Link: TRANSPORTATION Blog | The Dallas Morning News
California high-speed rail route extended to reach Las Vegas; What about Houston?
4:25 PM Thu, Jul 02, 2009
Michael Lindenberger/ReporterIf Harry Reid can convince the Obama Administration to extend the California high-speed passenger rail corridor eastward to Las Vegas, why can't one of our folks in Congress do the same to get connect the route that runs west to Houston to the one that runs south through Austin?
I suppose the answer is that the majority leader lives in Nevada, not Texas. But with a vice president and two out of the three
Here's the release from the U.S. DOT:
* Secretary LaHood Announces Extension of California High-Speed Rail Corridor to Las Vegas
* U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, along with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, key members of the Nevada labor community, business leaders and other elected officials, announced today an agreement between the states of California and Nevada to extend the California High-Speed Rail corridor from the Los Angeles area to the Las Vegas.
# "The extension of the California corridor is another great example of regional cooperation, which will be critical to transforming travel in America and the creation of a national system of high-speed rail lines," said Secretary LaHood. "We will continue to encourage new and innovative partnerships like this one. We believe that the development of regional high-speed passenger rail systems will create jobs, spur economic development, and provide positive environmental benefits for all Americans."
#
# Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid praised the potential benefits of the Nevada-California cooperation. "Today we've taken a giant step towards strengthening Nevada's economy," Majority Leader Reid said. "High-speed rail not only provides a much needed means of transportation that will reduce congestion on I-15, but it will create jobs at a time when Nevada needs them the most, increase tourism and reduce our reliance on foreign oil."
#
# In April, President Obama, Vice President Biden and Secretary LaHood announced the effort to transform the nation's transportation system by developing rail infrastructure and launching high-speed passenger rail services in 100-600 mile corridors that connect U.S. communities.
#
# The Obama Administration is moving fast to put in place this ambitious and important agenda. Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), which included an $8 billion High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) highly-competitive grant program. The President has proposed a continuing $1 billion annual investment in high-speed rail.
#
# The Department of Transportation (DOT) has issued a strategic plan for high-speed rail and recently announced guidelines for states and groups of states to apply for the economic recovery funds. DOT expects to announce the first round of merit-based grants in the fall.
#
# To learn more about President Obama's vision for high-speed rail in America, go to: http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/31
Comments
Posted by Dallasm @ 5:16 PM Thu, Jul 02, 2009
I like what William Lind, director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation, said last week about high speed rail:
"I am skeptical about any immediate future for high speed rail in this country. If you look at the European countries and Japan that have high speed rail, it’s icing on a cake. And the cake is the preexisting network of passenger rail services. What high speed rail here amounts to is icing without a cake. You would put enormous amounts of money into a few lines that would serve geographically only a small portion of the country. Our priority is a lot more trains running at speeds that are competitive with the automobile, which is somewhere between 79-90 miles an hour, which are two gradations on the FRA speed limit scale.
To talk about running at a couple hundred miles an hour, you’re talking about an enormous amount of money to build a dedicated line, and you leave the rest of the country with this Amtrak network that is so skeletal that, as in Cleveland, it’s essentially unusable."
Texas doesn't need a High Speed Rail system. Texas needs a Rail System. We could spend $40 Billion building a super-high tech Texas-T-Bone, and few would ride it, OR we could spend $5-15 billion and build our a very nice state wide intra- and intercity rail system. When we get that built out (and only when we get that built out) we can start talking about the icing.
report as objectionable
Posted by Bob @ 7:24 PM Thu, Jul 02, 2009
I believe that Sen. Hutchison has tried to promote transportation issues in Washington, with zero results for rail in Texas. I know that Sen Cornyn has been way too busy trying to get Republicans elected and keeping gays out of the military to pay attention to issues that REALLY concern Texans. The upshot is, with two Republican senators, a Republican Congress for six out of the last eight years, and a Republican President for eight out of the last eight years, the transportation problem in Texas has grown faster than the national debt. Unless our senators learn what true bi-partisanship is, we will achieve nothing regarding rail (high speed or not) until they are replaced.
report as objectionable
Posted by Ken Duble @ 8:45 PM Thu, Jul 02, 2009
What's with this Texas T-bone, anyway? Houston is the largest city in Texas and the 4th largest in the U.S.; San Antonio is the 2nd largest in Texas and the 7th largest in the U.S. They are 182 miles apart, yet the proposal doesn't link them. How is that?
report as objectionable
Posted by Ken Duble @ 8:47 PM Thu, Jul 02, 2009
What's with this Texas T-bone, anyway? Houston is the largest city in Texas and the 4th largest in the U.S.; San Antonio is the 2nd largest in Texas and the 7th largest in the U.S. They are 182 miles apart, yet the proposal doesn't link them. How is that?
report as objectionable
Posted by Joe @ 11:47 PM Thu, Jul 02, 2009
Wow...does it take a genius to gather that the most PROFITABLE of ALL of Europe and Japan's rail sys. is HIGH SPEED RAIL. Choice A. Moron would rather ride a slow train, vs. a train as fast as a plane with less airport headache.
My GOD...ignorance is as thick as peanut butter in some parts of the country.
report as objectionable
Posted by Dallasm @ 9:12 AM Fri, Jul 03, 2009
"Choice A. Moron would rather ride a slow train"
Well, Choice A. Moron knows that there are actually many aspects to what you call High Speed. It's not that I want to ride on a slow train, it's that I want to ride on a RELIABLE train. A Super-duper Uber-Cool High-Tech High-Speed $40 Billion Rail system isn't going to be profitable if there is only one train a day like the current system.
