According to a piece in TRAINS Newswire for this date.
President Obama is going to push for a funding package for HSR to the tune of some $53 Billion dollars. His stated goal is to provide 80per cent of the country access to HSR by 2020.
There is a long Thread running concurrently under this topic 'Passenger' that is debating HSR. The referenced piece is alluding to Fred W. Frailey's contention that HSR is now a Dead on Arrival goal. Thus it seems as if the President is working to raise a Zombie (?) from its grave.
There is another discussion running on the topic TRANSIT referencing the projects in Louisiana (at NOLA) and in Minnesota (Minn./StPaul) to spend some $1.2 Billion dollars to fund a total of 13.5 miles of Light Rail and Trolley lines. The givenis that Heavy Rail is much more expensive per mile than the Urban Commuter Services; HSR by virtue of it's fully enclosed envelope of ROW and the need for crossing both over and under to be bridged makes it Very,Very expensive to Engineer, Buy ROW, and then Construct, finally to Operate.
My question is does anyone have any idea what this $53 buillion is going to buy? I realize that it is most probably just some "seed Money", but are their any guesses what a completed system might cost.
I would expect that the NIMBY's along the routes will do everything they can to stop it and make the legal costs virtually astronomical. Adding those costs to the finished product; any ideas as to final cost or bets that it would Ever be done?
I do not know if HSR is DOR. I do wonder if we would be better investing in MAGLEV instead. I believe Japan is getting ready to build a a long distance MAGLEV line, as they believe they have almost reached the maximum speed achievable with HSR.
I do not see how 53 bn is going to enable 80% of the US population within distance of HSR.
I will be very surprised if the president gets $53 bn for HSR. Now if he wanted to buy products offered by the "military industrial complex" he could spend as much as he liked.
Found this link to an article about HSR, I thought it migh be of interest here:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/gordon/389255
FTA: "...[BULLET TRAINS]They need dedicated, carefully engineered lines that might well run $50 million a mile to construct. That would be $20 billion for construction alone (ignoring minor matters such as tunnels under the Hudson River). If they sold 10 million tickets a year on that line, they would have to charge $100 per ticket just to cover the interest on the construction costs.Then there are the land-acquisition costs (which would be huge in this part of the country), the cost of the rolling stock, fuel costs, maintenance costs, labor costs, and so on. Unsubsidized, it would probably be cheaper for a party of six to charter a jet to fly from Boston to Washington than to take the bullet train..."
1. Isn't a little redundant to have several threads on the same topic?
2. If Pres. Obama had said the $53 bil. were going to rebuild infrastructure for our freight railroads, I wonder if the reaction would be the the same on this forum?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
samfp1943 My question is does anyone have any idea what this $53 buillion is going to buy?
My question is does anyone have any idea what this $53 buillion is going to buy?
The General Accounting Office audited a representative sample of the proposed high speed rail projects. It concluded that the estimated costs for the projects that it studied are iffy at best. If I remember correctly, it did not come up with a total cost estimate for all the projects.
The estimated cost for the California High Speed Project is approximately $45 billion, although it has a lot of wiggle room in it. Given the tendency of major projects to come in over budget, I would be surprised if they build it for $45 billion. Several months ago I worked up the true cost of the CHS Project, assuming that the $45 billion was a good base number. Adding in legal fees, investment banking fees, and interest on the debt, I believe the total cost of the project could top $78 billion.
The CHS Project is just one. Given the other potential candidates identified by the DOT, I can only conclude that $53 billion is a starter number. In any case, no one really knows what the vision for high or moderate speed rail would cost, in part because no one has laid out a comprehensive plan for the various projects on the planning boards or underway.
