High Speed Rail (insert some devisive political phrase to attract attention)

[bluefrog]

HSR has been in the news a lot lately. Florida just shot down a big rail project for the state.

Unfortunately the topic has been politicized putting the future of rail in the U.S. in danger. The usually level headed conservative George Will made an unusual emotional argument against rail last week:

To progressives, the best thing about railroads is that people riding them are not in automobiles, which are subversive of the deference on which progressivism depends. Automobiles go hither and yon, wherever and whenever the driver desires, without timetables. Automobiles encourage people to think they -- unsupervised, untutored, and unscripted -- are masters of their fates. The automobile encourages people in delusions of adequacy, which make them resistant to government by experts who know what choices people should make.

The time may not be right for HSR because they are costly, long term, risky projects and only appropriate for a few regions in the US (i.e. New England). It's hard for congress to dump large amounts on a select few regions while neglecting the rest.

The time is right for small scale urban rail projects. They are cheaper, have more immediate results (less traffic) and are suitable for just about every metropolitan region. As a nation we need to build up a network of higher-speed regular trains that becomes dense enough that you can actually use HSR.

 

[bodyman5001]

Is it still 1950? Rail is old news. Too little too late.

Feel free to start a charity that takes donations from people (train geeks) that want to build it and see what happens.

 

[bluefrog]

Is it still 1950? Rail is old news. Too little too late.

Strange, the rest of the world never got the memo. China, Japan, Germany and France have all been enjoying the benefits of a modern rail system.
HSR trains are electric which is a pretty old technology but not as old as the internal combustion engine.

Feel free to start a charity that takes donations from people (train geeks) that want to build it and see what happens.

NO need to, GE, Siemens and JCR have made profits with their private ventures. CRH is doing well too.

 

[andalusian]

We have a small-scale urban rail here in Portland and it is not exactly the best idea ever... it has done nothing for traffic, basically (Projects they said would not be needed like extending 26 on the west side or dealing with the 217 issues) were not solved by it - 26 has since been extended, 217 is now.

HSR makes sense in very specific places. Down the east-coast corridor from Boston to Wash/DC is probably the only one that really makes sense. A SF <-> LA might be useful somewhat as well - but probably much less than the east-coast corridor.

 

[bluefrog]

We have a small-scale urban rail here in Portland and it is not exactly the best idea ever... it has done nothing for traffic, basically (Projects they said would not be needed like extending 26 on the west side or dealing with the 217 issues) were not solved by it - 26 has since been extended, 217 is now.

HSR makes sense in very specific places. Down the east-coast corridor from Boston to Wash/DC is probably the only one that really makes sense. A SF <-> LA might be useful somewhat as well - but probably much less than the east-coast corridor.

I was reading about the rail in Portland and it's interesting because opponents of rail were using as an example of failure to reduce traffic and proponents of rail used it as an example of it raising home values.

Is it's ridership high? Do people use it?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

We have a small-scale urban rail here in Portland and it is not exactly the best idea ever... it has done nothing for traffic, basically (Projects they said would not be needed like extending 26 on the west side or dealing with the 217 issues) were not solved by it - 26 has since been extended, 217 is now.

HSR makes sense in very specific places. Down the east-coast corridor from Boston to Wash/DC is probably the only one that really makes sense. A SF <-> LA might be useful somewhat as well - but probably much less than the east-coast corridor.

26 has always stopped at the ocean, not sure where you want to extend it to, Hawaii? Asia?

 

[andalusian]

26 has always stopped at the ocean, not sure where you want to extend it to, Hawaii? Asia?

Funny. Extending in the form of adding lanes. Not making it longer.

FWIW - They can make it longer without making it go to Asia. You just add curves. Lots of them. That would be fun.

 

[andalusian]

I was reading about the rail in Portland and it's interesting because opponents of rail were using as an example of failure to reduce traffic and proponents of rail used it as an example of it raising home values.

Didn't we read recently about Portland being one of the 10 markets where housing is at rock bottom? Not sure I buy the adding to home value stuff there. It certainly did not do anything for traffic. It seems, honestly, to be a waste of money when it comes to impact. If all that money would have gone to extending 26, 217 and the other areas where traffic is bad before they built it - it would have saved 2 - 3 years of bad traffic for a lot more people than the number of riders that take the Max.

