What is the future for funding mass transportation?

[Travis]

So what will the future of mass transportation be in the United States?

We already have subways and light rail in the cities. We have airports to connect the cities.

How are they going to evolve in the future?
What about the airports? They're already crowded and pollute what is next for them?

And what of the cause that I champion; high speed rail? Many are skeptical of it and efforts to build a high speed rail system in California.

In this post I demonstrated how similar California was to Spain which has a very successful high speed rail system.

- | Spain | California
surface area | 505,645 sq km | 423,970 sq km
population | 42 million | 36 million
People per square km | 89.6 | 88.1

At one time the Madrid to Barcelona air corridor was the busiest in the world. Today no airline makes the flight. Why? Because everyone now uses the AVE high speed rail line connecting those two cities.

Distance between Madrid and Barcelona? 386 miles. Distance between San Francisco and Los Angeles? 432 miles. Combined population of Madrid and Barcelona? 10,800,000 people. Combined population of San Francisco and Los Angeles? 22,600,000 people.

So.....with a larger population to serve with about the same distance between them why would the San Francisco to Los Angeles line not have high ridership like the Madrid to Barcelona AVE line does?

​

And here is a graphic that demonstrates how California's system has superior population distribution to France which also has a highly successful high speed rail system. For more info on how similar California's system is to existing high speed rail systems check out these links.

In fact the only hiccup is funding. California's plan (passed into law in 2008) is that the state puts up 25% with the Federal government matching that with another 25% (which is similar to how airport and subway funding is done) with private investors putting up the remainder. But with the Fed's now pulling out this model is crises.

And not only the California HSR system. If this continues other projects could be in trouble. Imagine the new Second Avenue Subway in New York City without it's $1.3 billion from the Feds.

Or Seattle's airport's new third runway without:

the FAA has provided approximately $657million in Airport Improvement Program funds at Seattle-Tacoma with $515.4 million in discretionary funding

source
​

So, what should be the funding model for the future for: urban rail transit, highways, airports, classic intercity rail and high speed rail?

 

[WildCat]

So explain why California needs federal money again, since this is sure to be a great success and will generate 100 bazillion dolllars in economic activity and jobs jobs jobs galore?

 

[daenku32]

While the interstate highway system is used primarily for in-state travel it is still funded by Federal dollars. Why not intercity rail system? It removes traffic from the interstates.

 

[Travis]

So explain why California needs federal money again, since this is sure to be a great success and will generate 100 bazillion dolllars in economic activity and jobs jobs jobs galore?

Why does the second avenue subway need federal money?

Why do major airports in Seattle, San Diego, and Denver need federal money?

Why did the interstate highway system need federal money?

Answer: because that's what the federal government does. It has a large pool of money that it can dispense to select projects around the country to improve their transportation.

 

[sarge]

So what will the future of mass transportation be in the United States?

We already have subways and light rail in the cities. We have airports to connect the cities.

How are they going to evolve in the future?
What about the airports? They're already crowded and pollute what is next for them?

And what of the cause that I champion; high speed rail? Many are skeptical of it and efforts to build a high speed rail system in California.

In this post I demonstrated how similar California was to Spain which has a very successful high speed rail system.

​

And here is a graphic that demonstrates how California's system has superior population distribution to France which also has a highly successful high speed rail system. For more info on how similar California's system is to existing high speed rail systems check out these links.

In fact the only hiccup is funding. California's plan (passed into law in 2008) is that the state puts up 25% with the Federal government matching that with another 25% (which is similar to how airport and subway funding is done) with private investors putting up the remainder. But with the Fed's now pulling out this model is crises.

And not only the California HSR system. If this continues other projects could be in trouble. Imagine the new Second Avenue Subway in New York City without it's $1.3 billion from the Feds.

Or Seattle's airport's new third runway without:

the FAA has provided approximately $657million in Airport Improvement Program funds at Seattle-Tacoma with $515.4 million in discretionary funding

source
​

So, what should be the funding model for the future for: urban rail transit, highways, airports, classic intercity rail and high speed rail?

