Why American transport projects cost so much

[JFman00]

Why American transport projects cost so much

BLOOMBERG VIEW published two excellent op-eds late last month by Stephen Smith, a Brooklynite who writes about public transport in America. It's always been a mystery why public-transport projects in America cost so much more than comparable projects in other first-world countries, and Mr Smith set out to explain exactly what's going on.

Spain has long been famous for executing such projects quickly and cheaply; in 2003, the head of Madrid's Metro system wrote a list of best practices for following the country's example. That "don't-do list, unfortunately, reads like a winning US transit-construction bingo card," Mr Smith writes in the first of his two columns. He goes on to note that if New York could build subways at the same costs as Paris or Tokyo, it could finish the entire Second Avenue Subway project (pictured)â€"the most expensive subway in the worldâ€"for the cost of the single station it's currently building at the World Trade Centre site.

Here are some of the problems Mr Smith identifies:

• Conflicts of interest, with "consultants who consult with consultants and advisers who advise advisers."
• A common-law legal system with lots of legal review that slows down infrastructure projects
• Incredibly strict anti-corruption rules that do more harm than good
• Not enough emphasis on speed of construction, leading to long projects and escalating costs

There's even more in Mr Smith's second piece, which focuses on labour rules. Leaning on the research of Vukan Vuchic, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Mr Smith suggests that American ticket-taking systemsâ€"in which conductors go from car to car and passenger to passengerâ€"are the main obstacle to more frequent and cheaper commuter rail service. Turnstiles and spot-check systems would replace conductors. But, Mr Smith adds, "organised labour is only one obstacle to reform" (note all the other ones above)â€"and it's not clear that management and the government officials who are in charge of American commuter rail networks really want change. And ideally, automation can be made to work for everyone: lower costs can mean more frequent service, which is more convenient for commuters and can increase demand. For labour, five one-crew trains is better than one train with four crew.

It's great to see these kinds of detailed arguments about America's infrastructure problems from a generalist media outlet like Bloomberg View. More, please.

[Ocklawaha]

I have long believed in pulling the fare box's out of the JTA buses. We should go to a ticketing system where anyone could get a ticket from any store in town, good for 2 hours after purchase. Then we hire a few transit police officers to do the spot checking and anyone caught cheating would get a very large fine. A shift to a 'NEXTBUS' system for I-phones and androids would take care of scheduling. All combined, this also wipes out much of the crime focused on bus fare boxes and drivers.

[spuwho]

Why American transport projects cost so much

BLOOMBERG VIEW published two excellent op-eds late last month by Stephen Smith, a Brooklynite who writes about public transport in America. It's always been a mystery why public-transport projects in America cost so much more than comparable projects in other first-world countries, and Mr Smith set out to explain exactly what's going on.

Spain has long been famous for executing such projects quickly and cheaply; in 2003, the head of Madrid's Metro system wrote a list of best practices for following the country's example. That "don't-do list, unfortunately, reads like a winning US transit-construction bingo card," Mr Smith writes in the first of his two columns. He goes on to note that if New York could build subways at the same costs as Paris or Tokyo, it could finish the entire Second Avenue Subway project (pictured)â€"the most expensive subway in the worldâ€"for the cost of the single station it's currently building at the World Trade Centre site.

Here are some of the problems Mr Smith identifies:

• Conflicts of interest, with "consultants who consult with consultants and advisers who advise advisers."
• A common-law legal system with lots of legal review that slows down infrastructure projects
• Incredibly strict anti-corruption rules that do more harm than good
• Not enough emphasis on speed of construction, leading to long projects and escalating costs

There's even more in Mr Smith's second piece, which focuses on labour rules. Leaning on the research of Vukan Vuchic, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Mr Smith suggests that American ticket-taking systemsâ€"in which conductors go from car to car and passenger to passengerâ€"are the main obstacle to more frequent and cheaper commuter rail service. Turnstiles and spot-check systems would replace conductors. But, Mr Smith adds, "organised labour is only one obstacle to reform" (note all the other ones above)â€"and it's not clear that management and the government officials who are in charge of American commuter rail networks really want change. And ideally, automation can be made to work for everyone: lower costs can mean more frequent service, which is more convenient for commuters and can increase demand. For labour, five one-crew trains is better than one train with four crew.

It's great to see these kinds of detailed arguments about America's infrastructure problems from a generalist media outlet like Bloomberg View. More, please.

Labor costs are but a fraction of the total operating costs of modern transit systems.

I would be the first to line up and reform labor rules, some of which date back to the 1920's in the US. But I don't think there is a 4 to 1 relationship in costs that would support more train frequencies.  I would be interested in seeing if this was the case in the studies done in Europe.

"Consultants advising advisers, advising more consultants" is merely an organized way of dealing with corruption rules.

No mention was made on "Minority Set-asides" and their impact in overall costs. The original purpose of these laws was noble when they were developed in the late 70's, but have now lost their root purpose.  Shell firms with un-involved wives, or a puppet minority listed in the bid paperwork has been found to cause more issues as agencies have to now investigate each minority set-aside for corruption.

Another item not noted is the issue of purchased influence in the political circle. This is a unique US thing called "lobbying" and how much impact it has to infrastructure costs.

Everyone knows that cement makes a better road than layered asphalt. Cement costs more, but lasts longer. So why do we build so many asphalt roads? They fit better in short term budget thinking, but have to be replaced more often. This means more jobs. The asphalt lobby is incredibly huge. Why build a road to last 30-40 years, when you can build one to last 12 years and replace it twice, maybe three times?

I agree with Ock in streamlining the enforcement to promote usage. While it was easy to get past a turnstyle in the London's Underground, I was never asked nor saw anyone challenged for their ticket. They were more interested in the chronic cheaters (caught on hidden TV camera) then they were using transit police or conductors to validate riders. The system would probably choke anyway if they did.