http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/01/thu...-stimulus-day/
The Feds are announcing the recipients of the $8 billion to build America's first true HSR network on this coming Thursday, Jan 28...
The front runners are:
Florida, Illinois, California. Note that the Chicago-St. Louis line seems very likely. Will Detroit see HSR to Chicago? If Detroit misses the federal money on Thursday, when will it come, if ever?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gsgeorge
Michigan/Detroit won't get anything. Our representation in Washington has been horribly weak forever and it won;t change. Michigan reps do nothing for us [[hell, almost a decade in on a statewide depression and we are still a tax donor state)
This thread is a bit misleading.
1. Not a cent is going to "true" high-speed rail. All the dollars will go to upgrading existing low-speed diesel lines to medium-speed [[except for the NE corridor, which is electric and already high-speed in parts).
2. Like all federal appropriations, the money will be spread out across the nation, so no jurisdiction will get a big chunk. This means that the money, on it's own, will do very little in the short-term.
So if Michigan wins some cash [[I'm sure it will get some), the money will be used to eliminate grade crossings and the like on the main Detroit-Chicago route. It will result in very incremental improvements.
Some points of clarification:
1. The proposals submitted by the states have been reviewed by the Federal Railroad Administration, which is part of the Executive Branch. The money is part of the stimulus package passed last year, so the awards are free of legislative influence.
2. All monies awarded will go toward incremental improvements. Sure, it won't result in high-speed rail just yet, but these incremental improvements are necessary to progress toward a true high speed rail system. Such improvements will consist of elimination of grade crossing, upgrade of signaling systems, construction of passing sidings, new stations, and rolling stock. I wouldn't be shocked if some money went toward upgrading the electric caternary on the Northeast Corridor, which was installed in the 1930s by the Pennsylvania Railroad.
3. The states that have a clear plan and demonstrated cost-effectiveness will receive the money. In addition to California, which is ponying up tons of money for 200 mph rail service, Florida's Tampa-to-Orlando corridor, and Illinois's strong state-supported system, Detroit-to-Chicago is a good candidate. I'd also be shocked if Ohio didn't get money for the proposed NEW service in the "3C" Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati corridor.
I agree, the improvements will be incremental, but I would bet on a few detroit area improvements to be paid for through the ARRA HSR grants. A few that MDOT/SEMCOG have had their eyes on for some time include work to restore the West Detroit connection between the Canadian National and Conrail Shared Assets Operations. The new connection and associated interlocking improvements will shave up to 15 minutes off the trip between Dearborn and Detroit due to higher track speed, fewer interlockings and shortened travel length.Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Lake
For those who didn't know, you can read through the applications and look at the attached maps here: http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,...467---,00.html
Infrastructure is right. MDOT included the whole Wolverine route [[or at least to the state border as far as I can recall). However, it's clear they state the portion between Detroit and Ann Arbor is priority. There is a list in order of the projects along the route, first being the connection between Conrail and CN tracks, and then the rest of the Detroit-AA rail. That includes reinstalling the second main track where it was taken out, upgrading signalling and worn trackage and adding sidings. Then, everything else. Station upgrades and DET-Pontiac is included in there too. There was a note in there about acquiring tracks from Norfolk Southern that I wasn't aware of. I knew NS was looking to sell a while ago, but didn't know the state was looking to buy.
[quote=Gsgeorge;1
The Feds are announcing the recipients of the $8 billion to build America's first true HSR network on this coming Thursday, Jan 28...[/quote]
Yesterday, I read an article in the Windsor Star that they've issued a pre-bid notice for a second $400million larger Detroit-Windsor rail tunnel to accomodate larger double stacked railway cars and possibly HSR . So, if Detroit ever does get HSR connected to Chicago, Ottawa may be more inclined to subsidize another HSR link connecting from Detroit to Toronto..
http://www.windsorstar.com/cars/Rail...399/story.html
The companies behind a $400-million proposal to build a second Detroit River rail tunnel have issued a pre-bid notice — a call for companies to prove qualifications — to conduct the environmental assessment for the project.
Borealis Infrastructure and CP Rail, co-owners of the 100-year-old Windsor-Detroit rail tunnel, plan to build an adjacent tunnel to accommodate larger double-stacked railway cars and possibly high-speed cross-border passenger service.
The notice moves the project another step closer to reality.