Is it's ridership high? Do people use it?

Sure, people use it and it is growing, but that still does not make it a wise investment. If you put the same money in a place where it would have benefited 4 times the people first - it would have been a better investment. Add the fact that Portland is actually an ideal place in the US for light-rail because of the UGB - making the city rather compact (area wise) - and it seems that this is not the greatest way to handle the vast majority of the American cities. We are too spread out to really benefit from it. The places where you have high population concentration - the large metro areas like NYC, Boston, Washington DC - already have a rail system.The spread-out more common American city is just not a good target for this form of transportation.

Until people start living in dense urban areas - you are just offering a solution that is far from optimal.

 

[barfo]

Didn't we read recently about Portland being one of the 10 markets where housing is at rock bottom? Not sure I buy the adding to home value stuff there.

I think they mean areas where the rail line serves, not the entire city.

It certainly did not do anything for traffic.

How do you know?

It seems, honestly, to be a waste of money when it comes to impact. If all that money would have gone to extending 26, 217 and the other areas where traffic is bad before they built it - it would have saved 2 - 3 years of bad traffic for a lot more people than the number of riders that take the Max.

Yeah, it might have. That's the thing about road projects - the more lanes you build, the more cars they attract. So yeah, 2-3 years is about right for the impact of such a project.
The trains will last what, 50 years? 100?

Sure, people use it and it is growing, but that still does not make it a wise investment. If you put the same money in a place where it would have benefited 4 times the people first - it would have been a better investment. Add the fact that Portland is actually an ideal place in the US for light-rail because of the UGB - making the city rather compact (area wise) - and it seems that this is not the greatest way to handle the vast majority of the American cities. We are too spread out to really benefit from it. The places where you have high population concentration - the large metro areas like NYC, Boston, Washington DC - already have a rail system.The spread-out more common American city is just not a good target for this form of transportation.

Until people start living in dense urban areas - you are just offering a solution that is far from optimal.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Part of the goal of modern rail projects is to encourage denser urban areas. [Yes, I can hear the screaming of our libertarian colleagues even now. Our god-given freedom to build suburbs on farmland should never be restricted!]

barfo

 

[Haakzilla]

...I am all in favor of any and all rail systems in the US and beyond, electro-magnetic even!

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

SD to LA to SF would kind of be a waste for a high speed rail system. It just would. People doing real business can fly pretty easily or even in this age of telecommuting, its kind of unnecessary. Even for casual travel, flying from LA to SF is extremely easy.

Its pretty simple to fly in and out in a day if you need to do something for business. 30 minute flight versus 2-3 hours on a bullet train. Even with travel times and waiting for a plane, its not that bad. No serious business person is going to take the bullet train to commute to the bay area, its a novelty more than anything. Its more expensive and takes longer...where's the appeal in that?

It kind of makes sense within the bay area though with a quicker and more efficient BART though, on a smaller scale. Related industries and high tech from San Jose to Mountain View to other parts of the bay.

California can't afford it and it isn't going to magically stimulate commerce.

 

[andalusian]

I think they mean areas where the rail line serves, not the entire city.

Wish I was that lucky to get $292m spent on improving the value of my home.

Yeah, it might have. That's the thing about road projects - the more lanes you build, the more cars they attract. So yeah, 2-3 years is about right for the impact of such a project.
The trains will last what, 50 years? 100?

And the lane will last how long? Do they go bad after 5 years? The more lanes you build the more cars they attract? So the success of a public project is if it fails to attract use? Is the Max going to be a success if it does not grow rapidly in use? This is not a very good argument, honestly.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Part of the goal of modern rail projects is to encourage denser urban areas. [Yes, I can hear the screaming of our libertarian colleagues even now. Our god-given freedom to build suburbs on farmland should never be restricted!]

I suspect that European cities were dense even before the arrival of rail - so I am going with dense first... Honestly, if you want to promote dense areas - building a rail system is the wrong way of going about it...

 

[andalusian]

SD to LA to SF would kind of be a waste for a high speed rail system. It just would. People doing real business can fly pretty easily or even in this age of telecommuting, its kind of unnecessary. Even for casual travel, flying from LA to SF is extremely easy.

