High Speed Rail in the US

[Asher]

Unless you live right next to a subway station or right next to an express bus line that picks up every 5 minutes and goes right where you need to go, a car or cab will be the quickest way to get there in the vast majority of the US. Definitely 95%+.

That's a bunk number. Cities with subway lines develop lots of high-density housing around such subway lines. I have to imagine that alone is 5% of the population.

[DanS]

Part of the reason is that even in dense urban areas, our construction is all in the era of the automobile and our infrastructure is still built to support cars as a primary factor. We could be accused of massively overbuilding our infrastructure for cars.

In much of the world -- even the first world -- cars are actively discouraged, are an afterthought, or are not practical for other reasons.

[DanS]

That's a bunk number. Cities with subway lines develop lots of high-density housing around such subway lines. I have to imagine that alone is 5% of the population.

Not too much of the US is served by subways. And even those that are, it's still faster with cars in most instances.

Look, this isn't like I'm not speaking from experience. I live a 10 minute walk from 2 subway stations. Buses stop at my front door every 3 or 4 minutes. Yet it's quicker to hail a cab at the corner in most instances.

[Asher]

Just for Ben:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Private+money+high+speed+rail/1762614/story.html

Report to outline benefits of Alberta high speed rail

CALGARY - Albertans could travel between Calgary and Edmonton in as little as an hour on a high-speed train linking the province's two largest cities and Red Deer, reveals a provincial government report that will be presented today to a joint Alberta-federal Conservative caucus meeting in Calgary.

A summary of the report, obtained by the Herald, suggests the private sector would be keen to fund the system's construction and operation while the Alberta government would be responsible for assembling land for the potential rail line and five stations --one in downtown Calgary and another near the city's airport, one in Red Deer, and the final two in Edmonton--at its international airport, south of the city, and downtown.

Projected capital costs range from $3 billion to $20 billion, depending on the type of train chosen, according to the government-commissioned studies that assessed the feasibility and economic benefits of developing a more than 300-kilometre passenger line.

Alberta Transportation Minister Luke Ouellette will today present the studies'findings to his provincial caucus members and federal Alberta Conservative MPs when they gather for a closed-door meeting at McDougall Centre downtown. No decision has been made on whether to proceed with the project, sources said.

However, both Ouellette and Premier Ed Stelmach have spoken encouragingly about high-speed rail in the past.

During last year's Stampede, Ouellette said he believed a high-speed train between Calgary and Edmonton was "inevitable."

Stelmach first voiced his support in May 2007, saying a passenger rail link was "visionary," would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and ease future congestion on Highway 2.

Alberta's high-speed train

If the project goes ahead, there would potentially be five station stops from Calgary to Edmonton. - CALGARY-DOWNTOWN - CALGARY-AIRPORT - RED DEER - EDMONTON-AIRPORT - EDMONTON-DOWNTOWN

The Calgary-Edmonton corridor, which has seen an average annual growth rate of more than three per cent over the past decade, generates more trips per capita than any other transportation passage in North America.

In 2006, 10 million passenger trips were recorded between the two urban centres. The government's report, done by consulting firm Transportation Economics & Management Systems (TEMS), estimates that figure will triple in 45 years. The latest Canadian census pegged the corridor's population at 2.4 million, nearly three-quarters of the province's population.

Paul Langan, founder of the advocacy group High Speed Rail Canada, said now is an opportune time to build a high-speed train link in Alberta because it doesn't face the building constraints of a region such as the Greater Toronto Area.

He also suggested construction of the system would help stimulate the sagging provincial economy and create much-needed jobs during the recession.

"For Alberta the time is perfect because you don't have that sprawl yet that can make it difficult to implement," Langan said. "In Ontario it's so built up it's a real challenge."

The idea of a high-speed rail line from Calgary to Edmonton has been kicked around since 1972, but never pursued because of its high price tag.

An earlier government-commissioned study, released in 2004 by the University of Calgary's Van Horne Institute, forecasted the cost between $1.7 billion and $3.4 billion for a train system that could reach speeds upwards of 240 km/h. The report predicted there would be enough passengers to support the railway, suggesting a one-way charge of $48.

The Klein government, however, was not convinced the project could be built without significant government subsidies.

The province then began exploring the potential of a public-private partnership and commissioned new studies in 2006.

The TEMS report, which contains three documents, will be publicly released today. The Alberta government has been analyzing the documents since February 2008.

Lloyd Bertschi, president of the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association, said the issue of high-speed rail has not come up for debate at the organization.

Bertschi, major of Morinville north of Edmonton, said he personally wonders whether there would be enough riders to support the train link and whether the cost would feasible. Yet, he said there's no question the line would be a boon for the corridor.

A summary of the TEMS report indicates Albertans are more likely to use the train the faster it goes.

Four types of trains were evaluated, from the slower 200-km/h diesel electric train, which would take two hours to travel from Calgary to Edmonton, to the faster 500-km/h magnetic levitation train, which would deliver passengers to their destination in an hour.

Meanwhile a flight between the two cities takes about 45 minutes, not including airport waiting time. Travel by vehicle or bus takes more than three hours. Currently, about 91 per cent of passenger trips between Calgary and Edmonton are by vehicle.

The TEMS report summary also suggests a rail line is economically feasible and would generate as many as 7,162 permanent jobs and spark development growth around train stations.

The Alberta government has already bought land in downtown Calgary and in Edmonton that could serve as train stations. However, a lot more land would have to be assembled to build the line.

[KrazyHorse]

In much of the world -- even the first world -- cars are actively discouraged, are an afterthought, or are not practical for other reasons.

As long as most of the cost of building and maintaining roads is not covered by gas taxes and tolls (as is most certainly true in the US), the more important point is that cars are actually actively encouraged. Even when road costs are fully paid for by drivers, there are numerous other unpriced externalities (congestion, pollution etc) which, taken as a whole, constitute a massive subsidy for driving.

I would go so far as to say that this subsidy is one of the major economic issues I'd like to see fixed.

[Wezil]

Keep your hands off my car!

[Guynemer]

I would love to see high-speed passenger (and frieght, for that matter) rail come to the US. However, this country, psychologically and politcally, is not a country that can undertake such a massive infrastructure overhaul.

[rah]

Someone has to dream. And as long as we're going to piss a lot of money away on a bogus stimulous package we might as well get something out of it. Improved infrastructure or a high speed rail system would be best. At least then I won't thing the money was totally wasted.

[Guynemer]

'Tis a lovely dream, to be sure. But only a dream.

[rah]

There are a few corridors that would make sense. Once they're in place, connecting some of them would be the next logical step.

[DanS]

As long as most of the cost of building and maintaining roads is not covered by gas taxes and tolls (as is most certainly true in the US), the more important point is that cars are actually actively encouraged.

The cost of building and maintaining roads is almost entirely covered by gas taxes and tolls. It has not done so only for the last year or so.

[DanS]

However, this country, psychologically and politcally, is not a country that can undertake such a massive infrastructure overhaul.

Why would we want to?

[KrazyHorse]

The cost of building and maintaining roads is almost entirely covered by gas taxes and tolls. It has not done so only for the last year or so.

Can you please provide a source for this?

[DanS]

Sure...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090503525.html

Roughly $80 billion is spent per annum. A little over $40 billion is paid by the feds. The remainder is paid by the states, which have their own gas taxes.

[KrazyHorse]

Dan:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/qffinance.cfm

shows that fees collected (net of collection costs) by all levels of government compared to disbursements for roads is only 70-75% or so, year after year

So as far as I can see, this represents a major subsidy for drivers.

EDIT: links to specific years did not work