Posted on 10/30/2009 6:26:47 AM PDT by Willie Green
Eight billion dollars isn’t enough — not nearly enough.
It’s not often you’ll hear this newspaper make a statement like that. Usually we are urging fiscal restraint.
But if this country truly wants high-speed rail, we’re going to have to get serious about the effort. Eight billion dollars won’t get us there.
That’s the amount of federal stimulus money promised by the Obama administration for high-speed rail.
Already the administration has received requests from 24 states for projects amounting to $50 billion in high-speed projects.
It also has received $7 billion in requests from states wanting to improve rail travel at less than bullet-train speeds. Virginia is among them, seeking money for faster passenger service from Petersburg to Washington.
Projects such as this to increase train speeds to 90 mph may be useful. But they do not catapult this country into achieving high-speed rail. Bullet trains can achieve 220 mph.
A dedicated, never-say-die effort to build a high-speed rail network would revolutionize this nation. It would bring distant portions of this sprawling land closer together. It would knit communities and commerce.
Rail service on this scale would achieve the goals that many mass-transit advocates say they want: Saving money and reducing pollution.
Rail service at the efficiency and speed of bullet trains would indeed lure people away from automobiles and onto trains. Many mass-transit proposals of the current age fail to do that because the traveler’s savings in time or money aren’t sufficient to overcome the flexibility and freedom offered by the auto.
In fact, there is a plan for true high-speed rail.
The U.S. High Speed Rail Association envisions a vast network of 17,000 miles of track accommodating 220 mph bullet trains. Full buildout would occur by 2030. By 2020, Virginia would have its high-speed link from Raleigh, N.C., to Washington, D.C., via Richmond. (Our tweak to the plan: Add a corridor from Richmond to St. Louis paralleling Interstate 64.)
Could we do it?
To paraphrase the Obama campaign, yes we could.
We could have done it with federal stimulus money already approved, if we had dedicated the funding.
Total approved federal stimulus funding: $787 billion.
Total estimate for the high-speed network: $600 billion.
And, remember, the $600 billion is a 20-year cost. The rail association thinks only $150 billion would be needed to start the project.
Imagine if President Obama had used his political capital upon taking office to declare that this nation would embark on the greatest public works project since the interstate highway system was built.
Suppose he had persuaded Congress to put its muscle behind this vision. Suppose he had inspired American citizens and won the support of businesses with the dream of true high-speed rail.
Suppose he had channeled stimulus money toward one, great, job-generating program, instead of many smaller ones. We might already be on our way.
No, $8 billion isn’t nearly enough. But commit enough money, and we will position ourselves at the start of a grand new national venture … and adventure.
The worst part of deals like this isn’t the initial capital it needs. It’s that you are adding tens-hundreds of millions in government spending to subsidize it every year from now on forever.
As far as I’m concerned, the can have the $8 Billion after this country is fixed. Until then, stop all unnecessary spending.
Utter nonsense
OH geez, not this sh*t again. Do you want to guess why this country doesn’t have bullet trains like Japan and Europe? Its because we are freaking continental country - size and population density matters. Imagine if we don’t spends billions upon billions playing Thomas the Tank Engine and instead lowered and flatened our tax rates and invested in knowable energy sources (Coal, Oil, and Nuclear)where would we be in 20 years? Running the credit card up for a new train set for dems to play urban designer is rediculous.
Oh, but Arnold's buddies (a bunch of Democrats) in the real estate racketeering business wouldn't make as much money.
No. For the most part, widening I5 is only a matter of adding concrete. The bridges are already wide enough. Freeway lanes are far less subject to union extortion and terrorism. We will NEVER see the cost recovery in energy for construction of high speed rail.
Besides, a bullet train on unstable marine alluvium is an engineering nightmare. I'd bet that after only five years they'll have to start backing off on the speed, just like they did with BART.
If it is so good, why is everyone seeking money, collected by government force, from OTHER citizens?
Hey, if it is good, then have a high speed train tax on high speed trains. Just like cars and trucks pay highway taxes on the gas they consume.
While were at it, how about a low speed, sail powered national barge systems with locks and such? Eh, why that would be even ‘cheaper’ to the economy than just paying for highways, regular rail, high speed rail and with sail powered barges we would save even more!
(donkey cartways next.)
That's been the history of EVERY public mass transit system.
Here in Houston, our boondoggle Metro wastes enough that we could buy every user a brand new Mercedes every three years.
Our downtown Metro toy train, besides its 80 plus wrecks, has INCREASED downtown congestion, not improved it.
So what do our politicians want ? To piss away more of Metro's 1% sales tax money expanding the toy train system, in order to make Houston "a world class city".
Houston's become America's 3rd largest city in SPITE of this crap, not because of it.
"Just say no" to this further wasteful boondoggle.
“Utter nonsense”
No kidding. I guess he’ll have to tell FedEx and UPS they ain’t been going fast enough.
