[mozumder]

It's not anywhere close to self-funding a real public transport system.

How do they expect to make money as a private enterprise if these are the numbers they propose?

Public transportation is supposed to lose money, not make it, hence the "public" part. It's paid for by tax dollars, because it is impossible for private companies to make money from it.

Even the private rail systems around the world are largely subsidized pubicly during construction, with only operations being privatized.

[leot]

Prior to the destruction of North American light rail systems, a process accelerated by US auto companies (which bought urban rail cos only to then neglect them) public transit companies were entirely private and often entirely capitalized with profits and private investment. Many streetcars used to profitably have two people working on them: one driver and one toll collector.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_con...]

[mozumder]

This was possible because cities weren't as developed as they are now. Property was cheap back then.

These days, the major expense of building a mass transit system is just buying property. And in cities, these properties are going to be already developed.

Right now, there are individual buildings in US cities that cost over $1billion, so grade-separated ground rail is not going to happen for cheap. That only leaves tunneling, which also isn't cheap.

[cloudwalking]

If you read further down the page it says this Dodger loop will be their first test track, to replace a previously proposed test track in Sepulveda. It's not meant to make money, it's to prove it works. The money will be made in future systems.

[Someone]

One important property of a test track is that, if things don’t work out as intended, you can take it down for indefinite periods for upgrades or even take it down forever. Test tracks don’t have SLAs.

⇒ what Tesla describes here is not a test track, or at least shouldn’t be.

[hobofan]

> Public transportation is supposed to lose money, not make it, hence the "public" part. It's paid for by tax dollars, because it is impossible for private companies to make money from it.

What? No! Public as in "open to the public". At least in the German equivalent "Öffentlicher Nahverkehr" thats exactly what it says ("öffentlich" = "open to the public").

Systems like the MTR[0] also show that it is indeed possible to have a public transportation system that is directly profitable at scale.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR

[mozumder]

In the US, "public transportation" means "transportation system owned by the public". This is opposed to "private transportation", which is owned by private entities.

All tranport systems are available for use by the general public.

Also, the MTR infrastructure is government subsidized.

[JauntyHatAngle]

Not sure what you are saying. Can you clarify?

They aren't proposing these numbers with any more context than the article, (This is a pilot running alongside existing infrastructure) so I'm really unsure about what you are asking?

[mozumder]

I'm saying the numbers are so astronomically off that there is no viable path to profit without public subsidy, for any theoretical future system, big or small.

[SECProto]

Their path to profit is the Chicago airport loop, which is proposed to cost a fair bit more and have much more consistent ridership. This is a pilot project, a technology tester.

[CaptainZapp]

There is some disagreement among experts that this project is ever a path to profit, given that the projected construction cost is ridiculously low.[1]

[1] https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/06/for-1-billion...

[roel_v]

If this one works, they can do similar projects in places where they can build, own and charge for huge parking garages. Build parking in cheap location, then provide a way for people to get to the location they actually want to br (downtown, stadiums/event centers, airports). If that still makes sense when we have self riding cars - I don't know (probably only for the most high density destinations).

[peex]

From the looks of it they want to test this system and if it proves to be a viable method of transportation, they will present this to governments and construct it for them. They don't have to run it. They can just make it and sell it.