News   Dec 12, 2025
 765     0 
News   Dec 12, 2025
 1.7K     6 
News   Dec 12, 2025
 829     0 

Why is public transit more expensive than it used to be? (Commentary)

M II A II R II K

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,944
Reaction score
1,061
The Real Costs


September 2nd, 2010

By Glen Bottoms

topheader.gif


Read More: http://www.amconmag.com/blog/keep-america-moving/the-real-costs/

Rail transit’s great enemy isn’t public support or political will but its enormous price tag. The expense of heavy-rail subway systems has limited recent growth to extensions of existing lines. The last heavy-rail construction completed in the U.S. was a 3.2 mile extension of Washington Metro’s blue line to Largo Town Center, completed in 2004 at a cost of $695 million ($217 million/mile). Phase I of the Metro’s 11.6 mile extension to Dulles Airport is estimated at a staggering $2.65 billion ($242.1 million/mile). The bite for New York City subway extensions is in another reality.

At first, Light Rail seemed to offer a solution, but its cost is steadily rising. The initial segment of Seattle’s 15.6 mile Central Link Light Rail system, which opened in 2009, cost $2.4 billion ($154 million/mile). Portland, Oregon’s proposed 7.3 mile MAX Light Rail extension to Milwaukie is estimated at $1.4 billion ($191.8 million/mile). Now that streetcars have caught on in many U.S. cities—over 60 are currently planning streetcar projects—many fear that the cost-escalation virus could infect this mode as well. The price tag on Tucson’s streetcar project, now under construction, has grown by 20 percent. Costs for proposed streetcar projects across the country range from a reasonable $10 million to an eye-popping $60 million per mile.

What accounts for this dramatic escalation? Three key factors: 1) overdesign, 2) lack of technical expertise at the overseeing transit agency, and 3) external factors like political interference and rising material costs. Consultants retained to design these systems regularly use plans that they already possess without regard to applicability or functionality, selecting higher-speed overhead wire in rail yards and city streets or specifying certain types of rail without regard for cheaper alternatives. Excessive tunneling is also a critical cost driver. Tucking Light Rail in subways to avoid disturbing traffic not only raises costs, it ignores the fact that dedicating lanes to cost-effective transit increases use. The technical knowledge to recognize these inappropriate designs is a critical element of cost control.




DC_Streetcar_construction.jpg
 
Really good opinion piece. I totally agree that many designers of LRT, and Streetcars lines over-engineer lines, and have little knowledge or experience in building them.
 
Speaking only to capital costs, on rail, as per the theme of the article..........

I think it wise to look at the simple, and provable over the complex and conjectured.

What is different in a TTC station built today vs say a Bloor-Danforth station of 1966 vintage? Or a Yonge line station of 1954 vintage?

LOTS, much of which we would not want to do without, some of which we might, but a lot of the cost-drivers are obvious.

Basic TTC Station, Yonge line.

- No surface facility (no bus/streetcar loop or ground level building)
- No elevators
- No escalators (they were added later)
- No Security Cameras
- No DWA
- Few 'second exits'
- low-ceilings
- No build-ins for Platform Edge doors
- Capacity life (about 30 years) (most stations reached their design-limits in the mid 80's)


Basic TTC Station, B-D line

- See Above, except
- Up escalators became standard
- Bus terminals the norm at most stations

Now compare w/the Spadina Extension (vs Basic Yonge)

- Full Second Exit (cost impact 8-12M)
- Elevators (cost impact 7-10M)
- Platform Edge Door Ready (3-4M)
- DWA (negligible)
- Security Cameras (1M)
- Full Surface facility ( 14-20M)
- Kiss n' Ride/ PPUD (3-5M)
- Taxi Stand (1-2M)
- Full suite of escaltors (1M per x 8) (8M)
- High Ceilings (10-15M)
- Capacity overbuild (design life 50 years) - (15M)

Total extra cost: 70M - 102M

Difference in cost in percentage terms, about 100% to strip statons back to basic.

