Obama's transportation agenda: high-speed rail

[bascule]

Okay, while I've been the voice of the pro-railroad agenda here:

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/13/biden.amtrak/index.html

 

$1.3 BILLION bailout for Amtrak? WTF?

 

 

Yeah, not a fan of Biden, and when he rears his ugly head (to borrow a line from Palin) I can't help but be annoyed.

 

"That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a train service, but we [shouldn't] give additional money and reward incompetency and inefficiency. If that's what the stimulus is about, we're in a whole lot worse trouble."

 

...expresses my sentiments exactly

Edited March 14, 2009 by bascule

[Pangloss]

I wonder if the CEO of Amtrak flew to Washington in a G-V to beg for that money. Wouldn't that be ironic?

 

Rofl, I love this paragraph at the end of that story:

 

Amtrak, according to its Web site, was established by Congress in 1970 "to take over the passenger rail services previously required to be operated by private freight railroad companies in the United States."

 

According to its web site?? (sigh) CNN at its best.

[doG]

In his remarks Friday, Biden argued that every modern passenger rail service in the world depends on subsidies.

 

IOW all modern rail services are bottomless pits that governments throw money in because they can't make a profit or fund themselves. I can't understand why we keep throwing money in this one or why we'd want to build another to go with it.

[bascule]

IOW all modern rail services are bottomless pits that governments throw money in because they can't make a profit or fund themselves. I can't understand why we keep throwing money in this one or why we'd want to build another to go with it.

 

You could say the same thing about highway systems

[waitforufo]

You could say the same thing about highway systems

 

http://www.its.uci.edu/its/publications/papers/ITS/UCI-ITS-WP-76-1.pdf

 

This paper is a bit dated but it claims that cars are a better solution than rail, at least in the case of BART. The study includes the cost of infrastructure for both systems. The paper was written in 1976. It projects fuel economy of 27.5 mpg by 1985. According to this link …

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation

 

we are now at 33 mpg (based on BTUs/ Passenger mile).

 

In mountainous areas the analysis presented may not hold up.

 

One other advantage of distance travel by car is that you have a car when you get there. If time permits, I always drive when the distance is less than 400 miles for this reason.

[bascule]

http://www.its.uci.edu/its/publications/papers/ITS/UCI-ITS-WP-76-1.pdf

 

This paper is a bit dated but it claims that cars are a better solution than rail, at least in the case of BART.

 

It looks like BART might be a bit of an exception:

 

 

And European systems do much better:

 

http://www.sustainability.dpc.wa.gov.au/conferences/refereed%20papers/Kenworthy,J%20-%20paper.pdf

 

In mountainous areas the analysis presented may not hold up.

 

There's a lot more to consider, particularly incidence of car wrecks and susceptibility to a total system closure due to avalanches (one of the reasons a monorail was proposed, as it's easily elevated, compared to a highway)

 

One other advantage of distance travel by car is that you have a car when you get there. If time permits, I always drive when the distance is less than 400 miles for this reason.

 

An advantage of taking a train is you don't have to drive, particularly in inclement conditions. A friend of mine was involved in a car wreck on a mountain pass (next to the I-70 corridor) which killed a woman and her two children. He wasn't found to be responsible but the incident haunts him to this day.

[Pangloss]

According to Cato hybrids are more efficient than rail transportation.

 

Many light-rail operations use more energy per passenger mile than the average sport utility vehicle, and almost none uses less than a fuel-efficient car such as a Toyota Prius. People who respond to high fuel prices by taking transit are not saving energy; they are merely imposing their energy costs on someone else.

 

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9703

 

I do not know if the study takes manufacturing costs into consideration, or if it is calculating an increase in efficiency based on being able to travel point to point (i.e. not having to catch a bus to get to/from the train station).

[bascule]

Obama has unveiled the details of his plan today:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/us/politics/17train.html?_r=1

 

$8 billion of the stimulus money plus $1 billion yet to be allocated will be used to fund high speed rail projects in 10 areas that his people have identified would most benefit from high speed rail.

 

According to Cato hybrids are more efficient than rail transportation.

 

Yep! (see the chart I posted above) But what do we do with this knowledge? Hybrids still don't solve traffic congestion. Also not everyone drives hybrids. Should we make hybrids mandatory?

[Pangloss]

Good points. And thanks for the link.