts.com/transit-costs-study-final-report/

8jef 3y ago

Same in Canada. Maybe because all major public transportion infrastructure projects in North America use European and Japanese technologies, emanating from say, three different - yet very convergent - conglomerates?