Not included in the above is:
more elaborate decorative flourish (about 8-10M)
cycling facilities (1M)
Or stations with double-terminals (14-20M)


**********

ON LRT, the differences are also apparent.

- Tunnelling and associated station work
- Full terminals at underground stations (Eglinton Line - Don Mills and Keele among others)
- Surface work is closer to historic levels, though, transit-priority signals, E.A. costs, slightly more elaborate shelters are among new costs.
 
Yeah ... and your not allowed to kill anywhere near the number of workers that you used to be able to, with all the PC stuff these days.
 
Really good opinion piece. I totally agree that many designers of LRT, and Streetcars lines over-engineer lines, and have little knowledge or experience in building them.

Ways to make Transit City cheaper:
- Don't tunnel in general
- Don't tunnel at subway stations
- Don't plant any trees (each new tree costs $1000+)
- Don't add bike lanes
- Don't widen the road -- just take away existing lanes
- Run in mixed traffic
- Don't build heated shelters (not sure if planned for Transit City, but Viva's getting them)
- Don't build shelters at all
- Single track with bypass pockets
- Buy used Soviet-era high-floor Tarta trams and refurbish
 
Just take a look at the current Union Station that we have versus the Downsview Station for comparisons.

Oddly enough, Union will have cost twice the amount by the time the refurbishment is complete to give it the same capacity as Downsview.
 
leopetr said:
Ways to make Transit City cheaper:
- Don't tunnel in general
- Don't tunnel at subway stations
- Don't plant any trees (each new tree costs $1000+)
- Don't add bike lanes
- Don't widen the road -- just take away existing lanes
- Run in mixed traffic
- Don't build heated shelters (not sure if planned for Transit City, but Viva's getting them)
- Don't build shelters at all
- Single track with bypass pockets
- Buy used Soviet-era high-floor Tarta trams and refurbish

All of those suggestions would compromise the experience of using the new transit infrastructure severely (and in many cases the road infrastructure), except for heated shelters if service is frequent and trees. But with a massive street reconstruction project like LRT involves, not planting trees and not improving the public realm would just be unfortunate because we need the improvements. I don't know if Transit City will include burying overhead wires along streets but when roads are being reconstructed is the most viable time to do it.

Just take a look at the current Union Station that we have versus the Downsview Station for comparisons.

The second image represents progress away from dingy stations to something worthy of this great metropolis. If Downsview was only what you see in that photo (the platform level) with those stairs leading to the surface with an compact and architecturally unique fare control pavilion by the street, it probably wouldn't cost dramatically more than Union built to modern safety standards. Yet the aesthetic difference would be massive. At this point, every station should be unique and attractive; there are better strategies available to keep subway expansion costs down than tolerating the construction of unimaginative and pedestrian stations.
 
Ways to make Transit City cheaper:
- Don't tunnel in general
- Don't tunnel at subway stations
- Don't plant any trees (each new tree costs $1000+)
- Don't add bike lanes
- Don't widen the road -- just take away existing lanes
- Run in mixed traffic
- Don't build heated shelters (not sure if planned for Transit City, but Viva's getting them)
- Don't build shelters at all
- Single track with bypass pockets
- Buy used Soviet-era high-floor Tarta trams and refurbish

Take out the Eglinton tunnel(necessary), and the cost for Transit City is around $60M/km. Not a shabby price. It's not about building a bare bones system. There are many examples where LRT has been over-designed, the Seattle line being the best example.
 
Last edited:
Agree with junctionist, simple =/= ugly. Yorkdale station is arguably fairly minimalist, yet it is one of the more attractive stations on the network (especially if you walk through it). Let's not forget that the scenery while riding the subway is hardly the most stimulating, the least they can offer is decent looking stations.

The expensive costs associated with modern tunneling is why I believe it is time to take monorails into consideration in urban areas. You get grade separation without tunneling, and while not perfect, look far better than standard elevated rail.
 

Back
Top