“This is very good news,” said Coun. Bill Marra, one of city council's biggest supporters for the rail tunnel project. “The community might underestimate the significance around the pre-bid notice. But it indicates they have their financial requirements in a row and are looking at proceeding.” http://detroityes.com/mb/images/misc/progress.gif http://detroityes.com/mb/images/buttons/edit.gif
I think Longlake is right, the proposal is only to upgrade existing lines with higher-speed diesel locomotives. I don't believe it is for European-style electric high speed.
people critisize the US rail system and I have to agree but the country is so large that I think air travel is most efficient and rail service of any speed will only serve certain high traffic corridors.
Regarding Detroit-Chicago, I can't see that that would merit a major cash infusion. The other 'high speed' lines such as Chicago-St. Louis are part of rail lines that go to the west/southwest. Detroit to Chicago is a dead end service.
It would be nice if a line from Detroit to NYC woud be put back into operation so that Detroit would be on a route from Chicago to NYC, possibly Toronto, Buffalo, Rochester, etc.
Still if Michigan gets the $$$ for high-speed rail then cool.
Even back in the 30s and 40s, Detroit was more of a sidetrack off of the national rail net. Yes, NYC did have the train through Canada to Detroit, but most trains served Detroit by pullman drop-offs that moved into Detroit on secondary trains.Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptonite
Before Northwest made Detroit a hub, air service was the same way.
It sounds like you're contradicting yourself. Bear in mind that Detroit is planned to connect to the Ohio Hub network, so it's not as much of a dead-end as you think.Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptonite
Our cities, especially east of the Mississippi and on the Pacific Coast, aren't any further apart than they are in Europe. And Ohio, for example, has the population density of France. The rail system in this nation worked just fine, even at relatively low speeds, until we decided to start subsidizing the hell out of driving and flying. It'll work again.
We're beyond the second-guessing phase. Let's. Do. This.
For long distance, trans-continental flights, I think you are right. Rail can't compete. however, european style high speed rail would absolutely be competitive with regional air travel [[think Detroit-Chicago type flights).Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptonite
I think we could do more for the environment by improving [[and possibly electrifying) the freight lines and restricting the long haul trucks to just moving containers from the inter-modal yard to the destination.Quote:
Originally Posted by EL Jimbo
Passenger rail is a big money loser in most 1st world countries.
According to Bloomberg News, 13 corridors reaching 31 [[of the 46 that have Amtrak service) will receive money. The announcement will be made in Tampa, so it looks like Florida is getting a cut for the Tampa-Orlanda corridor, the first leg in a line that would extend south to Miami in the future.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=akGmApx3GhMY
Detroit isn't a dead end. It would be the natural connection point for a U.S. and Canadian system.Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptonite
I definitely agree with the first one, but I'm still not convinced that passenger rail doesn't have a place in the transportation system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
What sort of transportation system IS a money-maker?
For that matter, should the role of transportation be making money?
Yeah, can't remember the last time I-75 turned a profit......Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
Rail freight makes pretty good money. Warren Buffet didn't buy BNSF to run it as a charity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
Santa Fe [[along with C&O) tried to run good passenger trains right up until AMTRAK. The figured it was a part of their corporate image.
The passenger guy at Santa Fe said during the 60s that if they took every passenger who showed up at the counter in Chicago to buy a ticket to LA, refused his money, and just handed him a free airline ticket to LA, they would lose less money.
Prior to the creation of Amtrak, the freight railroads were required by Congress to provide passenger service.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
Freight rail in the United States uses the only transportation infrastructure on earth that isn't subsidized by a government authority. The fact that the freight railroads are still able to make a profit speaks to the efficiency of the mode.
I-75 was paid for by the fuel taxes on the folks driving on the roads.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
We have Tri-Rail here in Florida. It runs from just north of West Palm Beach down to the middle of Miami. It carries 3,600 people a day out of a regional population of over 3 million.
If you take the annual budget of Tri-Rail and subtract the money they receive for tickets and divide by the number of tickets sold, you realize that every time a $3.75 passenger sets foot on the train, the taxpayers cough up $101.00
For the record, I am a train enthusiast.
Those of you that grew up in the 1960's I'm sure remember the decline of passenger rail service. Little by little fewer trains ran, lines were dropped, and depots closed.
Around 1965 the US postal service stopped shipping mail via passenger rail which ended a huge revenue source. After that passenger service pretty much ended until Natrak [[later Amtrak) took over nearly all remaining routes. Even Amtrak has continually shrunk so that the Amtrak service offered now is not what it was in the early 70's.
