From time to time I read posts here elaborating on the disparity between the amounts that government spends helping various modes of transportation.
I found the following in the Congressional Quarterly Roll Call publication for today:
"Federal, state and local governments spent $165 billion on highway infrastructure in fiscal 2014. That’s more than the $65 billion spent for mass transit, $38 billion for water transportation and infrastructure, $36 billion for aviation, and $3 billion for rail. "
Sourced here: http://www.rollcall.com/news/A-Trust-Fund-That-Sprang-a-Leak-241397-1.html
Funny that even sacred cows now seem to be scraping the botton of the (pork) barrel. Where is all the money we send those clowns actually going to?
Convicted One Funny that even sacred cows now seem to be scraping the botton of the (pork) barrel. Where is all the money we send those clowns actually going to?
Blowing up mud huts in Pakistan and pickup trucks in Iraq, with projectiles that cost 5-10 times the value of what they destroy. That's FOB the factory door, and doesn't include shipping and handling...
Chuck
tomikawaTT Convicted One Funny that even sacred cows now seem to be scraping the botton of the (pork) barrel. Where is all the money we send those clowns actually going to? Blowing up mud huts in Pakistan and pickup trucks in Iraq, with projectiles that cost 5-10 times the value of what they destroy. That's FOB the factory door, and doesn't include shipping and handling... Chuck
True enough, Chuck, but it also goes to way too many people who think the taxpayers owe them a living while they sit on their rear ends and do nothing productive. The money also goes to too many highly educated idiots who come up with goofy research projects to keep themselves employed, and too many pork barrel projects to benefit special interest groups who pay off Congress with campaign contributions, and the list goes on and on.
Note that highways are more than all of the others combined.
The $165 Billion for highways is about $500 for every man, woman, and child in the US; the $3 Billion for rail is about $10 per head (do the math for the other figures if you want).
For comparison, a car that goes 10,000 miles a year at 20 MPG will burn about 500 gals. of gas, about $1,500 worth at $3.00 per gallon (which probably includes various taxes to raise some of that $165 Billion for the highways . . . ).
- Paul North.
I wonder how the math works out on a per mile basis comparing roads and rails? There's a couple hundred thousand miles of rails, maybe a couple million miles of highways?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
A recent 2-lane rural road "recycling" project in northern PA that was written up as supposedly being really economical cost about $600K per mile = $120 per LF. A pretty good single track can be built for about that cost (both on an existing right-of-way and grading, no bridges, etc.).
Just out of curiosity, let's say 2 lane highway runs parallel to a rural, single track rail line. If they both cross the same creek while crossing a fairly flat prairie, how would the bridge costs compare?
Roughly the same, for spans of less than - say, 40 ft.
The 2-lane highway bridge will have to be designed and built for the heaviest axles of 2 fully-loaded tractor-trailers - 1 in each lane. The rail bridge will have to carry only 1 track's worth of heavy rail loads, but that will still be the equivalent of 4 or 5 tractor-trailers.
But, the load-bearing deck of the rail bridge can be quite a bit narrower - just enough for the track (only) if an open-deck bridge, a little wider if a concrete ballast deck is used - but still way narrower than the 2-lane highway bridge with shoulders, plus the cost of safety parapets ("Jersey barriers"), etc.
As a result, the "dead load" (weight of the empty bridge) of the two bridges might not be too different. However, the "live load" will be much higher for the rail bridge - that's one of their defining characteristics, the ratio of live load to dead load is staggering higher than for highway bridges - which is one reason any rail bridge in good condition can carry multiple lanes of highway loads with no problem.
The next level down - the supporting members, or "superstructure" - will obviously have to be stronger for the rail bridge. But for a short span such as this, the 'shear'* load and stress and certain practical minimum size requirements probably control; the 'bending moment'* load and stress probably don't control the sizing. Likewise, the rail bridge will be fine with just 2 main members right under or very close to the rails; but the highway bridge will require multiple members for that wider deck (this is just like floors and joists or roof and rafters, Murphy).
(*- Shear and Bending Moment are terms of the structural engineering profession and trade, and would take too long to explain here; an internet search would likely turn up a good diagram and explanation.)
Finally, the piers and abutments will be certain minmum sizes for stability and water flow resistance, unless the soils are really bad. Those are usually just mass concrete, and only a fraction of their capacity is being used, so that's not a real significant cost difference; again, the highway bridge being wider, will need probably 2 to 3 times as much as the rail bridge.
If the bridge span were much longer - say, over 80 or 100 ft. - or double-track, then the rail bridge costs would rise far more quickly than the highway bridge. I would not be surprised to see a rail bridge at double the cost of an equal-length highway bridge for 'clear spans' of up to 300 ft. +/-, triple at up to 500 ft., and 4 times or more at up to 1,000 ft. (hasn't been one of those built in decades).
- Paul North. (P.E., and currently ranked 1st in the PA Civil Service list for Civil Engineer-Bridge in the Phila. [6] and Harrisburg Districts [8 and Central] of PennDOT, 2nd in the Lehigh valley District [5] ).
Timber pile bridge (open or ballast deck) is cheaper and lasts 40+ years, minimum.
A lesson in electoral math:
How many voters use the roads and highways, including just the trucker pop?
How many angry rail workers would withhold their votes if the government told them there's just no more dough....sorry, but we have to give it to the others?
selector A lesson in electoral math: How many voters use the roads and highways, including just the trucker pop? How many angry rail workers would withhold their votes if the government told them there's just no more dough....sorry, but we have to give it to the others?
Question. Is itn a subsidy if the money spent comes from taxes and fees directly related to the mode of transportation?
The majority of highway funding at both the State and Federal level comes from the taxes and fees paid by the highway user.
The majority of funding for rail transit is from from sources not directly related to rail transit, like sales taxes, property taxes and from highway revenue sources.
Local road funding comes from a number of sources including property taxes, sales taxes, private developers, State and/or federal highway funding.
---Regarding road and highway financing from businesses and developers. They may pay for the construction of the new roads. They also may pay for the reconstruction of portions of existing roads or highways (projects range in size from minor widening to freeway interchanges) and/or pay impact fees for their new facilities and developments.
The majority of freight rail funding is private.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
This list is incomplete. Where are the funds for bicycle pathes, rail trails, transportation museums, etc.
Of course I am only refering to transportation funds. The other things people are citing in here come from a different pocket.
Then there is the waste. Before I retired, I takled to two diffferent work crews. One was a city DOT who was installing a $50,000 traffic signal at the end of my low traffic volume street, and the other was a town DOT that was tearing up and repaving a road that had nothing wrong with it. Both gave me the same explaination. "It is almost the end of the fiscal year and we have unspent federal money. If we don't spend it we will have to give it back. If we give it back, they will give us that much less next year."
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
The problem isn't how much is spent as much as it's what we get for it. i.e. cost per ton mile or passenger mile.
Articles that compare gross amounts spent on infrastructure are useless unless they mention the producton of that infrastructure.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Norris, you completed the argument....thanks. An ignorant, or a distracted, electorate is always more malleable than an educated one.
oltmannd The problem isn't how much is spent as much as it's what we get for it. i.e. cost per ton mile or passenger mile. Articles that compare gross amounts spent on infrastructure are useless unless they mention the producton of that infrastructure.
Very true. Nothing would make the alternative more stark than to lose the services of the rails and have all that capacity absorbed by the 'infrastructure'.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.