Would the cost to build an LA to SF highspeed rail line be about the same as the cost of the Madrid to Barcelona line? Are there more surface roads to cross between LA/SF than there are between Mad/Bar? Is the land between LA/SF more valuable than the land between Mad/Bar?

High speed rail seems to have some promise, if we can ever get past the relatively high costs and relatively low utility of such systems.

 

[eeyore1954]

Her are my major concerns using the Second Avenue Subway as an example.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/nyregion/09subway.html

Federal officials now believe the first phase of the subway line will cost about $4.98 billion, nearly $1 billion more than the original estimate in 2007, when federal financing was secured for the project...Federal officials now estimate the first phase of work will be completed in February 2018, while transportation authority officials have put the date at no later than July 2017

.

Cost overruns, completion delays and probably ridership that will be less than projected.

 

[Dymanic]

So explain why California needs federal money again, since this is sure to be a great success and will generate 100 bazillion dolllars in economic activity and jobs jobs jobs galore?

For that matter, why should any state need help from the federal government in funding any large project, ever? Would it make better sense to you if federal funds were used only to fund projects that are not expected to result in increased economic activity?

 

[theprestige]

Would it make better sense to you if federal funds were used only to fund projects that are not expected to result in increased economic activity?

Ironically, yes it would.

I think the proper focus of the federal government is on those necessary but costly things that must be done but do not directly contribute to the profit margins of the various citizens. National Defense, major infrastructure, some amount of R&D, some amount of welfare programs, etc.

One advantage to such a focus is that federal politicians won't spend so much time lying to us about how much money their boondoggle is going to generate. Instead, they'll tell us that federal projects will cost us money, but are a good idea for other reasons.

Meanwhile, if it's profitable, the states should have no problem investing in it themselves, or finding private investors willing to take the risk. If the thing turns out to be a horrible mistake, the catastrophe happens in that state, without other states being compelled by a federal mandate to suffer as well.

On the other hand, if the thing turns out to be wildly successful, other states can take note and follow suit with investments of their own.

Of course, not everything is black and white, easily definable or decidable. The Interstate Highway system, for example, is a hotly debatable gray area. Personally, I'm inclined to think it's the kind of major infrastructure project that the federal government should undertake. But I don't think that it automatically justifies a policy of the federal government undertaking any grand infrastructure project it likes, at whatever the cost to taxpayers.

Going back to my point that states can be "policy laboratories", the Interestate Highway system has ample precedent on a smaller scale in this country: Local and regional road systems have proven their value thousands of times in thousands of implementations. A similar infrastructure on a national level makes sense on that basis.

Not so with HSR--yet. If California proves it, and a few other states as well (something which, according to Travis, is a foregone conclusion and therefore should pose no difficulty at all to the interested parties), then the federal government should seriously consider whether investing in such infrastructure at the national level is not only good policy but necessary policy.

In the mean time, why should the people of California even want federal involvement in their state project? Only because, in the words of bank robber Willie Sutton (and, I suspect, with much the same sentiment), "because that's where the money is". It must be nice to be able to force other people to invest in your business plan whether they like it or not.

 

[Travis]

Would the cost to build an LA to SF highspeed rail line be about the same as the cost of the Madrid to Barcelona line? Are there more surface roads to cross between LA/SF than there are between Mad/Bar? Is the land between LA/SF more valuable than the land between Mad/Bar?

High speed rail seems to have some promise, if we can ever get past the relatively high costs and relatively low utility of such systems.

There are numerous differences. For one the Madrid to Barcelona line had to cross fewer roads and highways. On the other hand it had to deal with numerous tunnels. But construction labor was much cheaper in Spain as was land acquisition costs.

If you really want to see a high speed rail project with similar land and labor costs you should check out the HSL-Zuid.

 

[JudeBrando]

Answer: because that's what the federal government does. It has a large pool of money that it can dispense to select projects around the country to improve their transportation.

"that's what the federal government does. It has a large pool of money that it can dispense"

The Liberal Mind.

 

[sarge]

There are numerous differences. For one the Madrid to Barcelona line had to cross fewer roads and highways. On the other hand it had to deal with numerous tunnels. But construction labor was much cheaper in Spain as was land acquisition costs.

