rus said:
In your opinion, would linking the suburbs to downtown ( thinking here of the Dublin discussion ) via light rail reduce highway costs? If so, does that reduction in highway costs offset the cost of rail or is the overall system more expensive than highways alone?
I have not seen a study on what kind of impact that kind of rail corridor would have, so at best I could just give an opinion. It would depend on how many people that would link to Downtown and how many would use it. I do think it also depends on Downtown. If Downtown continues to redevelop and becomes more of a destination than what it is, more people would likely be inclined to go there beyond just a work commute. There's more to it than putting in a rail line and hoping people use it, and I'm not advocating that kind of blind build, which ironically is what we seem to have done with our roads in many cases. Any proposed line would need to be studied for ridership, population, economic impact, etc, just like what is done with large highway projects. As far as if I think rail projects would reduce highway maintenance costs? That also depends. If rail is able to reduce auto traffic, then yes, as less cars on the road mean less wear and tear over time. It would also reduce traffic congestion if done right. Whether or not it offsets rail costs would again depend on ridership. Ridership fees would help offset rail costs to begin with, something highways don't inherently have unless you include the dwindling gas taxes. Given that rail systems worldwide and even in parts of the US have shown that they can make a profit, it is, at the very least, possible to see a return on investment when it comes to rail. Unless you toll every highway, is that ever going to happen with an auto-centric system?