High Speed Rail

[il Padrino Ute]

(1) Did you include population growth into your calculations? Didn't think so.

(2) Did you include the cost of expanding airports/buying plains/infrastructure to and around airports to handle the population growth? Didn't think so.


Get back to me when you take into account all the externalities of the alternative modes of transportation and so we can have a true comparison.

But most importantly: trains = better quality of life.

You may stew in your hatred of the French, Il Pad, but trust me, they're not wasting a nanosecond of thought on you: they're happily riding their trains eating better bread, better cheese, better everything enjoying their countrysides out the train window, pulling into beautiful train stations, and conversing on interesting topics at a charming cafe on a cobble-stoned square at their destination city.

But enjoy your I-15 and trolling on IMDB about movies.

Trains are fine if people want to use them. But that doesn't take away from the fact that Parisians are snotty bastards.

And Italian food, cheese, etc is far superior to the French stuff.

[cowboy]

Do you know how highway construction stacks up next to rail? I've always assumed they are comparable as to cost over the life of a project and as to their level of subsidizing they receive. It doesn't matter much to me in the long run as, much like PAC's partner, I just like trains.

Oh and just to give an idea of what 2.5 B will get you: Denver is building about 120 miles of light rail and commuter rail at a cost of 6.5 B. This is up from 4.5B four years ago when it was approved by voters.

I found this:

The cost to construct one lane-mile of a typical 4-lane divided highway can range from $3.1 million to $9.1 million per lane-mile in rural areas depending on terrain type and $4.9 million to $19.5 million in urban areas depending on population size. However, in urban areas restrictions (high cost of additional right-of-way, major utility relocation, high volume traffic control, evening work restrictions, etc.) may increase the cost per lane-mile. If restrictions exist the cost to construct one lane-mile of a 4-lane divided highway can range from $16.8 million to $74.7 million.

Using your numbers, light rail costs $54 million per mile, which is comparable to two lanes of 4-lane highway through a moderately restricted urban area. The question then is throughput and convenience. How many passenger miles of capacity will the light rail system add compared to a two extra lanes of highway, and what are the convenience trade-offs between rail and highway?

[Moliere]

Having experience with both trains and the French I will just say the following:

- Trains are cool, and the really fast trains are really cool
- France is the perfect size and fit for trains. Taking a train from LA to SF would be the equivalent of crossing most of France.
- The US is not set up to have a coast to coast train system, thus I think it's smart to have something in place along certain corridors. The day someone wants to connect LA and NY with a high speed train is the day that person is officially declared stupid.
- The cost is outrageously high, but it will just get higher every year as more and more regulation and requirements are added on. The studies to do a train will cost billions so they should do it now and not wait until more studies and more federal beaurocracy is needed to get through.
- The French are snobs and they do smell bad in the summer, but I utterly hated American tourists when I lived in Paris
- Americans are the most arrogant, assuming, and pompous people I've ever met. They have no respect for another countries culture or lifestyle. I'm painting with a broad brush here so excuse me but for the most part it's true.

[dabrockster]

The 1.25 billion to get a railway from Tampa to Orlando is the biggest waste of money I have ever seen..


It like a 1 hour commute in a car.. Nevermind the fact they actually want 8 billion to develop a railway from Tampa to Miami "through" Orlando. That makes a lot of sense.. :slap:

Link:
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/...o-arrive-today

[New Mexican Disaster]

One word: Amtrak.

Took the Amtrak from Albuquerque to LA a month or so back with the wife and two kids. Probably the most pleasant journey I have taken. Certainly a hell of a lot better than driving, more convenient, more restful, and cheaper.

[il Padrino Ute]

One word: Amtrak.

[scandell]

I voted for this too.

My mom and dad live up in SanJose...and we live down in L.A. No brainer. I voted for something that I would enjoy and use....even though millions of others will never ride. MwhahahA!

[Moliere]

I'm not a fan of this, but whatever....

