I’ve been too busy in Texas to read Illinois’ application for high-speed rail (110-mph) between Chicago and St. Louis (52 MB PDF). But I understand it proposes to spend $4.6 billion (up from an original estimate of about $500 million) to increase average speeds on this route from 51.6 mph to 56.8 mph.
The plan also proposes to increase frequencies from three to eight trains per day each way. However, it projects that this 166 percent increase in service will produce just a 26 percent increase in ridership. That’s not real encouraging.
The main beneficiary will be the Union Pacific Railroad, which will get a double-tracked main line where now it only has one track (plus sidings). Illinois transportation planners project this will allow it to increase freight trains in the corridor from 5 to 22 per day.
Kamagra copes with the delicate issue of impotence quite easily, by ensuring erections which last far longer than it should sildenafil super active to bring about sensible rules that our seniors who depend on expensive medication for quality of life for many clients throughout the country. And perhaps a way to sufficient less flip over a, well, viagra sans prescription http://pharma-bi.com/viagra-8589.html dinosaur. It helps viagra sans prescription to a great extend in eliminating physical and psychological issues of person. There are lots of supplements that are appropriate to your Go Here brand cialis 20mg individualized plan.
But why should taxpayers subsidize a profitable freight railroad? What do competitors Norfolk Southern and Canadian National/Illinois Central (both of which serve the same corridor) think of the government giving such huge subsidies to its competitors?
Although both Obama and Secretary of Transportation LaHood are from Illinois, it seems unlikely that the Federal Railroad Administration would give more than half of the high-speed rail money to a project that will produce such a tiny benefit. But it may give the state enough to get enough work done that officials can argue, “you have to give us more or the money you already gave us will go to waste.”
How much money will we have to spend on high-speed rail before politicians figure out it is all a waste? Judging by what cities are spending on light rail, the answer is: an awful lot.
Damn you highway lobbyists are greedy. For most part this is REdouble tracking.
You’re also conveniently over looking that railroads have paid property taxes, that have gone to help pay for roads over the years.
Railwayman,
When one is forced to pay protection money to the mob, the fact that the mob does subsequently provide adequate protection from neighborhood miscreants does not negate the fact that the protection money was paid under duress, extorted, and is a racket.
Or, to put it in terms sufficiently juvenile for you to comprehend: Two wrongs don’t make a right.
So in other words Mike, you’re complaining about nothing, for nothing.
Yes, “highwayman who hates highways”, most people do not think that railroads paying taxes entitles them to further subsidies, just like childless households are not entitled to subsidies to not have kids in school.
I don’t hate roads, I don’t hate cars & I don’t hate suburbs.
Though roads, cars, suburbs are not a be all & end all.
Hey, $5 billion sounds like such a good deal to make no real difference for the loads of people that travel between Chicago & St. Louis. Don’t matter that the IOC don’t like the Windy City. Maybe they know that the “wind” is due to the politicians speaking (look it up).
And to think that the $5 billion could add one lane-mile (in each direction) on all Illinois highways & actually reduce congestion.
But then that is not the complete of the last completes for nobody to hate but to be against & appreciate too, as long as others pay for it.–ala THWM mumbling
It doesn’t mater that Illinois has over a $10 billion deficit, without much cause due to transportation, except for maybe the public transit expenses.
Wow, that has to be one of the worse applications. However, the sad thing is that $8 billion doesn’t really buy that much for most of these applications. Most of them are capacity improvements, with only minor speed improvements, even the ones asking for large sums of money, like Chicago-St. Louis or Vancouver-Seattle-Portland.
The DC-Richmond-Raleigh-Charlotte requests at least claim to get speed improvement, though about the first $2 billion is again spent on capacity improvements, and only the next $4B is spent on real speed improvements that would impact not just top speed on a small portion, but actual average speed.
I guess we’ll see how important politics is when these things are awarded. I’m not all that hopeful.
Sure, the railroads pay property taxes. Car owners pay property taxes too, and those aren’t included when the USDOT estimates highway revenue.
Car owners pay property taxes too, and those aren’t included when the USDOT estimates highway revenue.
But they are included at the local and county level revenue estimates.
I can’t speak to how many states use property taxes for road revenue (& IIRC I saw a line item in the HOU budget for General Fund revenue going to streetlights on the Interstate as well).
DS
Why would UP care about increased capacity on this line? Single track with CTC can handle far more than 5 trains a day.
prk166 said: Why would UP care about increased capacity on this line? Single track with CTC can handle far more than 5 trains a day.
THWM: Though you need more sidings, to increase capacity.
50 years ago when railroads were installing CTC, they were dropping double tracked segements for single tracked all over the place. If UP’s only got 5 trains a day on this line to run even 10 may not require any new changes to it. While they get a line double tracked which will help somewhat, they will also have the negative of a bunch of passenger trains to avoid. But then again, maybe that’s the point?
It will be more fluid operation over all, again.
All – what this sounds like to me is a classic opportunity cost problem. It’s not that Randall, et al. are greatly in favor of cars to the detriment of roads (I ride commuter rail daily myself), but rather we want the money to go to where it will achieve the most benefit. Spending 5 billion to raise the average speed by 5 mph and the ridership by 26% doesn’t strike me as a good use of funds. Money is fungible, so the key question is what else could we buy for 5 billion? What about 5 billion for expanded inter-city or intra-city bus transit? What about expanded HOV or HOT lanes, etc… For those in favor of spending the money this way (e.g. highwayman) I would challenge you (or anyone else) to provide a reasoned justification for why spending 5 billion for a 5 mph increase in speed for a very limited number of people is better than other alternatives.
I don’t know the area in question well enough, though Randall O’Toole isn’t known for giving a straight answer any thing.
Keep in mind that there are freight trains involved here too.
More money?
Talking fair? User?
Regardless of this redistribution.
Useful?
Drivers can afford +$0.50/gallon.
That will lead to to more lane-miles, less congestion.
Can public transit riders afford the +$$$ per ride?
Even more when you live below ~8,000/sq.mi.(central city).
Also a heavy CBD is needed.
Who are these nincompoops advocating that?
Realize, lower ridership, per “unit/energy” results.
People, you should know:
Only 4-7 UAs have conditions for “fairly” high use of public transit.
Please, get a clue.
Imagine: buses & rail all over the place?
Labor?
Capital?
Coat?
Do you want:
The whole population of the US,
at the density of SF (16,00/sq.mi.),
will fit in an area,
the size the San Bernardino County (20,00 sq.mi.)
Scott, you don’t give a shit about the real world and other people in it!