IGX

Pinky wrote:

Terry B. wrote:The fact that the US doesn't have a widespread network should be an embarrassment.

I don't think people who seriously study costs and benefits of transportation projects agree with you. See, for example, this discussion by Ed Glaesar.

What really ought to be an embarrassment is how many people in the US selectively forget that the entire country is not just like the Northeast.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Glaesar is including land use, environmental impact, and regulatory assessment (ie time) costs in his analysis. From what I've seen, those are what make high speed rail so expensive. Not only that, but high speed rail costs are usually split between states and the federal government-- the feds usually pay based on the initial assessment; not the (always) more expensive revised one.

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:i suspect his objection is the allocation of public money that does not achieve a commensurate amount of public good. I can see this, it's often a private benefit.

AFAIK, Portland is one of the few cities that has done it well-- expansions received less and less federal funding (as a portion of total costs); the local transportation authority has broad authority; and they have found ways to use private donors to pick up costs for public good (I'm thinking about the route to the airport that allowed for a new mall along the route).

that was the one i was thinking of that performs well and has a lot of corollary private/public land value benefits .

I'm all for more rail jobs but it's got to be managed right and it needs to make money. Amtrack is a fucking joke.

Re Cali high speed rail:

Voters were promised a system from San Diego to Sacramento at a cost of $45 billion. Today, the project optimistically stands at $69 billion, but would link only San Francisco with Los Angeles.

Ridership was supposed to be 55 million annually. That's slipped to projections of 20 million to 25 million.

The opening date has been pushed back from 2020 to 2029.

Forecast ticket prices for the San Francisco-to-Los Angeles link have increased from $55 to $85.

The private sector was supposed to be the primary funding source. Thus far, it has promised nothing.

It's doubtful the system can meet the 2-hour-and-40-minute mandated travel time from San Francisco to Los Angeles.

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_2 ... d-rail-its

The current leg goes nowhere AFAIK. If Sen. Lamalfa is right, the actual cost will be more significant, with less benefit.

Ed Zachary wrote:I'm all for more rail jobs but it's got to be managed right and it needs to make money. Amtrack is a fucking joke.

that's the opposite of high speed rail....you guys should challenge amtrak to a race

Turdacious wrote:

Pinky wrote:

Terry B. wrote:The fact that the US doesn't have a widespread network should be an embarrassment.

I don't think people who seriously study costs and benefits of transportation projects agree with you. See, for example, this discussion by Ed Glaesar.

What really ought to be an embarrassment is how many people in the US selectively forget that the entire country is not just like the Northeast.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Glaesar is including land use, environmental impact, and regulatory assessment (ie time) costs in his analysis. From what I've seen, those are what make high speed rail so expensive. Not only that, but high speed rail costs are usually split between states and the federal government-- the feds usually pay based on the initial assessment; not the (always) more expensive revised one.

He might not list them in that article, but I think he's well aware of those costs. The costs of these programs are typically underestimated and the benefits are overestimated.

The fact that this shit gets subsidized at the Federal, state and local level makes light rail less unpopular than it should be. The pain is spread widely.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:i suspect his objection is the allocation of public money that does not achieve a commensurate amount of public good. I can see this, it's often a private benefit.

AFAIK, Portland is one of the few cities that has done it well-- expansions received less and less federal funding (as a portion of total costs); the local transportation authority has broad authority; and they have found ways to use private donors to pick up costs for public good (I'm thinking about the route to the airport that allowed for a new mall along the route).

that was the one i was thinking of that performs well and has a lot of corollary private/public land value benefits .

According to the always reliable Wikipedia, $3 billion had been invested into Portland's system as of 2004. Is there any evidence that Portland has or will recoup that investment? (It's apparently opporating at a loss now.)

Is there any reason to believe they're better off than they would have been if they had built a much cheaper network of buses, improved some other infrastructure and used the savings for schools or lower taxes?

Light rail = Boondoggle + warm hippy vibes.