Its pretty simple to fly in and out in a day if you need to do something for business. 30 minute flight versus 2-3 hours on a bullet train. Even with travel times and waiting for a plane, its not that bad. No serious business person is going to take the bullet train to commute to the bay area, its a novelty more than anything. Its more expensive and takes longer...where's the appeal in that?

It kind of makes sense within the bay area though with a quicker and more efficient BART though, on a smaller scale.

The nice thing about it is that you might be able to have the train station in the middle of downtown - without having to spend tons of time to go to SFO, wait to get on the plane, wait for clearance to leave the ground and do the same on the other side.

It does make much more sense in the East however, where density is much bigger and they have even worse traffic issues.


Related industries and high tech from San Jose to Mountain View to other parts of the bay.

California can't afford it and it isn't going to magically stimulate commerce.[/QUOTE]

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

We'll see. The cost of travel is higher than flying, that's a killer. I just don't see the practicality of it....in today's world you don't need to move from city to city that often. The trend of modern business, at least in California is not concentrated in metropolitan areas like they are in other parts of the world or even the East Coast. Major corporations, more often than not, are located in suburban areas nowadays, not city centers. You'll have to eventually take a taxi or get a ride to say Google HQs or wherever anyway.

 

[barfo]

And the lane will last how long? Do they go bad after 5 years? The more lanes you build the more cars they attract? So the success of a public project is if it fails to attract use? Is the Max going to be a success if it does not grow rapidly in use? This is not a very good argument, honestly.

You were the one complaining about traffic congestion, weren't you? Is a highway a success if it is congested all the time?
Rail can handle considerably more traffic per "lane" than a highway. If usage increases, you don't have to build another rail line. You just run more trains on the same line.

I suspect that European cities were dense even before the arrival of rail - so I am going with dense first... Honestly, if you want to promote dense areas - building a rail system is the wrong way of going about it...

Perhaps. What is the right way to go about it?

barfo

 

[andalusian]

You were the one complaining about traffic congestion, weren't you? Is a highway a success if it is congested all the time?

Is it congested all the time? No, it is only congested during rush hour. And adding a lane offers a solution to the problem instead of offering a solution without a problem. The big dispersal of American cities means that even rail-lines require car use to get to the train stations unless you pay astronomical sums to have a station on every block - so all you do is make the commute much more complicated for everyone other than the lucky few that live within walking distance of the station.

You move the congestion from the roads to parking places at the train station. My wife would have loved to take the Max to downtown every morning, unfortunately, by 8:00am the parking lot at Sunset station is full. So she either has to take a bus that would make her 25 minute commute into a 70 minutes commute or she can not take the Max. It did absolutely nothing for her and the vast majority in the Portland metro area that live out of the small downtown. The reality is that forcing people to live where they do not want to live (the dense urban areas) is just the wrong way of going about solving the problem.

Rail can handle considerably more traffic per "lane" than a highway. If usage increases, you don't have to build another rail line. You just run more trains on the same line.

This is patently not true on both accounts. If you convert all road traffic to buses the road traffic has the same density as the rail density - and if you run more trains you will, sooner or later, need to expand the number of lines to allow all the traffic to work - otherwise you have train congestion when multiple trains are waiting for an available junction to route them to the right place.

Perhaps. What is the right way to go about it?

KISS. If you have traffic congestion because your road infrastructure is not up to date - you improve your road infrastructure instead of trying to apply the wrong solution to the problem. If the people are hungry and have no bread it makes no sense to suggest they eat cake instead. The street car within downtown Portland makes sense. The Max line to the suburbs over widening the highways from the suburbs does not make sense. If there is a hurricane coming down you better work on strengthening your abode instead of putting your hair in a pony-tail because it might get messed up in the wind...

 

[bluefrog]

Is it congested all the time? No, it is only congested during rush hour. And adding a lane offers a solution to the problem instead of offering a solution without a problem.

When I hear about adding lanes to a highway just to deal with the 3-4 hours of congestion the word "inefficient" comes to mind. There has to be a better solution than just adding lanes that will only be used for a short time on a daily basis.