If you really want to see a high speed rail project with similar land and labor costs you should check out the HSL-Zuid.

If I'm reading it all correctly, that line ran two years over the projected completion date, and is averaging about 15 minutes saved per 100 Km traveled - at a cost of about 60% greater than the price of a full standard fare ticket (except that ridership was so low the fares were reduced to entice passangers).

I didn't see any actual cost to build figures in the article. How much per 100Km of track does one of these things cost? Count all costs - construction, infrastructure changes, loss of lad use, cost of land purchase, cost to change highway routes, etc.

In the absence of an economic argument in favor of HSR, it'll require a pretty strong "it's the right thing to do" argument.

 

[geni]

There are a few longer distance projects around but form the most part goods are better moved by sea and humans are moved short distances.

If energy costs continue to rise I would assume the first priority will be increasing local capacity.

 

[Dymanic]

If energy costs continue to rise I would assume the first priority will be increasing local capacity.

A lot of this really turns on that little word, "IF", doesn't it?

 

[eeyore1954]

Also as fuel costs increase and web applications along the lines of GoTo Meeting become better a lot of business travel between LA and SF will go away and so will potential ridership. That is better for the environment than High Speed Rail. Of course I understand not all business travel will go away but in my particular industry webinars are already cutting down on business travel immensly.

 

[WildCat]

While the interstate highway system is used primarily for in-state travel it is still funded by Federal dollars. Why not intercity rail system? It removes traffic from the interstates.

Roads are a necessity, passenger trains are a luxury.

And California's HSR is located entirely in California, it doesn't connect to any other state.

And I promise not to ask for any federal dolllars for an Illinois HSR.

 

[WildCat]

Why does the second avenue subway need federal money?

Frankly, it doesn't. IMHO states should pay their own way instead of having the feds take money from people in other states who would be better off if that money stayed home.

Why do major airports in Seattle, San Diego, and Denver need federal money?

They don't need it, but Uncle Sam is a pushover and people like you think federal money just falls from the sky or something.

Why did the interstate highway system need federal money?

This at least makes sense, because by definition interstate highways cross state lines. And besides, the main reason for building them in the first place was so the military could get around the country quickly in case of war. There's a federal interest in interstate highways.

Answer: because that's what the federal government does. It has a large pool of money that it can dispense to select projects around the country to improve their transportation.

No, there is no "large pool of money", that pool dried up years ago. If you haven't noticed, the federal government is broke.

Now explain to the rest of the country why they should pay for a 100% California project the citizens of California don't want to pay for.

You want HSR? Pay for it.

 

[WildCat]

For that matter, why should any state need help from the federal government in funding any large project, ever? Would it make better sense to you if federal funds were used only to fund projects that are not expected to result in increased economic activity?

Yes, yes it would!

 

[Jim_MDP]

And what of the cause that I champion; high speed rail? Many are skeptical of it and efforts to build a high speed rail system in California.

No young man... you are NOT getting an HSR depot in the Sierra foothills for Christmas.

Get over it!

 

[respect]

$8

 

[WildCat]

Now for the ridiculous:

The University of Illinois will lead a study examining the options to build tracks exclusively for 220 mph bullet trains operating initially between Chicago and Urbana-Champaign and eventually carrying passengers the length of the state in about two hours.

Gov. Pat Quinn announced the $1.25 million state-funded study Thursday at a meeting in Chicago of the U.S. High Speed Rail Association, whose leaders have questioned the benefits of the federal government and numerous states, including Illinois, investing in train service that tops out at 110 mph.

Quinn acknowledged that building a 220 mph network will be costly and likely take up to 50 years. He compared the rail project with the construction of the nation's interstate highway system, which kicked off in 1956. Still, Quinn, 62, said he expected to see the first bullet trains operating during his lifetime, joking that he planned to live to 102.

"The way to prosper is to have a big vision,'' Quinn told the rail conference, adding that building a 220 mph passenger rail network will "make Champaign a suburb of Chicago. … We cannot miss the boat here, or miss the train," he said.

And nothing says "big plans" like taking 50 years to build 300 miles of track! The first few miles of track will have to be rebuilt before the last few are completed.