samfp1943 According to a piece in TRAINS Newswire for this date. President Obama is going to push for a funding package for HSR to the tune of some $53 Billion dollars. His stated goal is to provide 80per cent of the country access to HSR by 2020. There is a long Thread running concurrently under this topic 'Passenger' that is debating HSR. The referenced piece is alluding to Fred W. Frailey's contention that HSR is now a Dead on Arrival goal. Thus it seems as if the President is working to raise a Zombie (?) from its grave. There is another discussion running on the topic TRANSIT referencing the projects in Louisiana (at NOLA) and in Minnesota (Minn./StPaul) to spend some $1.2 Billion dollars to fund a total of 13.5 miles of Light Rail and Trolley lines. The givenis that Heavy Rail is much more expensive per mile than the Urban Commuter Services; HSR by virtue of it's fully enclosed envelope of ROW and the need for crossing both over and under to be bridged makes it Very,Very expensive to Engineer, Buy ROW, and then Construct, finally to Operate. My question is does anyone have any idea what this $53 buillion is going to buy? I realize that it is most probably just some "seed Money", but are their any guesses what a completed system might cost. I would expect that the NIMBY's along the routes will do everything they can to stop it and make the legal costs virtually astronomical. Adding those costs to the finished product; any ideas as to final cost or bets that it would Ever be done?
Amtrak's estimate for a "replacement" true HSR NEC is $117B. 15 miles of new double track RR from Newark to NYP including bridges, tunnels and a small stub end station in Manhattan is $13B. So, what does $53B buy? Not a whole lot. Certainly, not a network of 220 mph trains.
However, if it's used to do incremental things, like improve DC to Richmond, Richmond to Raleigh, Albany NY to Buffalo, Chicago to Detroit, etc, then it might be useful.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
schlimm 1. Isn't a little redundant to have several threads on the same topic? 2. If Pres. Obama had said the $53 bil. were going to rebuild infrastructure for our freight railroads, I wonder if the reaction would be the the same on this forum?
Professor:
Not too sure I would agree with your comment about redundancy on the Threads referencing HSR.
Your Thread startd with the comments about the recent accident in the former GDR region of Germany where the DRC[ Diesel Rail Car] was hit head on by the Freight , and the lack of a good functioning instalation of their PBZ ( Their model of PTC). The issue being ,In my reading; the seperation of HSR components sharing Rights of Way with slower services of Freight and passenger users.
HSR certainly , seems to be the safer service when run on dedicated ROWs. I have found the points of discussion of the State run (AMTRK operation) Passenger service to be a discussion of how a well run service can grow while serving the needs of the area it serves.
The HSR in California is a needed service and rovides the Inter-City links needed there. Their population density in the corridors served is enough to make the service a virtual puiblic utility for the citizens. It is apparently the other issues within the State of California and its finances that bring pressures on the CalTrans services.
To your second point; I'd venture to say you are correct, but the arguments would be the issue of government funding in a private enterprise environment.
To my posting of the HSR Thread. I would argue that the ultimate benefits to small segment of the poopulation would make the $53 Billion infusion to HSR to bring HSR to 80% of the population, a situation where the initial $53 B would be virtually just enough to build ourselves into a box of more and more spending; the argument being a sort of self fulfilling prophesy of we have alread spent 'X dollars' so to not continue that spending curve would be just throwing good after bad.
My feeling seems to be from reading about the issue of HSR and where it has been successful is there must be an environment for government action ( an ability to gain ROW with out the litigation, and an ability to use Eminent Domaine with out the constraints we have in this country). Funding through government resources without some of the constraints of the American system of government. And population densities that support HSR Point to Point services.
The threads I was referring to were:
1. Fred W. Frailey: The curtain goes down on U.S. high speed rail
2. Why Amtrak is worth continuing and improving
Your point about an environment in which routes can be obtained, etc. is a very important one that others (Phoebe Vet, I recall) have made as an explanation for dithering and inaction.
wairoa I do not see how 53 bn is going to enable 80% of the US population within distance of HSR.
Random statistic. 40% of North America lives within 500 miles of Harrisburg, PA.
If you define "within" rather broadly, say 100 miles, then if you do the Tampa - Orlando line, Charlotte to Richmond, Chicago - Detroit, NY - Buffalo, Eugene to Vancouver BC, and LA to SF - and maybe something in TX, you'd come pretty close. Most of this would be HrSR, though.
