LA struggling to change its DNA

[Dinner]

In brief: High-Speed Rail news from the world

Posted by Matthieu Desiderio under economics, finance, high speed rail, infrastructure, mobility, passengers, projects, public transport, rail, transport
High-Speed Rail IS highly profitable to the economy

Atkins, a planning and engineering consultants company, said that High-Speed Rail (HSR) links between London and Scotland may be worth more than £60 billion to the United Kingdom’s economy. However, such HSR lines may not be built and operated before 2026. The study shows that two lines should be constructed: one going up the west coast towards Glasgow, the other up the east coast toward Edinburgh.
High-Speed Rails attracts passengers

On the other side of the world, Taiwan High Speed Rail Corp., the company that operates Taiwan HSR trains, announced that the number of high-speed rail passengers recently topped 20 million on Friday, March 7, 2008. Slightly more than a year after it began operation of this new train service, the company reached this level and also beat its monthly passenger volume (reaching 2.095 million in February).

Operations began January 5, 2007, then, Taiwan High Speed Rail Corp. topped 5 million passengers on May 28, 10 million on September 18, and 15 million on December 21.

http://en.transport-expertise.org/index.php/2008/03/10/in-brief-high-speed-rail-news-from-the-world/#more-189

[DanS]

Originally posted by Oerdin
BAM? You're the one who claims it would be just to expensive to build and when I show that it can be done for the same money as we've wasted in Iraq you claim BAM? At least if we spent it on train networks then we'd have something to show for it.

1. I never said it was too expensive. I just said it was fantastically expensive.

2. I haven't seen you "show" squat. You haven't even done the math in your head, so how can you show it?

[Dinner]

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Divergent preferences indeed Many people - based on commute times, I'd suggest most people - are able to accept a long commute if it means a better neighborhood, better schools, etc. for their families. My GF's brother lives 70 miles from work, in order to have a house where his kids can go to the top public schools in Kansas City. He makes tons of money, could live closer if he wanted - but the school and the neighborhood is worth it to him, and is worth it to many people (although 70 miles is a bit of an extreme in my experience).

You could find better schools closer in if all the people stopped fleeing from the center.

It's a mix. For LA, its the combined statistical area (Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA).

Here's the database. Knock yourself out. Probably the county by state average is the most useful.

The trouble is I don't know those areas very well. Also:

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area

What exactly does that mean? Does that include all of Long Island, or just the five boroughs and some of NJ. The trouble becomes including too much for NY can skew the average. I'd like to see an average commute for just Manhattan. Looking at the list of Metropolitan areas, the time for NYC stays the same but it's described as being NYC area, NY, NJ, CT. I mean if you're throwing in Connecticut stuff in there, that's about as suburban as it gets, isn't it?

For example:
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA Metro Area 31.1 +/-0.4

Does this include Decatur? Does this include Gwinett County? If not comparing that time with the NYC numbers is pretty useless.

Here's a different table that supports my view (yay, statistics is wonderful )

Geographic area: US

Average: 25.1

Margin of Error: +/-0.1

URBAN AND RURAL


Urban 24.7 +/-0.1

Rural 26.4 +/-0.1

INSIDE AND OUTSIDE METROPOLITAN AND MICROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

In metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area
25.2 +/-0.1

In metropolitan statistical area
25.7 +/-0.1

In principal city
24.4 +/-0.1

Not in principal city
26.5 +/-0.1

In micropolitan statistical area
21.1 +/-0.1

In principal city
16.4 +/-0.2

Not in principal city
23.4 +/-0.1

Not in metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area
22.8 +/-0.1


Difference isn't so huge except in smaller cities where being in the city saves about 7 minutes (almost a third of the commute).

[DanS]

How much, Oerdin?

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by DanS


I'm curious as to what you believe the required sums would be. Anybody who likes to keep their pocketbook full rather than empty will wince at the capital required.

So that shouldn't bother anyone in the US then, eh?

I suggest imposing a heavy-tax on carbon emissions and letting the market sort the problem out.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Here's a different table that supports my view (yay, statistics is wonderful )

You think my stats had problems? So tell me, what's the difference between a principal city and a micropolitan statistical area.

Like I said, just look at the counties. It's easier and more useful that way. New York is a great example that everybody knows well.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by DanS


You think my stats had problems? So tell me, what's the difference between a principal city and a micropolitan statistical area.

Like I said, just look at the counties. It's easier and more useful that way. New York is a great example that everybody knows well.

Exactly, like how San Francisco county's is less than Fulton county, Georgia (Atlanta), even though it has more than 10x the population density.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by DanS


It's a mix. For LA, its the combined statistical area (Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA).

Here's the database. Knock yourself out. Probably the county by state average is the most useful.

Census Databse

For those of you who are all for high density, take a look at the commute times for New York City and its boroughs.

It seems the commuting times for New York County (Manhattan) are lower than those for lower-density Bronx, Kings (Brooklyn), Queens and Richmond (Staten Island) counties. I'd rather argue NYC's transportation infrastructure simply is bad.

[DanS]

Indeed, Manhattan's commuting times are better than the boroughs. On the other hand, Manhattan's commute times are higher than LA's, as just one example.

The point here is that high density is not a cure for high commute times. It is easy to imagine why this is so -- you have to walk to the train, you have to wait for your train, the train doesn't take you precisely where you need to go, etc.

NYC's transportation infrastructure is bad, but it's better than all other US systems in moving people around. And the 2nd avenue subway line is costing over a billion dollars a mile.

All further demonstration that urban living is fundamentally much more expensive than suburban and rural living.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by DanS
The point here is that high density is not a cure for high commute times.

How to tell if commuting times wouldn't be even worse weren't it for the high density? The only firm conclusion you can draw, is that higher densities don't rule out higher commuting times, not that they aren't a mitigating force.

NYC's transportation infrastructure is bad, but it's better than all other US systems in moving people around. And the 2nd avenue subway line is costing over a billion dollars a mile.

Meaningless number if you don't consider the length of the line and how many people it will transport.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Oerdin
In 2007 France opened a new 190 mile long segment of the TGV which goes from Paris to the German at a cost of Euro 5.5 billion or around $6-$7 billion at the exchange rate during time of construction.

We keep talking about a Quebec City - Windsor line (longer than 190 miles) and costs under $10 Billion are tossed about.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Colon™
How to tell if commuting times wouldn't be even worse weren't it for the high density? The only firm conclusion you can draw, is that higher densities don't rule out higher commuting times, not that they aren't a mitigating force.

The only data available show that counties in the US with highest commute times are the high density counties.

Meaningless number if you don't consider the length of the line and how many people it will transport.

There are lots of parameters; not only those. Suffice it to say that as the density increases, the cost per mile increases.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by DanS
The only data available show that counties in the US with highest commute times are the high density counties.

Based on one city in which the county with the lowest commuting times is actually the most dense one.

There are lots of parameters; not only those. Suffice it to say that as the density increases, the cost per mile increases.

And as density increases, the mileage required also decreases. That's the whole point of higher densities.

I don't necessarily disagree that suburbanism is fundamentally cheaper and more practical to a lot of people, but you're not being very rigorous in your reasoning Dan.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Colon™
I don't necessarily disagree that suburbanism is fundamentally cheaper and more practical to a lot of people, but you're not being very rigorous in your reasoning Dan.

Well, I was just discussing things (and thought that everybody would see that it was evident) -- I live in the city for many reasons, after all. Then some people started saying things devoid from a grounding in reality that had to be refuted in a pinch.

Don't blame me.