Quote Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy View Post
On the flip side, a mile of new pavement costs about $1,000,000.
If we're considering an expressway [[let's take I-75, because everyone is talking about that), that road gets 100,000 riders per day on average.
That's 730,000,000 rider-miles over the life of the project.
That's $0.0013 per rider mile.

Even if you factor in gas [[$0.10/mile), maintenance, etc., roads and cars are much cheaper, I'd think.

I've always said that public transport loses and loses badly on cost, compared to roads. The other arguments fare better, by default.

But at least you're looking at real data.

The problem with the comparison above [[while noting that I appreciate that we are moving toward actual analysis and not just shouting) is not equivalent. There's something missing in the roads analysis, and that is the cost of the car itself. Now reasonable people can debate and disagree about the costs and benefits of subsidizing roads vs. subsidizing a public transportation system, but one issue that will need to be addressed is that the roads by themselves don't provide transportation [[and the flipside is that the public transportation system cannot function without the roads).

Other things to consider:

Most analysis looks at cost per mile traveled...but that data is only useful if that is the true cost to the user. If a user-mile really costs only $0.0013 per mile, why the hell would someone walk 10 miles to work and back round trip every day? I'm 100% sure that person would rather give you the .03 cents per day for a transportation option rather than walk for 5 hours.

Another part of the cost/benefit analysis needs to consider both the social and economic cost of having a large labor force unable to get to jobs and unable to afford housing that is close to the jobs they're need at. Let us count the losses...businesses operating under capacity...unemployment which leads to crime, substance abuse, entitlement fraud, etc.

Then you need to consider whether there is an intrinsic value in your ability to attract talent...and if Detroiters weren't so poor, it wouldn't be so horrible to live next to Detroit, which certainly helps property values adjacent...all the other -- dare-I-say-it -- tickle-down dynamics that come along with a well-run transit system.

So I'm not saying that your analysis isn't good. In fact, I think it's the very type of analysis that we need. It just needs to be more comprehensive in scope, IMHO. Nor am I saying that enough has been done to justify the system from a dollar and cents point of view.

But I also intuitively know that rich people enjoy paying for services and they also enjoy not living adjacent to complete poverty. Some to most poor people would rather be working but can't afford to live near jobs. Younger people [[and smarter people) tend to gravitate toward walkable communities. And as people get older and older, a car-based transportation model is untenable.

If the average household needs to pay $8 per month to help cut these problems by 50%, I'd say it's a fair trade.