Early reports indicate that the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority — a Colorado entity led by a former state senator — wants to spend $21 billion on a starter high-speed rail system from Ft. Collins to Pueblo and Denver to Eagle. That’s about $65 million per mile, and would only buy trains that go an average of 60 mph in the mountains (that’s the Denver to Eagle part) and 140 mph on “portions” of the Ft. Collins to Pueblo part.
This is only a starter system as Colorado wants the Eagle line to go to Aspen, Craig, and Grand Junction, while Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas propose to eventually extend the Pueblo line to El Paso. The Antiplanner conservatively estimated that true high-speed rail on these routes would cost an average of $50 million per mile, so $65 million for 60 mph trains is pretty outrageous.
One can take it for a long time without needing to stress over rashly discharging (PE). order viagra online Does Propecia be employed by many hair thinning? cialis pill from india Absolutely no. Overall, it is the cheap cialis http://secretworldchronicle.com/2017/10/ support from friends and family, will power and a good treatment that can eliminate bedwetting for good. At last you should forever remember one thing and that is erectile dysfunction also cialis samples online known to be impotence.
Can anyone seriously think that it makes sense to spend billions of dollars building a 60-mph rail line to Craig, population 9,200? Or, for that matter, Eagle, population 3,000? Local activists report that representatives of the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority publicly promise that the lines will pay for themselves, but privately admit that they hope the lines will cover their operating costs. There is no hope that they will cover their capital costs and virtually no hope that they will cover their operating costs.
This is the kind of craziness you get when the government starts making crazy plans. When you assume that it makes sense for taxpayers to pay for a high-speed rail line from San Francisco to Los Angeles, it doesn’t take long for people to assume that it makes sense for taxpayers to pay for lines from Craig to El Paso. In fact, neither make sense.
The real silliness was news reports and advocacy statements that pretended that a huge number of pre-applications for the $8 billion meant that HSR would be a success. All it meant was that everywhere was willing to compete for federal money.
It’s analogous to automatically calling a tax cut or rebate a “success” because people accept the money instead of rejecting it and returning it to the US Treasury.
Of COURSE costs will exceed projections. Of COURSE costs will balloon out of control. They ALWAYS do. Today’s latest exemplar: Linky
You’d almost think these government planners knew this would happen, but did it anyway to expand their power. Wait a minute…
Of course, leave it to an engineer familiar with Swiss practices to come up with a viable alternative that was ignored by all the politicians. See http://www.jeanniemay.com/logical4.html
The original estimate here was around $1 billion in 2000 dollars, without any tunnels or long viaducts. I’d guess around $2 billion now, given construction inflation since then. Of course, he’ll probably still be ignored.
Excerpt from http://www.jeanniemay.com/five.html:
CHAPTER 5
Why Meter-Gauge?
The selection of a meter-gauge railway for Colorado’s mountain access problem is a natural solution which has previously been overlooked. The Colorado Department of Transportation conducted a two-million-dollar Major Investment Study (MIS) which considered only conventional and high-speed standard-gauge railroads for the I-70 corridor. (This study and its erroneous assumptions are discussed in detail in Chapter 11.) For reference, meter-gauge is approximately 39″ between the rails, while standard-gauge is 4’8 “, or 42% wider. This difference is highly significant because of the extreme difficulty in locating a new right-of-way within the narrow I-70 corridor. In constricted areas, the minimum right-of-way requirement for the 8 -foot-wide vehicles typical of international meter-gauge railways is approximately the width of a bicycle path. This provides a distinct advantage when shoe-horning through such difficult areas as Clear Creek Canyon. A typical “tight squeeze” negotiated on a meter-gauge railway is shown on the bottom of page “n.”
Not only does the meter-gauge require a narrower right-of-way than any feasible alternative, but its shorter cars also allow more restricted curves as shown below.
Comparable Railway Curves
Minimum Radius Meter-Gauge Minimum Radius Standard-Gauge
Without Undue Difficulty greater than or equal to 80 meters greater than or equal to 100 meters
Design More Difficult 40 – 80 meters 50 – 100 meters
SOURCE: Swiss Locomotive and Machine Works
The combination of at-grade construction, reduced right-of-way requirements, sharper curves, conventional power supply and motors, and lightweight equipment leads to very significant cost savings. The construction cost of SMARTrans is substantially less than that required for any alternative system; i.e., it is estimated that one billion dollars is required for the construction of the DIA-to-Vail spine, including the branches to Granby and Breckenridge, which is anywhere from three to eight times less than a “high-speed” train of the French- or Japanese-type railroad or any hypothetical monorail system would probably cost, and four times less than expanding I-70 to six or eight lanes. Since economics cannot support the expenditures for the more expensive higher speed rail or monorail systems, it is highly unlikely that they could ever be implemented. And there is no room to expand the highway to six or eight lanes throughout.
Equally important is that SMARTrans is based on proven technology and is therefore substantially risk-free. In Switzerland alone, two dozen railways operate over a thousand miles of route trackage mainly in mountainous terrain and weather conditions similar to those in Colorado. There, hundreds of daily trains carry thousands of passengers from all over the world safely, efficiently and with an envious on-time record. And these meter-gauge railways are in harmony with the mountains both aesthetically and environmentally as shown by the pictures on page “b” and “c.”
Yeah, that conspiracy of gummit plannurz with all that power, taking good conservatarian money…certainly that tear in your tinfoil hat allows you to see me laughing at you while I sip my single-malt whilst snuggling that babe planner two cubes over on the public dime…
snork
DS
Dan, don’t forget, I’ve worked for the government. I know EXACTLY how industrious government employees tend to be “on the public dime.”
The point being, obviously, that the fear-filled assertion of all that POW-ahhhhhh! that th’ plannurz have is a f’n joke, son.
DS
I too would like to see SMARTrains included in the study. I’ve been curious about their cost claims. While a narrower gauge will make for some reduced costs due to some situations where tighter turns can be made, those are going to be marginal differences when compared to regular rail. Most of the I70 route wouldn’t require those advantages. Also, in some of the key places where space is an issue (Silver Plume, Idaho Springs, et al.) , once you have to build an elevated railway to make the squeeze, the costs are going to be very high no matter what the rail or road technology. You’re going to have to build up and over I70, or vice versa, and for the most part a bridge is a bridge. The same with the situation at Eisenhower Tunnel. No matter the gauge let alone if it’s road or rail, it’s going to require another bore or two. And most of the cost of boring is going to be the same no matter what you’re boring for.
I’d like to see it studied a more closely. But I suspect in the end what will come out is it’s not a serious option because it’s cost advantages aren’t much compared to regular rail. Keep in mind that an 8 foot wide car may not sound that much more narrow than a 9 or 10ft car but when you’re talking about a long distance train, that’s a huge difference in terms of passenger comfort.
That is, at least to me, a lot of the “estimates” on route costs for the Smartrans out there seem to being made by amatuers pulling a number out of a hat. Maybe I’m wrong on that; either way, it’d be nice to see the issue put to rest.