High speed rail

[snoopy369]

Well, see, Kid lives in Oklahoma. That's not the midwest. Thus I was confused (and didn't see his post above when I made mine)...

[Dinner]

Okie homo is the lower midwest.


BTW I was actually talking about Japher.

[snoopy369]

Oklahoma is the southwest. Only a Californian would say otherwise

The Midwest (according to Encylopedia Britannica:

[DanS]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Okie homo is the lower midwest.

How would you classify Texas?

[snoopy369]

I would classify Texas as Texas... It's both in the South and the Southwest, depending on which part you describe. It's even in two timezones ...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Are you talking about me, or Kid? I don't think I'm from California ... as far as I know ...

If you were you'ld definitely know it by the way you KICK ASS!

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by DanS


No optimism needed. What makes you think that we are into a long depression? That's what it would take in order to justify infrastructure spending under a stimulus plan.

What is going to replace all the consumer spending that was fuelled by debt?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Japher
1. easy
2. Disney
3. Disney to Bakersfield
4. Disney
5. Frogs, Some stupid owl, and maybe gays wanting to get married

Done.

Get Building!

Disney needs its parking area to build more rides.

(1) Begin down the road at Angel Stadium. Run north to L.A. Harbor and to the L.A. Airport, and then to Union Station in downtown LA. This will cover one of the heaviest commuter drives.

(2) L.A. Union Station to Bakersfield and then to Fresno. This will give the farmers in the Central Valley an inexpensive way to ship their goods to L.A. Harbor and from there to the world.

(3) From Fresno to SF. This will permit the rail line to complete against the airlines for the heavily commuted LA-SF route.

[pchang]

By this reasoning

Originally posted by DanS


The project has to make sense on a monetary basis. The passenger math presented is the most important factor, but there may be other factors at play.

As an example, I have been a supporter of subways in some cities, even though the passenger math is marginal, because subways increase real estate values, in turn increasing real estate tax receipts. Subways could even be a luxury, but still make sense from a local standpoint. (NB: But maybe not from a national level, so it doesn't make sense to go to the Feds with hat in hand too much.)

But sometimes they don't make sense at all, and the passenger math is a good indication of when this is so. For an extreme instance, you wouldn't put a subway system in a town of 5,000 people.

It would be worth it just for the property value improvements in places like Fresno and Bakersfield.

[DanS]

The catch is that those communities should then pay for the high speed rail. They are the ones benefitting, after all.

But I don't think intercity rail adds much in the way of land values, except in the rare situation.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DanS

But I don't think intercity rail adds much in the way of land values, except in the rare situation.

...like that little transcontinental railroad thingie.

[Dinner]

We've never had modern intercity rail in the US so how would you know? It certainly adds value in the rest of the world which has built modern intercity rail.

[Adam Smith]

I’ve been pretty busy at work with transportation infrastructure issues the last few weeks. Just a few items to pass along.

High speed rail is likely to work in the northeast (Boston to Washington), midwest (spoke system around Chicago), California. It might possibly maybe work in Texas and Florida with additional population growth and decent public transit on either end. Otherwise, forget it. The proposed system linking San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego would likely be very expensive due to the required tunneling under Tehachapi Pass. (High speed trains need straight tracks. Otherwise you get passenger-shaped holes in the sides of the cars.)

Most estimates of our infrastructure needs are too high. These estimates are usually generated by asking a bunch of self-interested experts, such as construction contractors, how much infrastructure we “need”. If you ask them how much we “need” and are actually willing to pay for at the going rate of interest, the answer is a lot lower. If you actually do some economic analysis, the answer is lower still. See Table 2.

Pricing infrastructure appropriately can reduce the needed investment even more. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that if we adopted widespread congestion pricing (which would shift rush hour drivers to other times, route, or modes) we could reduce the amount of investment necessary to maintain the transportation system at its current level of performance by 25 percent. That’s serious bucks. If we simply converted existing high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, which are often underutilized, into high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, which anyone can use at rush hour by paying a toll, we would save about half that.

Infrastructure spending can be used to provide employment in times of recession. BUT… timing is critical. Federal Highway Administration data indicate that only 27% of the typical highway project funding is spent in the first year. Which means if an economic stimulus bill passes tomorrow, three quarters of the money will be spent in 2010 and beyond. Some projects can be rushed through. But the prime example, the I35W bridge reconstruction in Minneapolis, cost 30% more to do quickly. Some projects just can’t be rushed. Proposed economic stimulus bills include money to buy locomotives for local commuter railroad operations. But the Boise, Idaho factory which produces the locomotives already has a two year order backlog. And some projects are just plain stupid. Some current proposals would start developing 79 mph speed rail service to places like Duluth, MN and Bangor, ME. Clearly those projects will never be economically viable. Amtrak is asking for $500 mil to repair old railroad cars to expand their capacity. But the cars can’t be used where there is heavy traffic because they are too tall to fit into Pennsylvania Station in New York.

The next transportation bill is due to be passed in 2009, which means it will probably pass in 2010, with money just starting to be spent in 2011. Proposed spending under this bill is more than we need. The best idea is to move some of this spending forward to be used as stimulus in the next year or so, and reduce the amount we spend later by a more than corresponding amount.

[Dinner]

Our trains will be 200mph+.

[Ecthy]

The main problem with rail is that each different type developed (suburban, underground, regular/intercity, nationwide) needs their own infrastructure to function as intended. It's a lot more charming for communities to invest in better roads and prep up road traffic.

That said, once a standard is found in regular rail (not speaking of monorail or maglev here), things can go pretty well since it's usually quicker, less noisy but also more expensive than road transfer. In speed it beats flying for short distances (depending on airport practices butthis should be a given for current standards in the anglo world), not so much in long distances so if you go from the east to the west from Chicago to LA then a plane will be quicker than a rail connection and good ol' route 66 will beat it as far as the expense involved is concerned.