Ostensibly, because of the enormous cost. Jeb Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush#Governor_of_Florida) is a Republican, and presumptively ideologically averse to heavy taxing-and-spending; he has also opposed, and obstructed implementation of, a constitutional amendment to limit the number of students in a public school class (the “class size amendment”). It is not implausible that Jeb, for that reason alone, would be opposed to building a massive public works project at public expense, especially when it is of a kind (long-distance rail transportation) that historically, in the U.S., has always been build by private entrepeneurs.
See this newspaper article from 2003, about a memo Bush sent to lawmakers, asking for their support in repealing the 2000 high-speed rail amendment. All objections stated are about the costs of the system: http://www.sptimes.com/2003/12/05/State/Bush_ready_to_fight_r.shtml
Of course, a person inclined to take a cynical and uncharitable view of things might point out that Jeb’s family made their money in the oil business, and the emergence of alternative, non-fossil-fuel-dependent modes of transportation would be against their financial interests.
Simple: Disney. Put a high-speed train there, and Disney will probably open a (relatively) cheap long-term lot up north. Going to (certain select limited time only restrictions may apply) Disneyworld resorts? Park your car here, be chaffeured to Disneyworld in half the time it would otherwise take. Those high-speed trains could potentialy move a vast number of people clear through, cutting into to tourist dollars outside the big cities.
Sigh While you’re quite possibly right, it’s sad that this should be a likely outcome from such a situation - given that Disneyland Paris has its own rail station served by high-speed services from London as well as French cities.
Another sort of compromise option that hasn’t really been discussed above is Bus Rapid Transit, in the style of Ottawa. Most of the Transitway consists of grade-separated, dedicated bus roads with stations that have sheltered platforms for riders. (A few sections consist of dedicated bus lanes on an expressway.) Low-floor, high-capacity buses are used almost without exception.
The service averages every ten minutes or so, with peak period frequency at 3 minutes and after-midnight service at 15 minutes downtown, 30 minutes in the outlying sections.
The system has the advantage that, in the event of maintenance or damage on the Transitway, buses can be rerouted around the problem, not being dependent on tracks. As well, ‘conventional’ bus routes can be laid out such that instead of simply ending at a Transitway station for a connection to the BRT, they can ‘tail’ onto the Transitway, and continue to a major station or the downtown core, eliminating transfers and reducing load on the primary Transiway routes. This can decrease travel times and increase the system capacity.
The system does have its problems, though. The biggest issue is that when it was built, it proved to be difficult and expensive to put the thing into the downtown. Tunneling would have been too costly, so dedicated lanes were made on two one-way streets that traverse the downtown. Albert and Slater streets run in oposite directions,and meet up with the dedicated-road portions of the Transitway on the east and west edges of the downtown core. But those streets are at grade with all the other streets, and this means stoplights and traffic jams at peak periods. Sometimes the downtown section is a real mess, and it takes a long time to cross the downtown. Basically, there are two Transitways: and east and a west section, with this muddle in between. Service is great as long as you don’t have to cross the downtown. If you do, service is alright, but it’s usually faster to drive on the trans-city expressway.
The big articulated buses don’t always handle bad weather too well, either. A big snowsotrm can see big slowdowns on the busway, and sometimes you even get buses sliding out on the slick pavement. Trains would probably be less affected.
Two further advantages to a busway: it can be used by emergency vehicles (ambulances and fire trucks) as a shortcut across town where there’s no stoplights and no slow-moving traffic, and it can be upgraded to tram or light rail if desired.
Dedictated busways only alleviate a few of the issues surrounding bus travel, while encountering almost all those of light rail. The only examples I’ve seen where there was a real logic to their presence was where they were laid on top of narrow-gauge tram lines - all that was needed was extra concrete ‘rails’ and the buses could use the off-road tram routes.
As a matter of fact, when the new HSR line seemed a certainty, there was a lot of wrangling between Disney and local authorities over whether there would be a stop at Disney World, at the Orlando Convention Center, or both.
But, why would an HSR line straight to Disney take away anybody else’s tourist dollars? When people go to Disney World by plane or car, they rarely take the time out to see all the sights in Orlando or anywhere else.
My thinking: Even if we have an HSR line, there’s still going to be plenty of traffic on the Interstates and plenty of business for the gas stations at the offramps.
Watch out for Bus Rapid Transit built by adding extra lanes to existing roads – it seems to be mostly a bait-and-switch con by the highway-car-big oil groups.
Many of those lanes end up being converted to regular freeway lanes, and so it turns out to be a concealed way to expand freeways.
Usually the conversion is in steps, first opening those lanes to multiple-occupant vehicles, then to single commuters if they are willing to pay (special lanes for the rich), etc. But the end results is more automobile lanes, paid for with mass transit money, and less mass transit.
What does it cost (on average – there would have to be enormous variations depending on the terrain, etc.) to build a mile of monorail? Or a mile of light rail? Is there anyplace I could find out?
