$53 Billion for High Speed Rail?

[d-ray657]

I wonder how the cost compares between building a mile of super-highway and a mile of high speed rail track?

Regards,

D-Ray

[doucanoe]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I wonder how the cost compares between building a mile of super-highway and a mile of high speed rail track?

Regards,

D-Ray

Around 1.5 - 2 million /mile for heavy traffic rail. That doesn't include elevated rail or similar situations.

I have no idea for highway.

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I wonder how the cost compares between building a mile of super-highway and a mile of high speed rail track?

Regards,

D-Ray

It's not just building cost, it's running cost. Once built, assuming both are well maintained I would guess the overall cost for new rail would be lower than new road.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Combwork

It's not just building cost, it's running cost. Once built, assuming both are well maintained I would guess the overall cost for new rail would be lower than new road.

To whom? Roads are already paid for by excise taxes on motor fuels. Trains, OTOH, are just a money pit for public subsidies.

One of the big problems with passenger rail in the US is the sprawling nature of our cities. If you live in a typical suburb of a big American city, you may well be an hour or more from the rail station and the rail station where you're headed may be an hour from your ultimate destination - and there may not be good public transport connecting the rail stations to anything else.

High speed rail in the US is a big, costly solution looking for a problem. If we want to spend money on rail, why not build world-class light rail/subways in our major cities? There are only a handful of big cities in this country that have light rail/subways that compete in terms of quality and coverage with major cities in other parts of the industrialized world. Even DC, with its Metro, doesn't yet have train service to its major gateway airport (Dulles). This is true of most major airports in the country.

We need to learn to walk before we run.

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by finnbow

To whom? Roads are already paid for by excise taxes on motor fuels. Trains, OTOH, are just a money pit for public subsidies.

One of the big problems with passenger rail in the US is the sprawling nature of our cities. If you live in a typical suburb of a big American city, you may well be an hour or more from the rail station and the rail station where you're headed may be an hour from your ultimate destination - and there may not be good public transport connecting the rail stations to anything else.

High speed rail in the US is a big, costly solution looking for a problem. If we want to spend money on rail, why not build world-class light rail/subways in our major cities? There are only a handful of big cities in this country that have light rail/subways that compete in terms of quality and coverage with major cities in other parts of the industrialized world. Even DC, with its Metro, doesn't yet have train service to its major gateway airport (Dulles). This is true of most major airports in the country.

We need to learn to walk before we run.

Fair points all. Even though you guys are unhappy about rising fuel prices, they are still about half the UK price. Railways will never be as local as they once were; flexibility of personal transport has seen to that but remember, a car is just a mobile power station that carries people. However much fuel costs rise, unit for unit large static power stations are much more efficient. High speed comfortable transport city to city makes sense but 300+ mph? That's what the Japanese are aiming for. Imagine looking through the window and seeing the country flash by that quickly. Scary..............

On another note, no matter how good the wheel breaks are, steel wheels on steel rails can't slow things down as fast as rubber on tarmac. Reversing polarity on a MagLev train could stop it very quickly, but the fear for me is if it's lifted by magnetic repulsion, what happens if the power fails? The theory is the train would drop down to flanged wheels, but at 300 MPH?

OOOPS. I should have done my research. Apparently the idea is that in a full emergency stop, the train would drop down on skids, the train weight would do the rest.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Combwork

Fair points all. Even though you guys are unhappy about rising fuel prices, they are still about half the UK price. Railways will never be as local as they once were; flexibility of personal transport has seen to that but remember, a car is just a mobile power station that carries people. However much fuel costs rise, unit for unit large static power stations are much more efficient. High speed comfortable transport city to city makes sense but 300+ mph? That's what the Japanese are aiming for. Imagine looking through the window and seeing the country flash by that quickly. Scary..............

Having lived in Germany for 11 years, I'm a big fan of passenger rail service (over there anyway). The scale of things here is much different, as is land use planning in urban areas and the prevalence/quality of public transport vs. Europe.

What America does have is a world-class freight rail system. But corn, soybean, and coal don't care if it takes a couple of days of round-the-clock travel to get somewhere.

I think the desire for high-speed rail is some sort of penis-envy with respect to the Chinese. This up-and-coming economy can do it. Why can't we?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by finnbow

To whom? Roads are already paid for by excise taxes on motor fuels. Trains, OTOH, are just a money pit for public subsidies.

One of the big problems with passenger rail in the US is the sprawling nature of our cities. If you live in a typical suburb of a big American city, you may well be an hour or more from the rail station and the rail station where you're headed may be an hour from your ultimate destination - and there may not be good public transport connecting the rail stations to anything else.

High speed rail in the US is a big, costly solution looking for a problem. If we want to spend money on rail, why not build world-class light rail/subways in our major cities? There are only a handful of big cities in this country that have light rail/subways that compete in terms of quality and coverage with major cities in other parts of the industrialized world. Even DC, with its Metro, doesn't yet have train service to its major gateway airport (Dulles). This is true of most major airports in the country.

We need to learn to walk before we run.

I'll concede this point to you Finn. I could get behind light rail big time. I spent a lot of time in St. Louis a few years back. The Stl. light rail system starts at the airport. I was able to catch the train at the airport and take it to within a block of my client's downtown office. There are stops at the ballpark, at the tourist areas and all over the downtown area. It even goes across to Illinois. Kansas City's local dreamer kept petitioning to put light rail on the ballot, and it finally won, but for some reason it was never financed.

I have always thought that we missed a great opportunity in the 70's, when we had a gas crisis. (The price of gas got up close to $1.00) Instead of focusing on improving mass transit in response, the oil companies were given incentive to drill baby drill. Cities continued to sprawl and we became more dependent on oil.

Regards,

D-Ray