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_te...share_blogpost

[BigFatMeanie]

We're driving from SLC to Portland next month for my little brother's wedding. I figured it might be fun to take the train. I thought, "even if it takes 2 hours longer on the train it would still be nice because I wouldn't have to drive the whole time"

So, I checked the schedules and it turns out that a trip I can drive in 12-14 hours with potty stops takes 36 freaking hours on the train. Even just going from Sacramento to Portland, a 9 hour car drive, takes 16 hours on the train.

Why do we keep subsidizing Amtrak?

[Indy Coug]

We're driving from SLC to Portland next month for my little brother's wedding. I figured it might be fun to take the train. I thought, "even if it takes 2 hours longer on the train it would still be nice because I wouldn't have to drive the whole time"

So, I checked the schedules and it turns out that a trip I can drive in 12-14 hours with potty stops takes 36 freaking hours on the train. Even just going from Sacramento to Portland, a 9 hour car drive, takes 16 hours on the train.

Why do we keep subsidizing Amtrak?

Good question. I have tried on a few different occasions looking into a train option that would be even in the ballpark of the same time and price that a car trip or plane trip would take. It's never even been a close call. It was always more expensive than flying and significantly longer than driving.

[Moliere]

Good question. I have tried on a few different occasions looking into a train option that would be even in the ballpark of the same time and price that a car trip or plane trip would take. It's never even been a close call. It was always more expensive than flying and significantly longer than driving.

Yep, when you can fly from Houston to SLC for $300 a ticket and it takes 3 hours, how can you compare that to a 24 hour train ride at the same price? The proposed high speed rail lines (which are make believe in hte picture) wouldn't make that trip any easier.

[SoCalCoug]

The federal government spends more on highways in one year than it has spent on Amtrak in 40 years.

http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey...ing-last-year/

So it's not a huge money pit. On the other hand, maybe a little more investment in it could increase its efficiency.

I used to use the trains in Chicago - you could get almost anywhere in the city pretty efficiently without needing a car.

Maybe with a more efficient railway system, it would get used more. I'd have no problem taking a train to Utah, for instance, if it didn't take 36 hours and cost more than a plane ticket.

I've even used the train here in SoCal. I love taking it to L.A. when I have to go downtown. Lots of stops so I don't end up having to walk far. The only problem is there aren't enough trains going back and forth - if I go up in the morning, I'm stuck until the afternoon.

[BigPiney]

The federal government spends more on highways in one year than it has spent on Amtrak in 40 years.

http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey...ing-last-year/

So it's not a huge money pit. On the other hand, maybe a little more investment in it could increase its efficiency.

I used to use the trains in Chicago - you could get almost anywhere in the city pretty efficiently without needing a car.

Maybe with a more efficient railway system, it would get used more. I'd have no problem taking a train to Utah, for instance, if it didn't take 36 hours and cost more than a plane ticket.

I've even used the train here in SoCal. I love taking it to L.A. when I have to go downtown. Lots of stops so I don't end up having to walk far. The only problem is there aren't enough trains going back and forth - if I go up in the morning, I'm stuck until the afternoon.

I just wonder how efficient it is. Last year the ridership for all of Amtrak, in the whole US, was 32 million people. That is a lot.

The number of cars that drove, just passing by ALICIA PARKWAY, on I 5 in Orange county was 120 million in 2011. Even assuming that the vehicle occupancy was 1, that is a lot of people. So yeah, I can see why we would spend a lot more money on highways than rail.

[Uncle Ted]

I read a study that stated that rail only does well for routes that are 400 miles or less and these routes haul 80% of its passengers. Still it loses money on it seems every route.

[SoCalCoug]

I just wonder how efficient it is. Last year the ridership for all of Amtrak, in the whole US, was 32 million people. That is a lot.

The number of cars that drove, just passing by ALICIA PARKWAY, on I 5 in Orange county was 120 million in 2011. Even assuming that the vehicle occupancy was 1, that is a lot of people. So yeah, I can see why we would spend a lot more money on highways than rail.

Isn't it kind of a chicken or the egg argument? Highways and highway spending is much more efficient because so much has been invested in them over the century to make them so. Had as much effort been put into high speed and light rail, would it not have resulted in a much more efficient system?

So I guess there are two questions: (1) is it too late to start spending on rail; and (2) is it worth the investiment to hope for future efficient rail travel?