I don’t think it’s possible to answer your question, because one of the biggest expenses in a city isn’t building the rails, it’s condemning the property those rails will run on. How many houses and office buildings will you need to tear down to build the rail line or highway?
That’s why using existing rail lines is such a popular idea. Even if they don’t quite meet the needs of commuters, at least you won’t have to tear down businesses and homes. You need to buy that property at “fair value”, and you’re also destroying your tax base.
I guess the simplest option is to google for specific examples. Two British examples, both of which are tram/light rail hybrids:
Croydon Tramlink: £200m, for 18.5 miles (US$18m per mile)
Midlands Metro between Birmingham and Wolverhampton: £145m for 12.5 miles ($20m/mile)
Leeds tram (projected, and possibly not going to be built due to spiralling estimates and government stinginess): £400-500m for 17 miles ($46m/mile)
So that’s US$18-20m per mile for Croydon and the midlands, and $46m/mile for the Leeds system. In comparison, the new toll motorway bypassing Birmingham cost £900m for 27 miles, working out at $58m/mile.
Probably a good approach. The much vaunted advantage of buses over trains, besides cheapness of implementation, is their flexibiliby. Yet this seems to mean little or nothing on long-established urban routes. The MTA 320 line has always run along Wilshire in Los Angeles, and in all likelihood will continue to do so. What good is the flexibility in that case? However, we may be seeing in L.A. an example of what Bryan describes. The political current is gradually shifting towards expanding the rail system again, as an Eastside light rail line is under construction, and there’s even serious talk about extending the subway to West L.A., precisely because the Wilshire Corridor has become so congested.
That’ll no doubt take at least a decade to happen, but at least it’s not being dismissed from the table as would have been the case 10 years ago.
As for dedicated busway transit, our MTA did just introduce the Orange Line, which consists of special buses running on their own road. They stop at stations, like a train, and passengers have to buy their tickets from a machine before boarding. This greatly reduces time spent boarding. However, it’s far from being all that it could be, since after several crossing accidents the buses must slow to 10mph before crossing any intersection. Anyone who’s ever ridden a bus can appreciate what that requirement does to the overall schedule, what with the time and distance it takes a bus to decelerate and accelerate.
Unfortunately that’s not always true. In L.A., the MTA and other rail operators still own many rights of way, but they have been so long disused that the rails are long gone and businesses have been established on top of where the rails used to go. Presumably there are clauses that provide for lease termination in case the MTA ever wants to put in a transit line, but they still would have to rebuild the rail line if they want to establish a rail service.
In the case of modern light rail systems, not many, because lightweight bridges/viaducts/flyovers can be used to fit a route around most existing infrastructure - example
Busses and streetcars will never almost never beat out dedicated rail because busses/streetcars are subject to the whims of traffic and will rarely be faster than cars. Even with express lanes, you can’t the precision needed to do stuff like sheltered timed transfers that you can get with dedicated rail. Changing subway cars is as painless as walking across a platform. A bus change means crossing the street, hanging out in the elements, and hoping that the bus your catching didn’t show up early or late.
The reason why cities don’t build more rail is that it costs more money upfront. Flexibility is also an issue- not for riders but for the agency. They never know what their next year’s budget is going to be like, and cutting/consolidating routes on a bus system is much easier. Rail also get objections from people in nicer neighborhoods who object to the idea that people from not-so-nice neighborhoods can visit easily. Where to lay track often turns in to a big race/class drama.
Anyway, you just arn’t going to get people to ride until it is easier and faster than taking a car. In places where traffic and finding parking is a pain, more people take transit. But it’s not going to happen in half-steps. We can’t expect a system that half-works to gain mainstream support and grow.
.
Improving mass transit has the side benefit of improving individual, automobile transit for people that would never dream of using the mass transit system. For example, this new system has made crosstown travel take half as long with fewer scary moments due to the integration of many, many, many different busses with shared lanes into a single, bus rapid transit system. Yeah, a lane of traffic was lost for private vehicles, and it’s still much more fluid.
I’m only pointing this out because as an American I’m typically against the waste of our money in new mass transit systems where they’re not needed (and this varies from region to region). But if it makes my commute easier, I’ll happily pay the premium to keep some piece of junk out of my way; it’s just the price of enjoying your drive, right?
As I’d mentioned above, BART pretty well sets the high point. The costs that keep getting tossed around for the latest extension range from $200 million to $250 million per mile.
Undoubtedly, a significant part of that was the cost of buying up property to run the tracks on, over or under, plus land to build the stations on.
BART’s rail gauge is unique, but whether you’re building to standard (4’ 8.5") or BART’s Iberian Broad (5’ 6") shouldn’t make much difference to the cost of construction. The rail’s the same, and when you’re making or buying over 100,000 precast concrete ties (sleepers) there’s not likely to be a significant difference in those compared to standard gauge. In terms of track construction, BART is heavy rail with an electric third rail, as opposed to light rail with overhead wire.