Some perspective:
$53B @ $2.2B = 24 B2B Stealth Bombers at todays prices, there are 19 in service today.
$53B @ $18B = 3 Seawolf Attack Submarines, the actual number built including development costs
Compare this -vs- creating a nationwide approach to creating a viable (basic-not even world class) HST system to drag some of us kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
How much public benifit are B2's against those high tech anti-radar goat shields in wherethehellarewe-istan? Seawolfs against Kalashnikov armed Somali pirates in rowboats....yeah right.
Have fun with your trains
vsmith Some perspective: $53B @ $2.2B = 24 B2B Stealth Bombers at todays prices, there are 19 in service today. $53B @ $18B = 3 Seawolf Attack Submarines, the actual number built including development costs Compare this -vs- creating a nationwide approach to creating a viable (basic-not even world class) HST system to drag some of us kicking and screaming into the 21st century. How much public benifit are B2's against those high tech anti-radar goat shields in wherethehellarewe-istan? Seawolfs against Kalashnikov armed Somali pirates in rowboats....yeah right.
The B2 was developed during the cold war (and the ones built were turned out almost 2 decades ago) so I'm not sure how that's relevant to discussing HSR investment in 2011...I kind of agree with you on the Seawolf, in that they were a cold war design that the Congress was convinced to build only 3 of "to preserve the submarine technology base"..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
carnej1 vsmith: Some perspective: $53B @ $2.2B = 24 B2B Stealth Bombers at todays prices, there are 19 in service today. $53B @ $18B = 3 Seawolf Attack Submarines, the actual number built including development costs Compare this -vs- creating a nationwide approach to creating a viable (basic-not even world class) HST system to drag some of us kicking and screaming into the 21st century. How much public benifit are B2's against those high tech anti-radar goat shields in wherethehellarewe-istan? Seawolfs against Kalashnikov armed Somali pirates in rowboats....yeah right. The B2 was developed during the cold war (and the ones built were turned out almost 2 decades ago) so I'm not sure how that's relevant to discussing HSR investment in 2011...I kind of agree with you on the Seawolf, in that they were a cold war design that the Congress was convinced to build only 3 of "to preserve the submarine technology base"..
vsmith: Some perspective: $53B @ $2.2B = 24 B2B Stealth Bombers at todays prices, there are 19 in service today. $53B @ $18B = 3 Seawolf Attack Submarines, the actual number built including development costs Compare this -vs- creating a nationwide approach to creating a viable (basic-not even world class) HST system to drag some of us kicking and screaming into the 21st century. How much public benifit are B2's against those high tech anti-radar goat shields in wherethehellarewe-istan? Seawolfs against Kalashnikov armed Somali pirates in rowboats....yeah right.
Just pointing out that similar amounts of money have been spent in the past without blinking, and similar amounts are and will be spent now and in the near future. Not many batted an eye at the B2s initially even though it was completly clear they were redundent given the collapse of the Soviet Union and the new nature of terrorist warfare, where the enemies deadliest technology is at the level of a cellphone.
Air travel in this country has become so unpleasant that tourists (foriegn and domestic) are staying away, people only travel by air when they have to, and I'm not just talking about TSA touching your junk, its the whole affair, lousy air service, lousy schedules, overbooked planes, no food service, paying for anything other than your ticket, I mean its awful, why are we tolerating this?