One could accomplish nearly as much with a high-speed bus lane on I5 with greater flexibility, far superior reliability, and at less than 5% of the cost.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is Not as Productive as Light Rail Transit
A study by the General Accounting Office (GAO) revealed that light rail vehicle was 15.5 percent less costly to operate than bus, all other factors being equal. Low floor light rail cars have a larger capacity than low floor buses of comparable length. The average capacity of a 40-foot low floor bus is only 37 seated passengers due to space that is taken up by the wheel wells which intrude on interior space that otherwise could be used for fare paying riders. While an articulated two-section low floor bus contains more seats, it will still have less capacity than a low floor light rail car. Unlike BRT, a light rail line can increase line capacity by adding more cars to a train, resulting in an increase in operator productivity. The only way to increase the capacity of BRT is to add more buses, each of which will require another driver resulting in higher operating costs.
IOW, every bus requires a driver on the union payroll.
Trains/light rail carry far more passengers and require fewer drivers.
In fact, some sophisticated and highly automated rail systems need no union drivers at all!
No kidding. I guess he’ll have to tell FedEx and UPS they ain’t been going fast enough.
They'll never go fast enough.
There will always be people who order something today and want it delivered yesterday.
Willie, in every Cost Benefit Analysis an assumption of demand has to be made. If your demand assumption is off on rail you cannot cut your cost model down to fit the actualized (real versus assumed) demand. Rail systems are extremely costly to install and bring with them a very high annualized fixed cost versus variable cost with them. If you don’t need to run 10 buses, but can satisfy demand with 5, your savings is in variable costs is on the order of 50%. Try this math model with a rail system and see how inflexible and costly your system is. Great fortunes have been lost on incorrect assumptions. If you assumed wrong on buses, you can easily sell the excess buses, but with trains, your biggest asset is you roadway, rails, and stations. Selling those aren’t so easy. Just ask the railroads that closed there lines and stations.
Has anyone been on the high speed train in Japan?
I have.
This whole $600 Billion idea will end up just like Houston, just like LA -— ever seen ridership on those? Ever seen a huge long empty train ? I have.
Did everyone read how each rider in Houston could own a new Mercedes every 3 years for what one train line costs ???
All part of the “You ride a bike while we ride in Limos” thinking of Washington DC, Hollywood, etc.
We are the slaves
They are the masters
And don’t you forget it.
Oh yeah ... and in Japan they use human Pushers to jam more workers inside the morning trains -— you have never seen anything like it, and would wish you had not seen it even once, or ever been it. Take it from me, it is a truly horrifying experience.
Thoughts of Soylent Green.
All other factors are NOT equal. A bus can take you closer to your point of destination. A bus can change routes with time of day. Multiple sized vehicles, including jitneys, can share the line.
The rest of your garbage presumes a full train or bus. They rarely are. In San Jose California, for example, the light rail system is the LEAST cost effective transportation mode in the nation with the highest cost per passenger mile.
You're full of crap, as usual.
“Could we do it?
To paraphrase the Obama campaign, yes we could.”
Gee...I wonder if this guy Willie Green is a Democrat.8 Billion here, 8 Billion there. So then we need to expand Homeland Security with all of this new transportation right? There’s another 1 Billion or so... I’ll ask my children if they want to support this because they are already in debt about 40k with the present debt we are running up.
I've stood on the platforms in the highest industrial traffic density areas in the region (such as Tasman Drive), photographing the passengers entering and debarking the trains at peak rush hour. I've never seen more than twenty people on a platform. Usually, it's about three. Considering the cost for the construction of the system, to argue that it represents an efficiency is preposterous.
Spending begets spending. That is an indisputable fact about the nature of government.
Question: Which is more efficient:
3 guys driving private cars directly to to work by the shortest route,....
Or...a bus with 3 passengers riding to the bus station where they eat donuts for 20 minutes and then board a second bus with 3 passengers on it to the final destination?
If the trains or busses are not full, you are LESS efficient, and in our geographically spread-out population, the demographics just don't work, except in the Boston-Washington corridor, and even there, it isn't all that effective.
Gee...I wonder if this guy Willie Green is a Democrat.8 Billion here, 8 Billion there. So then we need to expand Homeland Security with all of this new transportation right? There’s another 1 Billion or so..
No noobie, I am not a Democrat.
But a few more billion to complete the Fence along our Southern Border sure sounds like a "shovel ready" Homeland Security enhancement to me!
We could pay for it by slapping those NAFTA trucks with a 99% tariff and improve highway safety at the same time!
I’ll ask my children if they want to support this because they are already in debt about 40k with the present debt we are running up.
That's Jorge Arbusto's fault.
He's the one who plundered the Treasury to bail out the bankers who are "too rich to fail".
If the trains or busses are not full, you are LESS efficient, and in our geographically spread-out population, the demographics just don't work, except in the Boston-Washington corridor, and even there, it isn't all that effective.
Yes, there must be sufficient population density to justify construction of rail transit systems.
But I doubt that anybody would agree with your contention that the Boston-Washington corridor is the only region in our nation where there's enough population.
Heck, that region only contains 2 of our 10 largest US cities (NY & Philly)
Kalifornia has 3 of the Top 10 (LA, San Diego and San Jose)
And Texas also has 3 of the Top 10 (Houston, San Antonio and Dallas)
You shouldn't base your opinion on 1950's assumptions about our population.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.