High Speed Rail in the US

[KrazyHorse]

Back in the mid-90s the funding level got as high as 85% or so

Since 2001, it's below 75%

[DanS]

Strictly from a top-line consideration of it all (and not from the detail that we were discussing before, see below), those figures are correct. It should be noted, however, that other government revenue is increased by highways and some highway spending supports non-highway activities.

Subways increase government revenue in other ways as well, but high speed rail doesn't, at least directly. Rah's real estate values aren't going to increase because of high speed rail access to Chicago, f.e.

Regarding...

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)

I think you must concede that this isn't true, even under your calculations.

[rah]

But they will if highway 53 (the interstate section) is extended north.

[DanS]

Yup. Case in point.

[rah]

But I still think that in the long term, the US will be hurt by not having high speed rails. Granted it makes more sense in smaller countries like Japan and France. I work above union station in Chicago and personally see every day that Chicago is quite the rail hub and envision how much greater it could be.

[Dinner]

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.

I just skimmed the article as I'm trying to work instead of post but how much of that is passenger traffic instead of big rigs/trucks?

Edit: Never mind read the rest of the article. The answer is 10 million trips.

[Guynemer]

But I still think that in the long term, the US will be hurt by not having high speed rails. Granted it makes more sense in smaller countries like Japan and France. I work above union station in Chicago and personally see every day that Chicago is quite the rail hub and envision how much greater it could be.

As you said, for certain corridors it would make good sense: East Coast Boston-NY-Philly-DC, for example; West Coast Seattle-Portland-SF-LA-SD; Midwest Chicago hub involving (take your picks here) Detroit, St. Louis, Twin Cities, Columbus, Cleveland, Cincy, Indy, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh.

I agree that cross country rail travel doesn't make much sense in a country as large as the US, but regional networks like those could work well.

[KrazyHorse]

I think you must concede that this isn't true, even under your calculations.

Yup. I was both:

a) slightly wrong about how much of a gap there was (thought it was ~50% rather than 25-30%)
b) careless in my wording

But your claim that the roads basically pay for themselves is also wrong.

And none of this mentions the huge externalities from driving, especially in cities.

[KrazyHorse]

I would be sympathetic to using eminent domain to acquire the land required to build train links. But what argument is there for government control of the construction and operation? If these high speed rails are such a good idea then private companies should be able to undertake them. Especially for the northeast corridor and CA coast where the construction costs would only be a few billion dollars it should be possible for private enterprise to collect enough money to do it. Once the costs get into the tens of billions the private credit market begins to dry up, of course.

[DanS]

But your claim that the roads basically pay for themselves is also wrong.

I still would argue the point at both the detail and overall levels. In the end of the day, roads almost always pay. High speed rail almost always doesn't pay. At least in the States. I'm not anti-rail, but rather think that we need to be realistic about how good high speed rail is for us.

I agree on the externalities of driving, but think that (a) some aren't quite as big as you think; and (b) there are prospects for drastically reducing them with reasonable outlays and some forward thinking.

[rah]

Exisiting rail corridors will provide 99% of the land needed. Since moving freight faster isn't going to be a big money maker, most private companies won't see a good business case. The government, whether local or federal are the only ones that move any real quantity of passengers.

[KrazyHorse]

but think that (a) some aren't quite as big as you think

I think that they're actually HUGE, and that your familiarity with them is blinding you.

Did you read the study of externalities based solely on increased accidents? You're talking thousands of dollars a year per car in some of the more densely populated states.

Also, how about this one:

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/07/03/how-driving-a-car-into-manhattan-costs-160/

160$ in delays caused by ONE ADDITIONAL CAR south of 60th street on a typical weekday in Manhattan.

These are ENORMOUS numbers we're talking about.

By the way, I'd like to say that:

a) intercity highway driving likely has far lower externalities than city driving
b) intercity highway driving likely comes a lot closer to paying for itself in terms of simple road cost (due to tolls)

Pollution/global warming are actually far, far down on the list of externalities to driving, in my book.

[Spiffor]

Hey Ben. How fast does a 300km/h train go 275km?

To be perfectly honest, it would likely last a bit more than an hour, because of acceleration and deceleration time.

Moreso if you stop at some intermediate station.

However, it will continue to beat cars hands down, especially if traffic is congested.

Generally speaking, hi-speed rail makes good sense on trips that are between 200 and 1000 km.
Below that, slower trains and road-vehicles tend to be more efficient. Over that, planes bring much more comfort.

[KrazyHorse]

planes bring much more comfort

Have you ever been on a plane?

[KrazyHorse]

Dan, you should want to collect revenue from these sources. Getting revenue from Pigovian taxes which can offset regular taxes is win ****ing win. Both sides increase efficiency...