Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
Clearly, the case for each high speed rail project needs to be examined on its own.  Moreover, the definition of high speed rail needs to be agreed.  Whether one means a 220 mph train or a 125 mph train is important.  The costs are dramatically different.<o:p></o:p> The GAO's findings tend to support Samuelson's universal views.  That is to say, they came to similar conclusions regarding the projects that they reviewed, i.e. most of them overstated the benefits whilst understating the costs.<o:p></o:p> The projected cost of the California High Speed Rail Project (CHSRP), including weighted average financing charges, is approximately $206 million per mile.  This is the average construction cost per mile.  Clearly, construction costs in the metro areas to be served would be much greater than in the country.  These numbers assume the project comes in on time and within budget.  If it does, it will be a rare happening.<o:p></o:p> The cost to construct <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Texas</st1:place></st1:state> 130, which is limited access four lane toll road, was approximately $31 million per mile.  It goes around <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Austin</st1:place></st1:city>, so it is not a fair comparison of what it would cost to expand highway capacities in the LA or SF areas, but I would be surprised if expanding them would cost anything like $206 million per mile.  <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Texas</st1:place></st1:state> 130 was built from scratch, whereas expanding many of the nation’s highways would mean adding a lane or two.  Or in the extreme double decking the highway, which is what was done in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Austin</st1:place></st1:city>.  In either case, I doubt that it would take $206 million a mile to get the job done.  <o:p></o:p> The projected cost to implement NextGen, which is the planned satellite air traffic control network, is approximately $22 billion.  In other words, the FAA will be able to greatly expand the nation’s air traffic control system capabilities, with realistically projected benefits, for about half of what will be required to build the CHSRP.<o:p></o:p> Moderate speed passenger rail (110 to 125 mph or even 150 mph) makes sense where the cost of constructing alternative transport systems, i.e. airways and highways, is cost prohibitive.  Building high speed passenger rail so that we can say that we are in the game does not make good economic sense.  But I admit that it is good politics.  <o:p></o:p>
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag