Forty states have asked the federal government for a total of $102 billion for high-speed rail. This suggests that the Antiplanner’s estimate of $90 billion for the cost of the Obama high-speed rail plan was low.
Secretary of Behavior Modification Ray LaHood says that this “shows that the country is ready for high-speed rail.” Of course, all it really shows is that state bureaucrats are ready for free federal money.
California, of course, asked for the most amount of money: $21.7 billion. The state expects the feds to pay for half of its high-speed rail program, but expects that the first step of that program will cost $33 billion. So it must be asking the feds to fund half of the entire program. Or perhaps some of the money is for the Los Angeles-to-Las Vegas route that wasn’t in California’s original program.
A “non-public entity” (or entities) in Nevada asked for $12.6 billion for the LA-LV route. A private company claims it can make money from this route and supposedly only wants a loan from the feds.
Maryland wants $11.2 billion. Maryland isn’t even on the FRA map of new high-speed rail corridors, so I am not sure what the state wants to spend the money on. A footnote says that Maryland submitted the proposal on behalf of other states, so maybe it wants to upgrade the existing Boston-to-Washington corridor.
New York (which is also submitting on behalf of other states) is asking for $9.7 billion (at least some proposals coming from non-public entities). Some if not most of this will probably go for the New York-to-Buffalo corridor, which the state had previously projected would cost $2.2 billion.
Pennsylvania wants $6.8 billion, presumably for the Philadelphia-to-Pittsburgh route. I had estimated this route would cost $1.2 billion.
Ohio has an ambitious plan to connect Cleveland, Toledo, Columbus, and Cincinnati with high-speed lines and is asking for $5.8 billion; I estimated it would cost $1.6 billion.
North Carolina wants $5.1 billion for its share of a Richmond-to-Charlotte route with a branch to Fayetteville and into South Carolina; I had estimated this would cost $1.3 billion. Virginia wants $2.5 billion, presumably for this same corridor with a possible extension to Norfolk. I had estimated that moderate-speed rail improvements in Virginia would cost $1 billion.
Stay away from eating viagra no prescription uk large meals. It is more preferred than other drugs because it is Contained of sildenafil citrate Developed by a reputed drug is prescribed to manage this condition and enable ED patients to overcome order cheap cialis the condition effectively. They are both blue and sildenafil generic sale other available in a transparent pack. With generic cialis this medicine, you can regulate it with the purchase and use of this Squatting stool.
Illinois (applying on behalf of other states) wants a modest $3.6 billion, which is less than half the projected cost of a proposed Midwest high-speed network. Wisconsin wants $1.8 billion; most other Midwestern states are asking for a few hundred million dollars. These may be for routes or improvements not included in the basic Midwest network. Altogether, the Midwestern states (not counting Ohio, which wasn’t part of the Midwest rail initiative) asked for $7.5 billion, which (with some local match) might be enough to build a moderate-speed network throughout the Midwest.
Florida and Texas are each asking for a little more than $3 billion. This won’t build much true high-speed rail (which I estimated would cost $11.2 billion in Florida) but is a lot more than is needed for moderate-speed rail (which I estimated would cost $2.2 billion in Texas). I suspect they are asking for partial funding for true high-speed rail pilot projects.
Oklahoma wants $2 billion for a line from Tulsa to Oklahoma City. I had estimated that moderate speed rail for this route, extended to the Texas border, would cost less than $1 billion.
New England states are collectively asking for about $5.5 billion (not $8 billion as I previously reported), with the largest request coming from Massachusetts ($2.1 billion). I estimated the FRA moderate-speed rail plan would cost $1.6 billion in these states.
Oregon and Washington are asking for nearly $4 billion, with Oregon actually seeking the majority even though most of the miles in the Eugene-Vancouver BC corridor are in Washington. I had estimated that $1.5 billion would be sufficient to provide moderate-speed rail in this corridor.
Alabama asked for about $800 million, which is very close to my estimate for moderate-speed rail in that state. States that asked for $100 to $300 million include Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, and states in the Midwest and New England mentioned above.
A few states asked for relatively small amounts, probably for planning: New Mexico ($21 million), Kansas ($17 million), Idaho ($5 million), Colorado ($1 million), Arkansas ($1 million), and West Virginia ($0.4 million). The ten states that did not submit proposals include Alaska, Hawaii, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming. Except Mississippi (and 2 miles in Kentucky), none of these were on the FRA’s high-speed rail plan.
For the most part, then, my estimates were low. I suspect that, as soon as the federal government said it was willing to pay up to 100 percent of the cost, the states inflated their costs or became more ambitious than the FRA intended.
These were all “preapplications.” Full applications from the states are due August 24 for “individual projects” and October 2 for “corridor programs.” The Federal Railroad Administration expects to start awarding grants sometime this fall.
By the way, the Antiplanner has argued that high-speed rail won’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Eric Morris’ recent Freakonomics column in the New York Times agrees. I don’t know what’s freaky about that: the real surprise should be that anyone thinks that half-empty Diesel-powered trains going 90 or 110 mph would be any more energy efficient than half-empty Diesel-powered trains going 79 mph.
Besides the spending of (potentially large) amounts of federal money, what is the Purpose and Need of these lines?
Well for that matter, besides the spending of large amounts of federal money.
What was the purpose and need of the interstate highway system?
People were already getting their kicks on route 66 and other roads.
thwm,
“In addition to facilitating private and commercial transportation, the Interstate Highway System would provide key ground transport routes for military supplies and troop deployments in case of an emergency or foreign invasion. (Memories were still strong of reported Japanese threats to invade the West Coast of the U.S. during World War II.)”
All it took was 3 seconds on Google to find this.
As I look at the “VISION” map above I see the best and the worst of HSR –> The Best? The only legitimately viable and actually appropriate line in the whole country is LA to Las Vegas. Yes, I know that I just opened up with pure opinion, but that just means I qualify to work for the DOT. But seriously, pick up in LA and drop off in a station connected the LV’s own tram. HSR actually works in a point-to-point situation. No where else in the country is that the case. Fort Worth to Houston? Please.
The Worst? Albany to Buffalo? Are they kidding? That is a really long distance that might carry 14 actual passengers (mostly state elected officials) per day. Did I mention lots of mountains? It doesn’t even look like that line would go through Syracuse. Typical. Syracuse has always been Buffalo’s stepchild. Seeing that line actually made me LOL. I need a job where I get paid to think up such stupidity.
mimizhusband wrote:
> The Worst? Albany to Buffalo? Are they kidding? That is a
> really long distance that might carry 14 actual passengers
> (mostly state elected officials) per day.
There is an excellent high-speed transportation facility in this corridor called the New York State Thurway (I-90). The posted speed limit is only 65 MPH (about 90 k/h), but could likely be raised to 75 MPH (120 k/h) or even 80 MPH (almost 130 k/h). Changing the speed limit signs and letting buses run at that speed limit on the Thruway is lots cheaper than a new rail line.
> Did I mention lots of mountains?
In this corridor? I disagree. The Thruway follows the historic route of the Erie Canal (which is cross-subsidized by Thruway customers), and was built along that route because of the lack of mountains.
Mike said: “In addition to facilitating private and commercial transportation, the Interstate Highway System would provide key ground transport routes for military supplies and troop deployments in case of an emergency or foreign invasion.”
THWM: Italy had their Autostrada going back to the early 1920’s, though this is some thing that should have been done by the private sector with out using the disguise of the military.
mimizhusband said: As I look at the “VISION†map above I see the best and the worst of HSR –> The Best? The only legitimately viable and actually appropriate line in the whole country is LA to Las Vegas. Yes, I know that I just opened up with pure opinion, but that just means I qualify to work for the DOT. But seriously, pick up in LA and drop off in a station connected the LV’s own tram. HSR actually works in a point-to-point situation. No where else in the country is that the case. Fort Worth to Houston? Please.
THWM: Point to point with some other points in between, though LA to LV? Are casino’s enough of a traffic base? I can see a restoration of train service from L.A. to S.L.C through L.V.
mimizhusband: The Worst? Albany to Buffalo? Are they kidding? That is a really long distance that might carry 14 actual passengers (mostly state elected officials) per day. Did I mention lots of mountains? It doesn’t even look like that line would go through Syracuse. Typical. Syracuse has always been Buffalo’s stepchild. Seeing that line actually made me LOL. I need a job where I get paid to think up such stupidity.
THWM: This is the Empire Corridor. New York City to Albany to Buffalo was once a 4 track speedway. This is good location to fix things.
C. P. Zilliacus said: There is an excellent high-speed transportation facility in this corridor called the New York State Thurway (I-90). The posted speed limit is only 65 MPH (about 90 k/h), but could likely be raised to 75 MPH (120 k/h) or even 80 MPH (almost 130 k/h). Changing the speed limit signs and letting buses run at that speed limit on the Thruway is lots cheaper than a new rail line.
THWM: Bullshit, you’re just saying this, because you hate rail transport.
Well, not yet. The $5.1 billion request includes nothing for the branch to Fayettville (which is actually not part of the HSR corridor, it’s one of the other lines), the branch that is part of the corridor that goes straight from Raleigh to Columbia, SC (following US 1, that’s the other HSR corridor spur), and nothing for the eventual planned Charlotte-Greenville-Spartanburg-Atlanta extension.
The $5.1 billion includes about $3 billion for acquiring and building the abandoned direct line (along US 1, basically) from Richmond (Petersburg, actually) to Raleigh as essentially new track to 110 mph specifications, and the other $2 billion is for upgrades in the Raleigh-Charlotte portion.
The NC and Virginia proposals, despite all that, are still better than many of the others because the two states have been willing to use their own money to pay for many of these improvements, unlike states that haven’t found the projects a good use of their own money but are willing to apply for federal funds.
I dislike subsidies too, but the current IHS is funded at the federal level entirely by gas taxes. Well, except in the 2008 “emergency” funding and the stimulus bill. So blame the new Congressional leadership and the new Administration.
Comparing them blithely as you do is a sign of ignorance and hypocrisy. Or perhaps it’s just because you hate road transport. If you want to criticize road spending, criticize state, and to a greater extent, local spending.
Yeah, well, once Buffalo was a successful prosperous growing community, not a city of declining industry, declining population, and with young people fleeing. That, however, was 60 or 70 years ago. Buffalo has less than half the population of those days, and is still declining.
Despite this, they built the Buffalo light rail system in the teeth of this decline.
John Thacker said: I dislike subsidies too, but the current IHS is funded at the federal level entirely by gas taxes. Well, except in the 2008 “emergency†funding and the stimulus bill. So blame the new Congressional leadership and the new Administration.
THWM: Though this is a sales tax that is collected from burning gas every where. Limited access roads make up less than 2% of all roads in the USA, so you have a taxes being collected on the other 98%, which are being paid for by property & income taxes.
Limited access roads should be funded through tolls.
While I (and the Antiplanner) agree with you about tolls, your numbers are against embarrassingly far off.
For percentage of travel on types of roads, look at this page from Highway Statistics 2003. You can also look at Traffic Volume Trends. For 2003, interstate travel made up 24.3% of all vehicle road-miles. That’s much more relevant than your unsourced 2% number.
Secondly, states tax motor fuel, though that isn’t the extent of their spending. Here is the relevant page of Highway Statistics 2007 from the FHWA. The FHWA includes all public roads in their definition, including state-administered highways and locally-administered roads. Note that state taxes on motor fuel come out to being 60% more than the federal share of gas taxes. ($53,182M compared to $33,248M)
About 60% of total state spending on roads is via gas tax. Gas taxes in total would cover about 70% of all road spending in the US, though about a sixth of that total is diverted, mainly to mass transit, and then replaced by other funds. (What would happen if the funds were not diverted is an open question; would more road spending occur, or fewer subsidies?)
I suppose, THWM, you could complain that federal gas taxes are 40% of total gas taxes, whereas interstates only compose 25% of total travel. However, by another measure, those taxes are about 20% of total disbursements. It’s not entirely the federal government’s fault that local communities choose sales and property taxes over gas taxes, which would be superior.
THWM, even when I completely agree with you on policy (as with tolls on limited access highways), your numbers are still wildly off, and you never provide references to reputable statistics, as I do.
Gas taxes are a back door way of funding things, tolls would be better.
Actually, John, the portion of state road expenditures paid by auto users is higher than 60%, since a portion of the “other taxes and fees” are also paid by them, such as sales taxes on automobiles, parts, repairs, and fuel, and a portion of licensing and registration fees. In some cases road and street bonds are also repaid from trust fund revenues.
Moreover, state roads, and especially city streets are, to some extent, a public good — they are non-rivalrous and non-excludable. They are used by many more classes of users than auto drivers, e.g., bicyclists, buses, streetcars, and pedestrians. Hence a portion of their costs — probably the greater portion — should be paid for by those classes of users, via general taxes.
Overall, auto users pay far more than their “fair share” of road costs.
Contrarian said: Actually, John, the portion of state road expenditures paid by auto users is higher than 60%, since a portion of the “other taxes and fees†are also paid by them, such as sales taxes on automobiles, parts, repairs, and fuel, and a portion of licensing and registration fees. In some cases road and street bonds are also repaid from trust fund revenues.
THWM: That’s a Catch 22. Since sales taxes are paid on other goods & services.
Contrarian: Moreover, state roads, and especially city streets are a public good  they are non-rivalrous and non-excludable. They are used by many more classes of users than auto drivers, e.g., bicyclists, buses, streetcars, and pedestrians. Hence a portion of their costs  probably the greater portion  should be paid for by those classes of users, via general taxes.
THWM: I have no problem with what you wrote here.
Contrarian: Overall, auto users pay far more than their “fair share†of road costs.
THWM: Though roads are pretty much sacrosanct.
Pingback: The Antiplanner :: Back in the Air Again :: http://ti.org/antiplanner