The big dispersal of American cities means that even rail-lines require car use to get to the train stations unless you pay astronomical sums to have a station on every block - so all you do is make the commute much more complicated for everyone other than the lucky few that live within walking distance of the station.

You move the congestion from the roads to parking places at the train station. My wife would have loved to take the Max to downtown every morning, unfortunately, by 8:00am the parking lot at Sunset station is full. So she either has to take a bus that would make her 25 minute commute into a 70 minutes commute or she can not take the Max. It did absolutely nothing for her and the vast majority in the Portland metro area that live out of the small downtown. The reality is that forcing people to live where they do not want to live (the dense urban areas) is just the wrong way of going about solving the problem.

People can get to the station by bicycle or bus. Cars aren't the only mode of transportation.

Rail isn't just for commuters going to work. It's a much more convenient mode of transportation for visitors to the city. I hear a lot of compliments on Portland's rail system from people who have been there recently on business.

This is patently not true on both accounts. If you convert all road traffic to buses the road traffic has the same density as the rail density - and if you run more trains you will, sooner or later, need to expand the number of lines to allow all the traffic to work - otherwise you have train congestion when multiple trains are waiting for an available junction to route them to the right place.

Rail is much easier to scale than roads. True there is a point where new rails and lines have to be constructed to accommodate passengers but it's much easier to double the traffic on rail as opposed to roads

 

[andalusian]

When I hear about adding lanes to a highway just to deal with the 3-4 hours of congestion the word "inefficient" comes to mind. There has to be a better solution than just adding lanes that will only be used for a short time on a daily basis.

Intel has a very nice solution - staggering shift times. But the population in general is not interested in it, it seems. As for inefficient - it is more efficient and usually much cheaper to add a lane than build a rail line.

People can get to the station by bicycle or bus. Cars aren't the only mode of transportation.

You are increasing the commute time significantly - which is the definition of inefficiency. The commute is not the destination - it is just a tool to get the job done.

Rail isn't just for commuters going to work. It's a much more convenient mode of transportation for visitors to the city. I hear a lot of compliments on Portland's rail system from people who have been there recently on business.

... and that's why Portland is such a mecca and destination for business travelers? Wait, it's not. If it does not translate to success for making Portland live on tourism - what's the point?

Rail is much easier to scale than roads. True there is a point where new rails and lines have to be constructed to accommodate passengers but it's much easier to double the traffic on rail as opposed to roads

This is patently not true in our situation. You need to increase parking or quadruple the public transportation getting to the station - which is just as inefficient. If you ignore the fact that this mode of transport does not make sense for our dispersal - you can claim these "easy to scale" things. The reality does not work.

 

[bluefrog]

Intel has a very nice solution - staggering shift times. But the population in general is not interested in it, it seems. As for inefficient - it is more efficient and usually much cheaper to add a lane than build a rail line.

I like Intel's idea but it would be easier to install rail than to get hundreds of employers to agree to staggering shift times.

You are increasing the commute time significantly - which is the definition of inefficiency. The commute is not the destination - it is just a tool to get the job done.

Maybe for you. It's faster for me to bike 3 miles than take the bus or drive. Everyone's situation is different, rail may be a viable solution for other people. It's not going to be the best option for everyone's commute, it's just another alternative. 120,000 think it's the best option for them so it's at least mildly successful.

... and that's why Portland is such a mecca and destination for business travelers? Wait, it's not. If it does not translate to success for making Portland live on tourism - what's the point?

The point is what I wrote: "Rail isn't just for commuters going to work." Portland has visitors, some of them like to use the rail.

This is patently not true in our situation. You need to increase parking or quadruple the public transportation getting to the station - which is just as inefficient. If you ignore the fact that this mode of transport does not make sense for our dispersal - you can claim these "easy to scale" things. The reality does not work.

People aren't going to use rail unless they can drive there? Quadruple public transportation to the stations? These are just personal beliefs, they don't reflect reality.

 

[andalusian]

Maybe for you. It's faster for me to bike 3 miles than take the bus or drive. Everyone's situation is different, rail may be a viable solution for other people. It's not going to be the best option for everyone's commute, it's just another alternative. 120,000 think it's the best option for them so it's at least mildly successful.