I will take Amtrack whenever I can, drive if its less than a days drive (+/- 500 miles) and fly only if its absolutly necessary. Having been on HSTs in Europe and experienced the incredible metro systems in London, Paris, NYC, Chicago and SF, I KNOW what good public transit looks like because I've experienced it firsthand. Europe has been built over for 2000 years, its way denser than here, same for Japan, yet they seam to have overcome the ROW issues to build dedicated ROWs that dont have to share trackage with freight trains which is a dam stupid way to run an HST system. Thats why I think an dedicated HST system, based on a national assessment of needs, is absolutly worth the price of 20 obsolete bombers.
vsmith carnej1: vsmith: Some perspective: $53B @ $2.2B = 24 B2B Stealth Bombers at todays prices, there are 19 in service today. $53B @ $18B = 3 Seawolf Attack Submarines, the actual number built including development costs Compare this -vs- creating a nationwide approach to creating a viable (basic-not even world class) HST system to drag some of us kicking and screaming into the 21st century. How much public benifit are B2's against those high tech anti-radar goat shields in wherethehellarewe-istan? Seawolfs against Kalashnikov armed Somali pirates in rowboats....yeah right. The B2 was developed during the cold war (and the ones built were turned out almost 2 decades ago) so I'm not sure how that's relevant to discussing HSR investment in 2011...I kind of agree with you on the Seawolf, in that they were a cold war design that the Congress was convinced to build only 3 of "to preserve the submarine technology base".. Just pointing out that similar amounts of money have been spent in the past without blinking, and similar amounts are and will be spent now and in the near future. Not many batted an eye at the B2s initially even though it was completly clear they were redundent given the collapse of the Soviet Union and the new nature of terrorist warfare, where the enemies deadliest technology is at the level of a cellphone. Air travel in this country has become so unpleasant that tourists (foriegn and domestic) are staying away, people only travel by air when they have to, and I'm not just talking about TSA touching your junk, its the whole affair, lousy air service, lousy schedules, overbooked planes, no food service, paying for anything other than your ticket, I mean its awful, why are we tolerating this? I will take Amtrack whenever I can, drive if its less than a days drive (+/- 500 miles) and fly only if its absolutly necessary. Having been on HSTs in Europe and experienced the incredible metro systems in London, Paris, NYC, Chicago and SF, I KNOW what good public transit looks like because I've experienced it firsthand. Europe has been built over for 2000 years, its way denser than here, same for Japan, yet they seam to have overcome the ROW issues to build dedicated ROWs that dont have to share trackage with freight trains which is a dam stupid way to run an HST system. Thats why I think an dedicated HST system, based on a national assessment of needs, is absolutly worth the price of 20 obsolete bombers.
carnej1: vsmith: Some perspective: $53B @ $2.2B = 24 B2B Stealth Bombers at todays prices, there are 19 in service today. $53B @ $18B = 3 Seawolf Attack Submarines, the actual number built including development costs Compare this -vs- creating a nationwide approach to creating a viable (basic-not even world class) HST system to drag some of us kicking and screaming into the 21st century. How much public benifit are B2's against those high tech anti-radar goat shields in wherethehellarewe-istan? Seawolfs against Kalashnikov armed Somali pirates in rowboats....yeah right. The B2 was developed during the cold war (and the ones built were turned out almost 2 decades ago) so I'm not sure how that's relevant to discussing HSR investment in 2011...I kind of agree with you on the Seawolf, in that they were a cold war design that the Congress was convinced to build only 3 of "to preserve the submarine technology base"..
I'll take'm one at at time:
1. Guns vs. butter. Sure. Maybe we should spend less on military hardware. But, why not just use the savings to reduce the deficit. Why is HSR at better idea than that?
2. Why do people tolerate lousy air service? It's ridiculously cheap! An people are flying like crazy! Nobody is ripping up runways or closing airports. People vote with their wallets and cheap beats comforts all the time. The most profitable airline is currently the one with the lowest fare and fewest fees - Southwest. They also feature "cattle drive" seating.
3. We built roads while Europe built transit. That's why the US cities are sprawled out and Europe's are less so. A good decision? You ask just about any American in 1955-1965 and they'd look at you like you were crazy if you suggested the freeways not be built! In hindsight - it doesn't look so clearcut. Lots of unintended consequences and the world moved under our feet. But, who knew?
