|
Post by jeisenbe on Aug 3, 2010 0:13:31 GMT -8
Greater Greater Washington, an excellent blog about development, transit, livability and other issues in DC, has a pair of posts comparing the DC Metro to other heavy rail systems. The charts and statistics are interesting. Did you know that the Red/Purple lines have the second highest operating cost per vehicle hour, at about $320 per hour (only New Jersey PATH is more expensive), but makes up for this by having the highest number of trips per vehicle hour, even better than New York MTA. Surprisingly, BART is one of the cheapest systems to operate per vehicle hour. I wouldn't have guessed that. NYC and Chicago spend HALF of what we do per vehicle revenue hour. Some of the graphs are a little misleading, since most of our transit system is bus or light rail, versus the extensive heavy rail system in DC, but the articles are worth a look: Metro by the numbers, Part 1: (Miles, trips and fares) greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=6656Metro by the numbers, Part 2: (Safety, quality, speed, etc) greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=6688Does anyone have an idea why Metro (LA) is spending twice as much to operate a train for one hour, compared to NYC or Chicago? Our buses are expensive (about $120 per hour, I think), but $320 per hour is way out there. If we could get that number down to $160, like the 3 cheaper cities on that graph, we would only have to charge a $1.25 fare (average), equivalent to a $2.50 cash price, for the heavy rail system to make money! Right now, each passenger costs $2.50 on average.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 3, 2010 6:03:04 GMT -8
I don't know how useful operating costs per vehicle revenue hour would be as a metric for comparing different rail systems. For example PATH runs 51' long, narrow cars in 7-car consists. LA Metro runs 75' long cars that are wider in 2,4 and 6 car consists. Then there's the paradox that were LA to always run longer trains the cost per vehicle revenue hour would decrease implying increased efficiency where the opposite would be true. Shorter cars, longer trains would do well with this metric, while longer car, shorter trains would have a harder time. In the end I'm not sure what any of it would mean.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Aug 3, 2010 12:52:58 GMT -8
Bluelineshawn, Do you think a "vehicle revenue hour" is one 75' car operated for one hour? I had assumed it was one trains operated one hour. Perhaps that is why I am mistaken.
For bus operations, 80% of the cost is related to the driver's compensation and benefits, anyway.
Do our trains really cost $1000 per hour to operate (considering and average of a 3-car train on the Red and Purple lines; usually 2 cars but sometimes 6 cars at rush hour)? Even if each car costs $3 million dollars new, they usually last for 20 years and travel millions of miles and 100,000's of hours in that time, so I wouldn't think the cost of trains and maintenance would be that high (and are new train cars a capital costs or an operations cost)?
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Aug 3, 2010 14:32:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 3, 2010 19:15:22 GMT -8
Yes. I think that all agencies keep track of the number of revenue hours that their cars travel over periods of time (day, month, year, etc). When you see stats that say "vehicle" I think that they almost always refer to individual cars, not trains.
Evidently. The supporting figures are in the budget document that spokker linked on page 230. Also you can see that the figures are based on 269,000+ revenue hours per year which has to be based per car, not train
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 3, 2010 19:23:30 GMT -8
According to Metro's 2010 budget it will cost $352 per revenue service hour to operate a Red/Purple Line train I'm pretty sure that's per vehicle, not train. That figure is based on 257,000 revenue hours which works out to 704 revenue hours per day or 35 revenue hours per hour (based on a 20-hour day). That has to be cars per hour because Metro doesn't even have enough cars to run 35 trains in an hour, much less average that many. Let me know if my calculations are off.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Aug 3, 2010 20:14:51 GMT -8
It doesn't matter as much as cost per passenger mile.
Remember, Metro is in the business of moving people, not vehicles.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 4, 2010 8:25:57 GMT -8
It doesn't matter as much as cost per passenger mile. Remember, Metro is in the business of moving people, not vehicles. I agree but individual statistics rarely provide the complete picture. Metro's business is moving people but if one wants to evaluate whether or not that is being done efficiently they would need to look at multiple stats.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Aug 5, 2010 22:34:58 GMT -8
Can anyone explain to me why one 4 car train costs $1000 to operate for one hour? That's $40 per mile, almost $15 per minute.
It costs Metro $120 per hour to operate a bus, so it makes sense that a train would cost about $100 per hour for the driver. I imagine there are some costs associated with maintaining stations, paying the sheriffs, repairing tracks, and buying trains. Is there a detailed explanation somewhere that shows where all the "operating" costs go?
It's great that the cost per passenger mile and per trip is relatively reasonable, but other cities seem to be getting a better deal on each hour of train operation, even in expensive places like NY, Tokyo and Chicago.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 6, 2010 4:14:39 GMT -8
Is there a detailed explanation somewhere that shows where all the "operating" costs go? Yes, on page 230 of the budget that Spokker linked.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Aug 17, 2010 5:34:12 GMT -8
This is a very good and intriguing question 'Why is LA Metro more expensive to operate on a per vehicle basis?'. And yes, I believe the figures cited in that blog are per vehicle and not per train.
This certainly does not fully explain the results as they are, but 3 possibilities come to mind. They include:
- Directional route miles and 1-way trip times are probably shorter versus most others. This results in a end terminal turn-around time, which is probably more or less a fixed time allotment, to represent a higher proportion of all revenue time. The Purple Line is a good example as travel time is something like 13 minutes each way, or 26 altogether, but the reverse move on each end adds non-productuve revenue time.
- LA Metro runs comparatively less service, yet station utilities/maintenance - or other too - are a continuing service cost that has their share of cost split by fewer vehicles. Of course, this assumes station costs are rolled into service costs, which does have some logic. Other costs may be included too, such as training programs.
- DC is kinda known for running a rag-tag operation. Note the recent accident in the press and coverage about what may have played a roll - management oversight and possibly lack thereof (cheaper costs).
That blog and all the information that is forwarded is very good. But it tells me that each system's characteristics play huge role in their performance.
|
|