US-26 gets 145K cars a day compared to around 32,000 riders per day for the Max west side. Even if there was only 1 individual per car - this is more than 4 times the use for just one highway, add the people going over backroads and other routes (rt. 8, 10, Skyline, Cornell) and it is pretty clear that this was not an optimal solution. Now, let's look at costs, the west side line cost $963m in 1993-1998 dollars. In comparison, the 2 miles that are extended today between 158 and 185 on 26 will cost $12m in 2011 dollars. Assuming we multiply this number by 15 (to reach downtown and extend it out to North Plain, roughly as far as the Max on the west side goes) and multiple the costs by 3 in case there are some issues closer to Portland that were not found in this section - you get to $540m in today's dollars.

In other words - you paid at least 3 times as much to service a quarter of the drivers to add the Max west side. Not a wise use of money. Simple as that.

People aren't going to use rail unless they can drive there? Quadruple public transportation to the stations? These are just personal beliefs, they don't reflect reality.

These are not beliefs. Try getting a parking space at Sunset TC after 8:00am in the morning. Find out how long it gets to get to Sunset TC from my house, 5 miles from sunset TC in the morning without a car. See what it is like to do it on rainy days when you need to look respectable for clients and can not use a bike. This is just not a viable option, honestly. Remember that the Portland metro area has 2.5m people but only 500,000 leave in the city of Portland itself. The numbers just do not compute.

 

[bluefrog]

US-26 gets 145K cars a day compared to around 32,000 riders per day for the Max west side. Even if there was only 1 individual per car - this is more than 4 times the use for just one highway, add the people going over backroads and other routes (rt. 8, 10, Skyline, Cornell) and it is pretty clear that this was not an optimal solution. Now, let's look at costs, the west side line cost $963m in 1993-1998 dollars. In comparison, the 2 miles that are extended today between 158 and 185 on 26 will cost $12m in 2011 dollars. Assuming we multiply this number by 15 (to reach downtown and extend it out to North Plain, roughly as far as the Max on the west side goes) and multiple the costs by 3 in case there are some issues closer to Portland that were not found in this section - you get to $540m in today's dollars.

In other words - you paid at least 3 times as much to service a quarter of the drivers to add the Max west side. Not a wise use of money. Simple as that.

Where are you getting these numbers from?

 

[barfo]

US-26 gets 145K cars a day compared to around 32,000 riders per day for the Max west side. Even if there was only 1 individual per car - this is more than 4 times the use for just one highway, add the people going over backroads and other routes (rt. 8, 10, Skyline, Cornell) and it is pretty clear that this was not an optimal solution. Now, let's look at costs, the west side line cost $963m in 1993-1998 dollars. In comparison, the 2 miles that are extended today between 158 and 185 on 26 will cost $12m in 2011 dollars. Assuming we multiply this number by 15 (to reach downtown and extend it out to North Plain, roughly as far as the Max on the west side goes) and multiple the costs by 3 in case there are some issues closer to Portland that were not found in this section - you get to $540m in today's dollars.

Except that you've ignored the part about the tunnel. Widening 26 all the way except for the tunnel doesn't do you much good - you just get a bigger jam at the tunnel. And widening the tunnel will be very expensive - not just in construction, but in settling lawsuits from those who live above it.

The section between 158th and 185th is the easiest possible widening project - flat land, lots of right-of-way available, no complex intersections, little environmental impact. Your factor of 3 is probably inadequate.

In other words - you paid at least 3 times as much to service a quarter of the drivers to add the Max west side. Not a wise use of money. Simple as that.

It's not actually that simple. At some point you can't add anymore lanes to 26 [That point may, in fact, have been reached already in places]. Then what are you going to do?

barfo

 

[andalusian]

Except that you've ignored the part about the tunnel. Widening 26 all the way except for the tunnel doesn't do you much good - you just get a bigger jam at the tunnel. And widening the tunnel will be very expensive - not just in construction, but in settling lawsuits from those who live above it.

The tunnel was 3 lanes before. Most of 26 west of Sylvan was not. This is what I am talking about. Add the fact that it actually helps for getting people that want to get off at 217 and before the tunnel and you are not correct here. The issue was that they spent 10 times what it would have cost to expand 26 to 3 lanes for a quarter of the people given the proper time-frame costs. That was mind-boggling stupid.