You're calculating all the increased property values in that? if we are going to reduce everything to its pure dollar value as classic business venture we should at least track the money? No?

I accept that this is a reallocation of public money to private hands,of course...for which we should all be outraged!!!!outraged I say....!!!!!!

By the same token...is it not fair to at least compare the costs put into the construction and maintenance of the road and highway system serving those same households? using some reduced percentage of course to account for the limitations of the trips taken by rail versus the trips by commuter vehicle (the cost of owning,and maintaining needs to get captured somewhere in there)

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Terry B. wrote:I ride a high-speed rail on a regular basis - faster and less expensive than flying.

The fact that the US doesn't have a widespread network should be an embarrassment.

It is...but if you understood the disparate ways the west and east were developed, it would make a lot of sense. at this point, there is no sense whatsoever in putting one in that does not capitalize on existing infrastructure. the rail side of which still wields enormous power and is based on a model well over a century old. the interstate highway system is still a crown jewel of transportation and we treat it like a red headed stepchild

I don't think that anybody underestimates the value of the interstate highway system. A country that can build something of that magnitude half a century ago could certainly figure out a way to replicate what countries like Spain and China currently do. If anything, the US should take advantage of it and use it to put public buses on the road (far less expensive than any kind of rail).

I don't believe that people love their cars as much as they claim to, which is one of the reasons that most rail projects end up getting killed before they get off the ground. I openly hate driving and when you visit countries in Europe and Asia (what the US has on the east coast is far from being a high speed rail) you realize how fantastic such a system can be. However, most of the US hasn't figured out how to build a subway line that doesn't cost billions of dollars so nobody should have high hopes for anything more advanced.

Simply stating that I hate driving and like

T,

I didn't mean that in a snarky way..I really do think that many people especially in my industry underestimate the value of the grid we have. Without the trans grid,there is no property value as we understand it. It may have resulted in some of the worst in American neighborhoods and cities but it also some of the best. It is of inestimable value to commerce. It's why I prefer a more qualitative accounting of the alternatives and the costs.

I can understand the hatred of driving...personally autobahn speeds would cure everything i hate about it.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:T,

I didn't mean that in a snarky way..I really do think that many people especially in my industry underestimate the value of the grid we have. Without the trans grid,there is no property value as we understand it. It may have resulted in some of the worst in American neighborhoods and cities but it also some of the best. It is of inestimable value to commerce. It's why I prefer a more qualitative accounting of the alternatives and the costs.

I can understand the hatred of driving...personally autobahn speeds would cure everything i hate about it.

I agree on the "existing infrastructure" comment. China, for example, is investing heavily in high speed rails, as Obama frequently points out but the fact is that they have a rather developed rail network already though their roads are as bad as any you could imagine.

Pinky wrote:

johno wrote:Sound Transit. Research the cost per passenger per mile.

Charlotte and Atlanta also come to mind.

Buses are almost always a better deal. They require less initial investment, are cheaper to maintain, are more flexible and carry more riders.

The light rail in Charlotte and Atlanta are boondoggles for the same reason - they didn't take into account sprawl. In both cities the vast majority of the population lives 50 miles outside of the city centers and commute in every day. Atlanta has 4 million metro area residents and 400k live in the city limits.

The light rail the MARTA does have goes from the airport through every ghetto in the goddam city before it get to anywhere a decent white person wants to be. And we have a single east/west and a single north/south line for the whole city. Trains run every half hour if you're lucky. And it's $2.50 just to ride the fucking thing.

The smarter idea when MARTA was being thought up back before Atlanta's population explosion would have been medium rail from the far suburbs into a central city station. Have medium rail from Macon in the south, Augusta/Athens in the east, maybe as far as Chattanooga north, and Birmingham or Columbus to the west. Get the long distance commuters into the city by rail, then have MARTA trains spoke out from the center of town out to the neighborhoods. This could have easily been done back in the 60's and 70's when Atlanta started exploding. But now we have idiots sitting in their cars on I-75 for 3 hours a day trying to commute from fucking BFE into the city along with every other asshole who wants a job but doesn't want to live with the undesirables that infest this shithole.