I love rail travel myself but it is slow and for some reasons terribly expensive to operate. In Europe I always travel by rail and love the experience, but their rail service is run by the state and probably subsidized by ungodly taxes on gasoline. I don't expect Americans would want to pay $8/gallon of gas to have a thriving rail system.
Even if we did have substantial rail service I believe most Americans would still fly when they go a long distance. Why take 2 1/2 days from Detroit to LA when you can fly there for less and arrive in 3-4 hours.
Anyway, upgrading what little rail service we have won't hurt matters. If the feds want to throw a few million $ at Michigan for HS then so be it.
Facts:
1. The steep decline of the once-profitable passenger rail service in the US coincided with the Federal government's decision to pump ungodly sums of money into building the expressways.
2. The taxes which go to pay for some of the upkeep on I-75 come from every motorist who drives in Michigan whether they use I-75 or not, and that only pays a fraction of the cost. Continuing Federal subsidies pay much of the cost to operate our overbuilt freeway network, and deferred maintenance makes up much of the difference here in Michigan.
3. Comparing the roles of a good passenger rail system [[which we do not have now) and the airlines, certainly air travel will always cover trips like New York to Denver or Detroit to Portland or Atlanta to Minneapolis. It would be foolish to build a rail network to accommodate such things. But our skies are overcrowded and the airlines all lose money; a good rail network that could accommodate the 200 to 500 mile trips in regions where cities are at such distances would relieve the overcrowding and modernize our transportation so that it would at least begin to look like what the rest of the modernized world enjoys.
All this of course just IMVHO.
I think you have to think bigger than Detroit-Chicago type flights. That is nothing, its only a 4-5 hour drive. Driving is way more reasonable than flying [[unless you are going to the Loop, where parking out outrageous). If train service improves, it will defiantly be the best. But I think high-speed rail needs to connect regions as well, Chicago-Detroit/Windsor-Toronto-Montreal. So think of Montreal to Chicago flights. Or Chicago to New York flights. Vancouver to San Diego flights. With a true high-speed network, there would be much more competition on these types of flights, but LA to NYC would probably still be dominated by air.Quote:
Originally Posted by EL Jimbo
Does anybody really think this is going to work anyways? Meaning high speed rail in Michigan? It works in Europe wonderfully but I just can't see it taking hold here in the United States on a large scale. High speed rail or a Maglev system just seems like it has too many hurdles and red tape to jump through to ever be completed on a national scale.
I'm holding out hope for it but I'm honestly more hopeful for light rail starting down Woodward and eventually spanning out on different streets into the suburbs.
In 2008, Tri-Rail reported a weekday passenger average of 14,685 unlinked trips, or over 400% more of what you reported. If you assume that these are all round-trips [[given the operating characterisitics of commuter rail), this is the equivalent capacity of 6 lanes of freeway. Tri-Rail also reported an operating expense per passenger trip of $13.69, or 13.6% of the cost you cited. So, you've only inflated your own numbers by a factor of 29. Close enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram...files/4077.pdf
I personally don't drive on most of the roadways in this country, nor does anyone else. Does that make them all a bad investment?
And I'd check your assumption that gas taxes cover the entire cost of roadway travel. If this were the case, would deferred maintenance even exist? If gas taxes alone were sufficient, you would think our roads would be in *better* shape as Vehicle Miles Traveled increased, right?
You might want to read the following book, by University of Michigan Professor Emeritus of Economics, Richard Porter:
Porter, Richard C., Economics at the Wheel: The Costs of Cars and Drivers, Academic Press: 1999. http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Whee...4612696&sr=8-1
For an engineer, you don't seem to have much diligence when it comes to numbers. I'm just sayin.
Wait a sec, this sounds all wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
If you are correct, and Tri-Rail carries a weekday ridership of 14,000, that is absolutely pathetic, and nowhere near the ridership of a 6-lane highway.
A 6-lane highway can carry 300,000, heck, even 400,000 vehicles on a weekday.
The average per-car occupancy used by most studies is 1.5 per car, but the number is usually higher in urban areas; usually around 1.75 per car.
But let's be conservative, and assume only 300,000 vehicles and 1.5 per car. That's 450,000 weekday passengers on a major metropolitan highway.
In contrast, Tri Rail ridership is horrible. A lonely country lane can carry the same weekday passenger load.
A freeway can carry, at most, 2000 cars per hour per lane. To reach a capacity of 300,000 vehicles, you would need to have six freeway lanes of traffic operating at maximum capacity for 24 hours a day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Lake
Atlanta's 15-lane parking lot known as the Downtown Connector has one of the highest volumes in the nation where I-75 and I-85 merge, at 340,000 cars per day [[in 2005). SOURCE: American Automobile Association, Top Ten Commuter Hotspots, 2005.
Would you like to reconsider your assumptions?
Just as a point of reference. 696 just east of the 75 interchange carries about 220,000 cars a day or something to that effect.
We are talking apples and oranges.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
I am talking about total highway ridership. You are talking about tracking vehicles at a fixed point.
Yes, 300,000 vehicles at a fixed point is a lot of traffic, but a longer highway can carry many more passengers.
If you want to compare using your assumptions, then Tri Rail doesn't carry anything close to 14,000 passengers.
You would have to select a point on Tri-Rail's 60 mile route, and then count the number of passengers at that fixed point.
Given the decentralized nature of South Florida [[and the fact that Tri Rail doesn't serve downtown Miami and many other major job centers), I doubt you could more than 6 or 7 thousand passengers at a fixed point, if that.
The only realistic comparison, IMO, is to compare Tri Rail to a 60-mile stretch of road, which can, in a full weekday, carry far more passengers than at any fixed point.
Do you propose that cars driving along a freeway morph into completely different cars as they travel along?Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Lake
I didn't invent the methodology for conducting traffic counts. The number reported for Tri-Rail is from their own data. Sue me. You, on the other hand, are just making shit up.
I don't think he's making anything up. It's difficult to compare ridership on a train system to a freeway unless, say there are only two two points of destination on that rail line. Once you start factoring all kinds of different stations with people getting on and off, it would be similar to taking whatever length of freeway and measuring every person entering or exiting the freeway. Then you'd have to simultaneously measuring the people who drove through without entering or exiting, and also subtract the people exiting who also entered to avoid double counting.
I think that would cover it... but of course that measurement is never taken because you'd have to be insane to attempt to do that. Therefore, they simply measure traffic at fixed points which is hard to compare with transit that counts total system ridership.
Riiight, I need to follow your rigorous and unbiased methodology of comparing 60 miles of rail to one inch of pavement, and then declaring that the two have an equivalent capacity.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
C'mon .... big money ... big money ... no whammies .... no whammies ... STOP!
awwwwwwwww, shit.
Per the Chicago Sun Times, it looks like we're getting $244 Million in Michigan. Its less than MDOT requested, but without seeing a project list, I think we're poised to get some significant track improvements and maybe some additional rolling stock? We'll know tomorrow.
WI got enough, jeez they got 10%.
http://www.biztimes.com/daily/2010/1...ee-and-madison
You cleaned up on this prediction! All are getting significant sums of money,Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
Here's the full report:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/docu...0Revisions.pdf
I hope Michigan gets it. We need it.
I just got through reading what Michigan got. Too bad Detroit didn't get anything.
Est. Potential Description
Funding
$40 Million
Existing stations will be renovated in Troy and Battle Creek, MI, and a new station will be constructed in downtown Dearborn.
Any chance that new station would be near Military, Mason or Monroe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tig3rzhark
I honestly don't know.
Acela link to Toledo and Chicago here we come!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tig3rzhark
Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
The latest designs I've seen for the Dearborn Station has it across the tracks from Greefield Village. This way they can eliminate the flagstop that exists there for tour groups the disembark for GV. This was a while ago however.
When they say a new station will be constructed in "downtown" Dearborn, I'm a little confused. Of course, the old station is on the east end of Dearborn, back behind all the civic buildings on Michigan Avenue -- hardly what you'd call downtown on that side of Dearborn. So I can only presume they'll build a brand-new station on the west side of Dearborn, where they've been aggressively trying to turn it into Royal Oak yuppieville.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tig3rzhark
Seeing the actual project list, in my opinion, detroit got jobbed. The only track improvements along the ENTIRE corridor are in Indiana and Illinois. The improvements vital to the Ann Arbor to Detroit Commuter Rail project did not recieve any funds. I don't see the point in investing in elaborate high speed stations if the track is still opperating well below 79 MPH. Seems backwards to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Infrastructure
If you really want to compare capacities of modes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Lake
A high-speed rail line can handle 15 trains per hour per track, with up to 800 passengers on each train. That's 12000 people per hour.