4. Shared trackage. Is NOT a "dam" stupid way of getting in and out cities enroute. The Germans do it. The French do it. The Spanish do it that way. Urban ROW is expensive to acquire and expensive to build. If the trackage and station are already in place and serving commuter trains - USE IT! For the long high speed stretches, you absolutely have to have new ROW - existing routes have too many and too sharp curvature. HOWEVER, in many places you can get 80% of the bang for 20% of the buck if you start by doing HrSR.
The big question is, even if the money is allocated, will the FRA be able to get out of the way fast enough to allow any of it to be spent?
Don: Many good points. i will add that I have heard on the news that the airlines at O'Hare have now decided they don't want to pay for the airport expansion (already well underway) because they don't need it. Turns out there were over 100K fewer flights last year than the prior year. Now isn't that nice!! Wonder who will pay? The general taxpayers who may never even use that airport.
A) Amtrak's idea of HSR is 90 or 110 mph.
B) $53 billion is the 2011 request. There are 9 more years before 2020.
C) Nothing in the press release said anything about all new dedicated ROW.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
It's a total of $53B over 6 years with $8B for next year (on top of the $8B from the stimulus from last year). Its to be a mix of stuff, like they laid out about a year ago. Some 150-220 mph, some 90-125mph and some 79 mph stuff. They have names for each type of service that only DC could come up with...
schlimm Don: Many good points. i will add that I have heard on the news that the airlines at O'Hare have now decided they don't want to pay for the airport expansion (already well underway) because they don't need it. Turns out there were over 100K fewer flights last year than the prior year. Now isn't that nice!! Wonder who will pay? The general taxpayers who may never even use that airport.
oltmannd It's a total of $53B over 6 years with $8B for next year (on top of the $8B from the stimulus from last year). Its to be a mix of stuff, like they laid out about a year ago. Some 150-220 mph, some 90-125mph and some 79 mph stuff. They have names for each type of service that only DC could come up with...
I was close.
"Such corridors would be divided into three categories: "core express" for trains achieving speeds of between 125 and 250 miles per hour or more; "regional" lines for trains traveling between 90 to 125 miles per hour and "emerging" rail lines for passenger trains traveling as much as 90 miles per hour."
The HSR needed for passenger trains to average 79 MPH between endpoints. That is really all we need. That is feasible on a well-dispatched single track main. Unless the HSR provider owns the rails, it will never achieve a goal of 125 MPH. The NEC is the only area where the service provider is in charge of everything and it is mostly a four track main dispatched for the benefit of passenger trains and it still barely reaches HSR performance. We simply have to be realistic about what we call it and what we need to get people onto trains and off the roads. I've said it before, and no one has convinced me that I should think otherwise, passenger trains are needed in high volume, short time frame corridors. Leave everything else to someone who can figure out the routes and the frequencies to make money outside those corridors.
oltmannd Amtrak's estimate for a "replacement" true HSR NEC is $117B. 15 miles of new double track RR from Newark to NYP including bridges, tunnels and a small stub end station in Manhattan is $13B. So, what does $53B buy? Not a whole lot. Certainly, not a network of 220 mph trains.
Amtrak's $117B proposal was for a 30 year project that included projected inflation estimates over the 30 year period. I think if it was in current year dollars, it was around a $40 to $50 billion proposal. But it was more of a rough outline "Vision" than a concrete proposal. The Amtrak "Vision" included several very expensive components: a new station in downtown Philly under Market East with a 7.5 mile tunnel running under much of Philadelphia and a 11.8 mile tunnel under NYC with deep underground stations at NYP and Grand Central. Cut those back to something more reasonable - a new HSR station at 30th Street station with a new tunnel running under the river to North Philly and stick with the new NYP Gateway project with 2 new East River tunnels rather than a new deep 11.8 mile tunnel running from NJ under Manhattan to the Bronx - and it become more reasonable.
Other countries with much smaller GDPs than the US have built HSR without great financial difficulty. If we can keep the HSR projects from getting overly gold plated, the US can afford to build a lot of HSR corridors.
Those explanations certainly make rebuilding the NEC into a true HSR sound feasible.
