Posted on Friday October 30th by Alex Lessard-Pilon | 1,678
.
- Chinese airlines are in a huff about having their business yoinked by new HSR lines, and are calling for “policy support,” which is actually just a tax break. By 2020, 80% of domestic flights will compete directly with cheaper rail routes. (Bloomberg)
- The US DOT is considering a request to include a route from Cleveland to Pittsburgh in its HSR plans. The existing Keystone Corridor through Pennsylvania accommodates trains up to 110 mph; OH and PA want to create jobs and strengthen regional economies by extending it further. (AkronNewsNow)
- “Political types who dominate the rail authority” have some seeing the CA HSR plans as a glass half-empty. Basically, the people in charge are a bunch of crooks and liars who want to siphon state money into their bank accounts and hate parks, rivers, and the citizens of California. (LA Weekly)
- The latest cost estimate for Illinois’ 110 mph HSR plan is at $4.5 billion, but the project “isn’t high speed” and isn’t worth the cost, says a rail advocate. It just doesn’t reduce travel time that much. The alternative? A $12-13 billion, 220 mph route from Chicago to St. Louis. (Chicago Business)
- The guy who’s suing to stop the construction of the SF-LA line says it’s not just NIMBYism that motivates his cause. An elevated train would be enormously loud–perhaps violating environmental law–and it’s possible, in theory, to bury a train without incurring prohibitive cost. (Wired)
- As trains threaten airlines, so do they threaten cars: a British foundation for motorists says the “green” viability of HSR in the UK is marginal at best and suggests we might be better served using the $27 billion it’ll cost to buy 2.3 billion trees. (Guardian)
- And lastly, a bit of optimism. A politician surveys the US HSR Assn.’s conference and highlights the importance of staying competitive technologically, the jobs American HSR projects would create, and the vigilance we need to maintain to make legitimate infrastructural changes. (HuffPost)
October 30th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Does it cost more to build a subway 40 ft below ground than it does to build an elevated train 40 ft above ground? Hmmm… Good questions.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Simcity says it does
elevated stations though have a larger landfootprint than subway stations (also according to sim4) but maintenance is comparable
thats all I got
sure lets plant 2.3 billion trees and drive like there is no tomorrow!
110mph is not high speed, go for doing it right and yes it costs more but at least its a true high speed option, spread the costs out over the life of the line and expected income and I think it would bring in a lot more then the slow speed version
October 30th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
oh man they better not destroy the views from the sf-la train by sticking it in a hole or putting up sound walls around it
maybe they can encase it in a big acrylic tube or something but sticking people in underground holes for more than 20 minutes at a time is a recipe for das boot
October 30th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Surely it won’t be buried/walled off for the entire length of the route.
October 31st, 2009 at 1:05 am
Well, I wouldn’t dismiss these concerns as mere NIMBYism. These are large footprint projects. Some of these concerns, environmental and aesthetic, are perfectly legitimate.
There’s no reason why we can’t have these fights–just have them faster. Federalize these projects, expedite the review, make the adjustments and and work through the issues as best we can and build. If the local opposition becomes too intense, move on to the next project. There are at least two dozen good projects to be done. (Besides, I bet that only happens once….).
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:10 am
Just to be clear, the Keystone Corridor from Philly to Harrisburg supports 110mph in many/most places on the Amtrak owned ROW. West of Harrisburg on the CSX owned ROW it isn’t even electrified.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Jimharper is right on: There’s no reason why we can’t have these fights–just have them faster.
As most of you reading this know, one of the biggest challenges with inserting HSR into an already urbanized area - even if it IS SoCal - is the turning radii that are so much greater than standard heavy rail. Route options analysis is brutal.
That said, I simply don’t get how a culture so focused on cars - and the gashes through the landscape required for highways - can have any NIMBY reaction about HSR. True, logic and public sentiment have limited overlap, but seriously.
What is needed is a fairer tax system, kids. Right now, exurban, un-compact development is heavily subsidized. Every new housing development outside the currently developed area gets subsidies in the form of roads, power, water, telecom infrastructure, etc. - and has been unabated since the end of WWII.
We need a Fair Tax District, a mechanism whereby urban metro areas can develop distance-based overlays. Not that you can’t build new out there - that would honestly be un-American - but that if you chose to, you pay your fair share. The rest of us in the (more) compact areas are tired of paying for you.
Once you have that mechanism, you have a fair revenue stream to add HSR to the regional infrastructure. As exurban development slows the overlay contribution slows, but first cost is always the stumbling block anyway.