A lane of freeway can handle 2000 cars per hour. Generously assuming a load occupancy factor of 1.5, that's 3000 people an hour.
This is a very simplified assessment. There are impacts for freight that need to be considered. Passenger trains need time to stop, the more stations, the more stops. Likewise not all highways can do 2,000 cars/hour. Many are not grade separated and have signals. The width of lanes also impact speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
No way will either mode ever hit these maximum capacities because frieght trains are much longer and slower, and 18 wheelers are bigger and need longer braking distances.
Ummm, we're talking about passenger rail. Of course, the way the national rail system is set up, you can't beat the freights on most lines. And that's just the way our auto-oriented planners love things ...Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
I'm talking "capacity", not "what-if".Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
The highway capacity numbers are for roadways built to Interstate Highway Standards. The capacity cited in the Highway Design Manual [[AASHTO) is 2250, but does not account for trucks, which travel slower and require greater spacing. Obviously, if there's an accident or rain or The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, you're not going to reach capacity. That's a "what-if".
The capacity number I cited is for high-speed rail, which in Europe, China, and other nations far poorer than we are, has its own dedicated right-of-way. The ENTIRE IDEA behind this $8 billion down-payment on high-speed rail is to construct passing sidings and build track capacity to accommodate both the existing and future freight trains, while freeing up room for more passenger trains.
You can't get around that we have mixed traffic on both our highways and rail systems. Not all highways are built to aashto standards and nor are they interstates. For example, Michigan Avenue in corktown is neither built to aashto standards nor is it an interstate, but it is a highway. We even have freeways like M-39 that are not built to interstate standards [[narrow lanes, short on/off ramps). This impacts capacity. The capacity for moving frieght on both is much lower than the capacity for moving cars.
Our system shares roads and rails. Even Amtrak's own rail in Michigan has frieght traffic.
Without moving frieght our region dies. This needs to be accomodated, particularly here where we are a manufacturing center and a major port into Canada.
Yes, that's what we want to do, DP: Take all freight off the railroads and kill off our manufacturing sector. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
I don't see a thing in this post that has anything to do with $8 billion for passenger rail upgrades.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
What point are you trying to make???
This is a response to your tangent then you call me on it?Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
Did you notice how I mention that we have a mixed system where freight operates on both highways and on rails, therefore you can't use a capacity number designed for peak conditions?
It's not a tangent. Someone was decrying $8 billion for passenger rail as a waste, as it does not move as many people as freeways. I was attempting to illustrate that rail has far higher capacity, and even more so on a per-dollar basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
I don't know how you define "capacity", but to me, it's an objective, theoretical number. There is no such thing as "capacity for peak conditions". What the heck does that mean? Does the geometry of a roadway change during peak conditions or something?
There's just "capacity". That's it. Nothing more. You're thinking of "actual throughput", which is something entirely different.
Relax. If you haven't caught on yet, the $8 billion for development of high speed rail is going to ease freight congestion as well.
What is it with some people? I think it does come a point when a poster’s objections are so petty, when their appeals to the demands of reality are so persistent, that you start to figure out that they really are just stonewalling. They aren’t interested in taking a fresh look at anything. They just want to keep pointing out little problems with people who’d like a fresh approach, never addressing that the system -- as it stands -- does not work well at all. What can you do with those people? You just have to figure they’re here to try to play devil’s advocate with the way things work elsewhere and to ignore the way they don’t work here.
As a matter of fact it does! Try driving parts of an interstate through mountains, these don't travel at 70 mph. Only fast moving traffic at LOS A can move at peak capacity. Traffic slows down when lanes are narrower. Many ramps, particularly the sort ones as found on the Southfield will caus traffic to back up as well because more time is needed to weave. Poorly timed lights will cause traffic to platoon and also reduce how much traffic you can move through a given roadway.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
All of this also applies to train travel btw. You just can throw out maximum capacity numbers and expect the traffic to move at those numbers. It don't work that way, you're using the inputs for the modeling process, I am looking at the output.
Capacity of a particular roadway is fixed. Roadways through mountains may have a lower throughput capacity than a flat, straight roadway. A roadway with a lower speed limit may have a lower capacity. A roadway with narrower lanes will have a lower capacity.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
Level of Service is...[[drum roll)...not based on capacity but on the rate of traffic flow. If you're reaching lower Levels of Service, you're likely exceeding capacity, as at LoS "F".