Alan F oltmannd: Amtrak's estimate for a "replacement" true HSR NEC is $117B. 15 miles of new double track RR from Newark to NYP including bridges, tunnels and a small stub end station in Manhattan is $13B. So, what does $53B buy? Not a whole lot. Certainly, not a network of 220 mph trains. Amtrak's $117B proposal was for a 30 year project that included projected inflation estimates over the 30 year period. I think if it was in current year dollars, it was around a $40 to $50 billion proposal. But it was more of a rough outline "Vision" than a concrete proposal. The Amtrak "Vision" included several very expensive components: a new station in downtown Philly under Market East with a 7.5 mile tunnel running under much of Philadelphia and a 11.8 mile tunnel under NYC with deep underground stations at NYP and Grand Central. Cut those back to something more reasonable - a new HSR station at 30th Street station with a new tunnel running under the river to North Philly and stick with the new NYP Gateway project with 2 new East River tunnels rather than a new deep 11.8 mile tunnel running from NJ under Manhattan to the Bronx - and it become more reasonable. Other countries with much smaller GDPs than the US have built HSR without great financial difficulty. If we can keep the HSR projects from getting overly gold plated, the US can afford to build a lot of HSR corridors.
oltmannd: Amtrak's estimate for a "replacement" true HSR NEC is $117B. 15 miles of new double track RR from Newark to NYP including bridges, tunnels and a small stub end station in Manhattan is $13B. So, what does $53B buy? Not a whole lot. Certainly, not a network of 220 mph trains.
Financing charges, depending on how the project is funded, would cause the cost of the project to be considerably more than $117 billion. For example, using the U.S. Treasury long term average 10 year benchmark note rate, which is 6.6%, the cost of the project would be approximately $268 billion. If, however, the funding was secured at the current 10 year note rate, which is an abnormally low 3.74%, the cost would be approximately $194 billion.
These estimates assume the project comes in on time, which would be rare, and under budget, which would be a minor miracle. They also assume that the principal would be borrowed up front. However, in all probability, the project would be funded in phases, so the final cost could be somewhat higher or lower than my projections.
Most of the other countries that have built high speed rail have much higher personal income tax rates than the U.S. Moreover, none of their high speed rail projects, according to the GAO, as well as other sources, have been paid for or are being paid for fully by the users. They have required large infusions of government money to cover the capital costs and in many instances the operating costs.
Whether the U.S. can afford to build a lot of HSR is debatable. The current national debt is more than $14 trillion, which puts it near 100 per cent of GDP. In addition, state and local government debts add another $2.4 trillion to the debt stew. This brings the total government debt burden to 113 per cent of GDP, which has many knowledgeable financiers and economists worried, including yours truly. On top of the current debt burden, the nation is looking at approximately $55 trillion in unfunded liabilities, e.g. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, as well as unfunded federal and state government pensions.
Some folks might argue that this is a political perspective. It is not. How you deal with it is, but I have not put forth a view on how the country should deal with the debt. The debt numbers, by the way, are easy to determine and are rock solid. The unfunded liabilities, however, are a function of statistical projections and are subject to error. In fact, the Social Security Administration, as an example, has three unfunded liability projections. It uses the intermediate projection as opposed to the best case or worse case scenario.
Monday: Valentines Day 2011.
Fox News was reporting on a project for a NEW HSR line in California this morning. A line that has already been approved by voters in California.
An HSR line that would connect Sacramento to Los Angeles. A $40/$50 Billion dollar total to construct (initial estimates of cost). Most of the American population is aware that California is spinning towards a bankruptcy for its fiscal irresoponsibility over a number of years. They are assuming that the Federal Gov't. will bankroll the project.
The interesting part of the story is that California wants to build the first sixty or so miles of the HSR double tracked line between Baker California and Corcoran, Calif.
Baker, Ca. a link here to Information on Baker : http://digital-desert.com/baker-ca/
FTL; "...The community founded in 1908 and was named after R.C. Baker, Tonopah and Tidewater Railroad president. Baker was developed later to provide gasoline and services in the remote desert area along the highway between Las Vegas and Barstow..."
Corcoran, Ca.
Population figures are all over the scale from about 16,000 to 20,000 and the local industry seems to be the Men's Prison that was built to house 3300 inmates but whose actual population is somewhere north of 5500.
Not exactly a roaring population to support a HSR new line (?)
This is the link to the video of the News Story:
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4510557/is-calif-bullet-train-proposal-fiscally-irresponsible
"Is Calif. Bullet Train Proposal Fiscally Irresponsible?"
Jan 25, 2011- 3:29 -
Is this reality or insanity?
The first link in the Central Valley is either very logical or not very well though out or downright stupid, depending how they go about it.
Logical: It's cheapest to build in rural areas and speeding up any portion of the trip will reduce the trip time equally, so why not do it where it's the cheapest to build?
Not very well thought out: So, you have this high speed link in the LA to SF route? How do you use it? Do you reroute the San Joquins over it at 110 mph? Do you have passenger transfer from on train to another? Do you build out temporarily to do an accross the platform transfer? Do you facilitate the transfer with shuttle buses and checked baggage? Do you leave the passengers to fend for themselves? What?
Stupid: By not resolving the FRA interoperability issues, you leave the HSR line only loosely connected to the existing rail and air transport in the state and you leave the line open to incurring huge construction costs in the urban/suburban portions of the route.
The devil is in the details...
Additional items to Oltmannd's post
Logical; The need for a long test track is very much needed. The TTC in Pubelo does not have enough straight track (or at least mnimul curves) to properly test trains. If money runs out sometime in the future there will be long streaches of HSR and only the approaches to any city will be left out at first (yes timing will be longer but will be less than present times. The final miles will always be most expensive and slower to build. Hopefully there will be connections to present AMTRAK routes as available to reduce travel times. Connections will be needed anyway to bring in rail and other final construction items.
With the Florida Governor rejecting Tampa-Orlando high speed money, one wonders how far the auto and oil barons are into the pockets of government. Let's build more highways and buy more foreign oil!
The auto barrons? Two out of three "American" auto companies are Oboma Motors, specificaly created to protect union jobs, maintain high vehicle prices, and reelect Democrats using your tax money to accomplish these crucial national goals.
Mac
Do I hear politics?
petitnj With the Florida Governor rejecting Tampa-Orlando high speed money, one wonders how far the auto and oil barons are into the pockets of government. Let's build more highways and buy more foreign oil!
Am I to read into your post that the primary reasons to build passenger rail and especially HSR is to substitute for highways and to import less oil? If so, how much, in rough round numbers, do you propose to spend, how many highway lanes will it replace, and what is the saving in oil?
Using the Vision Report as a guidepost, spending half a trillion on rail would increase Amtrak from the current .1 percent of (mainly auto) passenger miles to a full 1 percent. The Vision Report would be some electric HSR but mainly Diesel near-HSR (110 MPH and 79 MPH) trains, and it assumes a train ride would use half the oil of an auto trip.
Autos use is about 40% of the 20 million barrels per day of US domestic oil consumption. A saving of half of one percent of that amounts to 40,000 barrels per day or 730 million barrels over the 50 year life of the plan. At, say, $100/barrel, the Vision Report plan would hence spend 500 billion on trains to save 73 billion dollars on imported oil.
I am asking in all seriousness, is it the auto and oil barons who are thwarting rail or is it the expense of the rail proposals?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Governor Scott wants to strengthen the economy of Florida the old fashioned way where you attract businesses by offering a low cost business environment. He says they need to spend money on port improvements in order to step up industrial trade with South America. He does not believe that spending money on an unnecessary train is the way to create jobs and build the economy.
I doubt that Florida could have raised their portion of the money for the Tampa-Orlando HSR line. On top of that, there would probably be an operating deficit bleeding the state forever. News reporters recently rode a bus and the Amtrak train from Tampa to Orlando. Both were only slightly slower than the planned HSR schedule, and the fares were a lot cheaper than the planned HSR fare.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.