Pinky wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:i suspect his objection is the allocation of public money that does not achieve a commensurate amount of public good. I can see this, it's often a private benefit.

AFAIK, Portland is one of the few cities that has done it well-- expansions received less and less federal funding (as a portion of total costs); the local transportation authority has broad authority; and they have found ways to use private donors to pick up costs for public good (I'm thinking about the route to the airport that allowed for a new mall along the route).

that was the one i was thinking of that performs well and has a lot of corollary private/public land value benefits .

According to the always reliable Wikipedia, $3 billion had been invested into Portland's system as of 2004. Is there any evidence that Portland has or will recoup that investment? (It's apparently opporating at a loss now.)

Is there any reason to believe they're better off than they would have been if they had built a much cheaper network of buses, improved some other infrastructure and used the savings for schools or lower taxes?

Light rail = Boondoggle + warm hippy vibes.

Portland's system is not necessarily well run, it's just more economically run than most light rail system while delivering subsidized service to the politically favored class it serves.

IMO Portland's problems started when they decided to dig under an East Coast sized mountain than to go around it. Portland's light rail, during it's 'better than everywhere else' years, tended to go almost exclusively through middle class white neighborhoods.

I'm not sure buses are much better: there's a stigma to them (they're for poor people!!!); union contracts; ADA requirements; and green lobbying.

Turdacious wrote: Portland's system is not necessarily well run, it's just more economically run than most light rail system while delivering subsidized service to the politically favored class it serves.

But Portland's system is given as an example of a successful light rail system. Is there any reason to believe that the billions of dollars spent on its system have yielded billions of dollars in benefits to anyone?

I'm not sure buses are much better: there's a stigma to them (they're for poor people!!!); union contracts; ADA requirements; and green lobbying.

There is a stigma to buses, but they still move more people at lower costs (maintaining roadways is cheaper than building rail). My understanding is that they consistently remove cars from the road, while light rail does not.

I'm all for rail and infrastructure. But let's remember how broke we are in California. Unless the PUBLIC passes a budget measure on the November ballot, the school year will likely be cut by another 3 weeks-we already have one of the shorter school years.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-5 ... hool-year/

The current administration is incapable of making hard choices and actually governing the state, but splashes money around on projects like rail with no shame.

In Baltimore, ridership on the normal, for pay bus routes was declining, so the solution was to start a competing, free bus service. It happens to focus mostly on downtown.

Pinky wrote:

Turdacious wrote: Portland's system is not necessarily well run, it's just more economically run than most light rail system while delivering subsidized service to the politically favored class it serves.

But Portland's system is given as an example of a successful light rail system. Is there any reason to believe that the billions of dollars spent on its system have yielded billions of dollars in benefits to anyone?

Are you arguing against subsidizing the middle class? Why do you hate America?

Pinky wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

I'm not sure buses are much better: there's a stigma to them (they're for poor people!!!); union contracts; ADA requirements; and green lobbying.

There is a stigma to buses, but they still move more people at lower costs (maintaining roadways is cheaper than building rail). My understanding is that they consistently remove cars from the road, while light rail does not.

I confess ignorance about the validity of the numbers on car removal and pollution re light rail and buses-- although I tend not to trust them.

Buses are likely significantly cheaper (won't dispute that), and they have more route and schedule flexibility. Given the federal subsidies for both buses and light rail, I'm not sure how the economics actually work out at a state and local level.

I'd be perfectly comfortable with: allowing flexibility in ADA requirements (or at least make it a funded mandate); bus 'credits' based on income (similar to carbon trading schemes); and raising long term parking rates in downtown areas. The only federal involvement would be regulatory flexibility-- no subsidies for either buses or light rail except maybe in areas of concentrated urban poverty. Nobody asks me though.

johno wrote:I'm hoping we're only a decade from computer-controlled cars, esp. on gridlocked freeways.

We can't even fix potholes.