I don't know why you think anyone ever said that all roadways have the same capacity. They don't. But a roadway built to INTERSTATE HIGHWAY STANDARDS has, in general, a capacity of 2000 vehicles per hour per lane.
Now go tell AASHTO they're wrong.
Thank you! So you agree that if capacity is fixed as you say and you get too many users, you are not going to get as many trips! Therefore, you can't just quote a capacity without looking at demand. What is the demand for HSR?Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
Are you channeling Yogi Berra? "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
Capacity IS fixed for a particular roadway [[or railway), regardless of demand. THROUGHPUT is the variable.
And I'd say that by looking at the few rail corridors in our country that have decent infrastructure, higher speeds, and frequent service--those being the Northeast Corridor, California, the Keystone route between Harrisburg and Philadelphia, the Downeaster from Maine to Boston, the Hiawatha between Milwaukee and Chicago, and the Illinois routes--demand for high speed rail is going to be beyond what anyone anticipates.
Just found this on the innertubes":
Quote:
"The old saying about not looking a gift horse in the mouth should be challenged by Florida taxpayers, when it comes to today’s announcement of a $1.25 billion grant to start development of a high-speed rail line between Orlando and Tampa. If Florida accepts this money without figuring out how to pay for the rest of the project, there could be very serious consequences for hard-pressed taxpayers.
Unlike most of the other “high-speed” rail projects receiving federal grants, this one is not to upgrade an existing rail line for a top speed of 110 miles per hour [[mph) vs the current 79 mph trains. No, the Florida project is for brand new, truly high-speed rail on exclusive, new right of way, along the I-4 highway corridor. This is by far the most expensive form of high-speed rail. A 2009 GAO report that looked at recent high-speed rail projects in France, Spain, and Japan shows them averaging $51 million per mile [[excluding one very high-cost Japanese line). For the 84 miles of the Tampa-Orlando route, that totals $4.28 billion. So merely to build this project is going to require another $3 billion from somewhere. Florida is facing a several billion dollar budget deficit this year, so it’s hard to see where the extra money could come from.
It definitely won’t come from private investors, since these kinds of projects do not make a return on their investment. Indeed, a December 2009 report on high-speed rail from the Congressional Research Service [[CRS) helpfully points out that of all the dozens of high-speed rail projects build worldwide over the last several decades, only two are “estimated” to have paid for their capital cost out of farebox revenues. All the rest, in Japan, France, Spain, and elsewhere have been largely paid for by general taxpayers.
Then there’s the little matter of operating and maintenance costs. Both GAO and CRS note that whether such a line can cover those costs out of passenger revenues is highly dependent on ridership. The ideal situation is a corridor several hundred miles long anchored by two large, centralized metro areas. The federal fact sheet on the Florida line claims that both Tampa and Orlando are among the largest 20 metro areas; in fact, while Tampa ranks 17th, Orlando is 32nd in size—and both are very spread-out, low-density areas. This corridor does not make CRS’s list of the top 12 city-pairs for potential high-speed rail ridership. In fact, CRS estimates that the train in this corridor would likely reduce traffic on I-4 by less than 2 percent. That doesn’t bode well for high-speed rail ridership, especially since 84 miles is way too short for people to fly, so all potential riders must come from those who would otherwise drive.
Given all this, I estimate that Florida taxpayers will get stuck with an annual operating deficit that they will have to pay for, indefinitely.
Bottom line: this gift horse looks to me like a gift that will keep on taking."
Hermod: Why must we expect everything in life to turn a profit? Why would anybody expect schools to be profitable? Or hospitals? Or prisons? Or the Army perhaps? This is silly.
There are plenty of things in life that are not profitable. And they shouldn't be, if they are to do their job well.
Sure, laying down concrete by using money from the gas tax looks like a transportation system that "pays for itself." But what about the costs it creates and then passes on to others? Environmentally, it uses much more resources, produces more waste [[dead cars) and swallows a multiple of the amount of land that rail lines do. It sprays the landscape with carbon monoxide, shredded rubber, toxic leaks, all of which run off the pavement in a storm and pollute the ground. It kills more wildlife than trains. It creates uncrossable barriers in our cities and in the country.
Then there's the matter of trying to secure the energy necessary to run all these vehicles. More resource wars, more killing, more displacement of people around the world who had the poor luck to be born atop the most fertile sand in the world.