You want to spend a trillion dollars building up a rail system that can compete with air travel. It would be nearly an unimaginable task to build a system that can take anyone anywhere in America in 6-8 hours, as a plane can. I want to spend a fraction of that on a system than can compete with the automobile. That would be far easier. What Choice A. Moron would like to see, is a system that can take you anywhere you want to go in America in 48 hours -competitive with a car. And if it is nice enough, lots of people -especially families- would take it instead of driving.
report as objectionable
Posted by rafael @ 10:52 AM Fri, Jul 03, 2009
@ Dallasm -
express HSR, e.g. in California at 220mph cruise speed in the Central Valley, will generate operating surpluses after the initial ramp-up period because it is time-competitive with airlines and also stops at selected smaller towns. It will attract enough ridership to support at least 4 trains per hour, 12 hours a day, every day. This isn't Amtrak!
Whether Texans would ever switch from plane to train in equal numbers depends largely on cultural factors and especially, on the future price of oil (decades from now, not next Tuesday). Note that LA, Anaheim, SF, San Diego and Las Vegas are all popular tourist destinations, which will greatly increase ridership on that HSR network.
report as objectionable
Posted by Dallasm @ 4:05 PM Fri, Jul 03, 2009
Rafael,
Let's use your math. Assume California can build a high speed rail system for their $40 Billion budget. Assume that they can run 4 trains per hour for 12 hours a day with no delays or maintenance issues. Assume that each train contains an average of 100 passengers. Assume that the life span of the rail line before it is torn down and rebuilt is 50 years. And just for kicks, lets assume the entire system, from ticket purchase to destination, is completely automated so that the company has $0 in employee overhead and the only cost to the company was the one time $40,000,000,000 up front fee with zero % interest.
How much would a ticket cost per person just to break even?
http://www30.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28%2440+Billion+%2F+1%29+*+%281+%2F+50%29+*+%281+%2F+365%29+*+%281+%2F+12%29+*+%281%2F+4%29+*+%281+%2F+%28100+people%29%29
There is no way this system is going to be operating with surpluses any time soon.
report as objectionable
Posted by Jim Brewer @ 4:12 PM Fri, Jul 03, 2009
HSR competes with short-haul airline. Up to 350 miles, it kills competing air traffic. It costs as much to build as a new divided highway. That is, a lot, but its something we can afford.
Unlike regular rail, its not really a network, but a point to point system. Sure, with a fully developed system you might be able to hop-scotch from say, LA to Phoenix to El Paso to San Antonio, but really, it makes more sense to fly at those distances--from airports that are serving their intended purpose of long-haul, fast travel.
If reliability is key, true HSR is key. Sharing the lines with freight is a prescription for delay especially when the economy --and freight shipments-- are strong.
If your elected politicans go around basically telling the feds that their constituents aren't worthy of the genuine article, then you will certainly not get anywhere--at least not very fast.
report as objectionable
Posted by dallasM @ 4:52 PM Fri, Jul 03, 2009
Dallas M writes:
Rafael,
Let's use your math. Assume California can build a high speed rail system for their $40 Billion budget. Assume that they can run 4 trains per hour for 12 hours a day with no delays or maintenance issues. Assume that each train contains an average of 100 passengers. Assume that the life span of the rail line before it is torn down and rebuilt is 50 years. And just for kicks, lets assume the entire system, from ticket purchase to destination, is completely automated so that the company has $0 in employee overhead and the only cost to the company was the one time $40,000,000,000 up front fee with zero % interest.
How much would a ticket cost per person just to break even?
http://www30.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28%2440+Billion+%2F+1%29+*+%281+%2F+50%29+*+%281+%2F+365%29+*+%281+%2F+12%29+*+%281%2F+4%29+*+%281+%2F+%28100+people%29%29
There is no way this system is going to be operating with surpluses any time soon.
report as objectionable
Posted by Jim Brewer @ 6:05 PM Fri, Jul 03, 2009
Nope, not likely. The very best lines might have a fighting chance to break even, but that's about it. Air transit and highway travel are also subsidized beyond ticket taxes and gas taxes. Highways mostly at the local level. So there is no fundamental difference between HSR and highway subsidies.
That's a good reason not to mindlessly build HSR to every podunk town the the nation, and concentrate on
the better routes. of which we probably have two dozen or so.
report as objectionable
Posted by lexslamman @ 6:58 PM Fri, Jul 03, 2009
Shouldn't we start by expanding the successful Northeast corridor to Buffalo NY, Portland ME, Pittsburgh PA and Richmond VA? Then maybe we can get small projects going elsewhere, like a San Diego-Los Angeles or Chicago-St Louis or Fort Worth - Austin train. In the future these short, buildable corridors could be extended if demand and revenue allow. Building all 11 lines all at once is like putting the cart before the horse. The north east is more progressive, more densly populated, and smarter - high speed rail will do well there, and they deserve to have it first.
report as objectionable
Posted by Jim Brewer @ 12:37 PM Sat, Jul 04, 2009
Nah. We can easily afford it. For example, the Repubs want to kill the estate tax. That's $20 billion per year. Less than 1% of estates have to even pay a dollar.
If we sacrifice the interest of Paris Hilton types to inherit tax-free, we could theoretically devote say, $14 billion of that to HSR projects, and build six of these in six years. That's half way there with no new taxes.
Besides, the T-Bone is easily one of the top five projects. It should be in the first round.
No comments:
Post a Comment