The section between 158th and 185th is the easiest possible widening project - flat land, lots of right-of-way available, no complex intersections, little environmental impact. Your factor of 3 is probably inadequate.

Please... it is no different from anywhere up to Silvan - the only reason I gave the *3 figure is for the 217 junction - and I was being very, very large with this estimate there.

It's not actually that simple. At some point you can't add anymore lanes to 26 [That point may, in fact, have been reached already in places]. Then what are you going to do?

The correct answer is probably to convert routes 10 and 8 to a highway structure instead of the current small-road format. Same can be said about Cornell. Of course there is the long-dormant circle road that would converge into 99 or I5 as well.

Anyway you look at it - we are now 14 years after the west side line - and the 26 expansion has not been finished yet - it was a gross miscalculation and stupid use of transportation money.

 

[andalusian]

Where are you getting these numbers from?

Multiple sources. ODOT's site, Wikipedia, KGW reports, Trimet etc...

 

[barfo]

The tunnel was 3 lanes before. Most of 26 west of Sylvan was not. This is what I am talking about. Add the fact that it actually helps for getting people that want to get off at 217 and before the tunnel and you are not correct here. The issue was that they spent 10 times what it would have cost to expand 26 to 3 lanes for a quarter of the people given the proper time-frame costs. That was mind-boggling stupid.

Well, certainly some of the traffic on 26 is local rather than thru to downtown, no question. However, that doesn't change the fact that the tunnel is a bottleneck. I misunderstood you though. I thought you were arguing for now adding an additional lane into town. If you are simply arguing that they should have built the existing extra lane before building the existing rail line, I guess I don't have an opinion about that, other than to say that the money doesn't necessarily come out of the same pot - it might not have been an either-or choice at the time.

Please... it is no different from anywhere up to Silvan - the only reason I gave the *3 figure is for the 217 junction - and I was being very, very large with this estimate there.

No, you weren't. Sure, it's flat up to where it isn't flat anymore. It's wide up to where it isn't wide anymore. Sylvan to downtown is the tough part. West of that is easy.
As for the 217 interchange, take a look at the cost estimates for the new I-5 bridge - the interchanges cost more than the bridge.

The correct answer is probably to convert routes 10 and 8 to a highway structure instead of the current small-road format. Same can be said about Cornell. Of course there is the long-dormant circle road that would converge into 99 or I5 as well.

Or you could just move to LA, if you like that sort of thing.

Anyway you look at it - we are now 14 years after the west side line - and the 26 expansion has not been finished yet - it was a gross miscalculation and stupid use of transportation money.

We'll agree to disagree [/maxiep]

barfo

 

[bluefrog]

Multiple sources. ODOT's site, Wikipedia, KGW reports, Trimet etc...

I don't have time to go through multiple sites to check you math so I just pulled one article touting Portland's Rail system (maybe WES is not one of it's strengths)

LINK

The Texas Transportation Institute notes that Portland ranks 13th in transit ridership in a city which ranks 25th in population. Another source identifies 100 million hours of time saved annually. That amounts to $1.5 billion annually for the Portland region, assuming a $15 per hour value.

... an interesting article in the quarterly report of CEOs for Cities, entitled “Portland’s Green Dividend,” suggests Portland saves $2.6 billion in savings annually in transportation costs alone. The calculation is as follows: The median commute in the 33 most populous cities is 24.3 miles per day. In Portland, thanks to its excellent transit system, is 20.3 average commute miles per day. There is 2.9 billion in miles saved compared to the median. The $15 per hour value is the time commuting; hence the $2.6 billion figure. Joseph Cortright, Vice President of Impresa, Inc., who authored the paper states, “Four miles per day may not seem like much but do the math.”

Besides the money argument rail has a lot of quality of life advantages over cars like less air pollution, ability to use time productively while commuting and reducing stress.

This is a country of choices. You can't say "the car is the best method for everybody to commute to work". We should have a balanced infrastructure

 

[Denny Crane]

"Bullet train to bankruptcy" ring a bell?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Yes. Bullet trains were around in the early 90s...yet its still the "wave of the future"!

 

[bluefrog]

I'm not talking about bullet trains

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

That's what's being proposed throughout California though.