And what about the environments cars attract? They attract low-density development that then requires cities to assign traffic officers, build improved signaling systems. It cuts curbs and creates environments where children cannot walk safely, turning our parents into their children's chauffeurs. It creates an endless landscape of big-box stores, burger huts, taco stops, and endless seas of asphalt, because everybody has to build enough parking to ensure that they'll have space for everybody on the one most crowded day of the year. Contrast this with the environments that rail creates: Dense, walkable, inviting.
As they used to say, "There's no such thing as a free lunch." We're going to pay for it one way or another. We can pay by being tied to our cars for everything from a carefree road trip to when we need one stick of butter, in poverty of architecture, in profligate use of resources, in resource wars, in waste, pollution and sprawl. Or you can pay for a transportation system that, while more expensive, mitigates those things. You know: Like in Europe.
American people are sometimes so upset about paying for anything, they pay through the nose later. Like a person who, rather than properly reroofing, throws a tarp on their roof year after year and then complains about the expense of putting up a whole new second floor because of rot. There is a better way.
We need more rails, not less. The whole "Rails to Trails" thing really bugs me. Granted, the Dequinder Cut is amazing, and I wouldn't want to turn it back to freight. But other abandoned rail corridors in the city could be put back to use. If we did this, we would have to rethink the way we transport things. How sustainable is shipping everything by truck or by air? Rail is many times as efficient. This would not eliminate trucks or planes, it would just make rail just as important for shipping everything, not just massive items. A package, for instance, could be picked up by electric truck, dropped off at a processing center and put on a train, and then hauled quickly and efficiently across the country [[through complete makeover of our rail freight system) and then picked up by another electric truck and delivered at home. You can still pay more and have it flown there, but rail, in the long run, is a much more affordable and sustainable option.
The same is true for passanger rail. We would have to rethink the way we move ourselves around. Away from relying on the auto to do everything, and toward having many options. We should have the option of taking a bus or light-rail to a high-speed rail station and taking that to get to other cities, rather than flying or driving. Not everyone would use every level of transit, or every transit route, but they would shave their options improved!
"Given all this, I estimate that Florida taxpayers will get stuck with an annual operating deficit that they will have to pay for, indefinitely.
Bottom line: this gift horse looks to me like a gift that will keep on taking."
http://reason.org/blog/show/floridas...eed-rail-route
Not going to source the comments? I'm shocked that someone at Reason is opposed to this. If they had their way, the entire transportation network would be privatized.
The only way a rail system can come even close to paying for itself is if the gas tax is raised high enough to discourage the use of road vehicles and encourage the use of rail vehicles. If the gas tax is not raised, these rail systems will be underused and over-subsidized.
Not a bad idea, actually. If we tax vices we argue we'd like to see less of [[smoking, junk foods, booze) because of their effects on public health, why not the same with transportation? Of course, we'd have to really hold our politician's feet to the fire to keep them on-mission... They always love to do weird stuff like use stimulus money to expand Hall Road ... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit
As shopping goes, Hall Road is one of the "main streets" for metro shopping.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
In the going from M53 to I-94 on Hall Road, you have one hell of a lot more commercial activity than you do going from the river to 8 mile up Woodward.
Makes you wonder how that happened, huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
As shopping goes, Hall Road represents the worst in wastefulness. Want to buy a newspaper on Hall Road? First of all, you probably live a few miles away, so you have to drive. Maybe you even have to hop on a freeway to get there. Then you must deal with all those lanes of traffic where you have to whizz up to 60 mph, dodge the hammer lane, do a quick boulevard turn, zip across another five lanes of traffic, zoom up into a huge parking lot. Hardly ideal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
Like it or not, aesthetics are changing in the United States. People increasingly want walkable, compact areas where they can shop on foot or with a little cart. Fewer people are interested in driving across a screaming autodrome to get the necessities of life. And, behind that trend, those fuel costs are poised to go up, oil is getting scarcer, and the next decade could bring fuel costs that leave Hall Road as deserted as Hamilton Avenue is now.
To use one-time federal stimulus money to expand Hall Road ranks among the crowning feats of stupidity perpetrated by our idiotic regional leaders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novine
I picked it up third hand from Democratic Underground where they intimated it might have come from DailyKos. I didn't know it came from Reason or I would have sourced it as such.
Mea Culpa