HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #881  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 9:01 PM
Jonboy1983's Avatar
Jonboy1983 Jonboy1983 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The absolute western-most point of the Philadelphia urbanized area. :)
Posts: 1,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
Are you joking? Have you been paying attention to politics in this country?
Yes, I have been. Maybe not all places think that way, but I do see a trend/pattern. Think about it.

Florida cancels plans for a HSR netowrk.
Ohio does the same thing right after Kasich takes office.
Now, Wisconsin is following suit. I could go on...

It's not just limited to HSR but infrastructure in general. The reason behind their rationale? "Oh, that's exessive spending."

I guess the one exception (or one of very few, anyway) is California.

Don't mock me. I pay very much attention to politics in this country. Do tell me about other examples that would prove me wrong, tho. I'd love to hear about them!!
__________________
Transportation planning, building better communities of tomorrow through superior connections between them today...

Last edited by Jonboy1983; Apr 9, 2012 at 9:15 PM. Reason: added commentary
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #882  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 11:55 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
How are the Democrats acting irresponsibly about rail? We have the first president to make a solid commitment to America's passenger rail system since Amtrak was created. We have a Vice President who has made Amtrak possibly his most important issue. We have numerous Congressional leaders who have fought for increased Amtrak funding and numerous state governors who have pledged state support for crucial regional routes. All of these people are Democrats.

Neither party is ideal, though. Democrats are unwilling to push for greater efficiency by prioritizing the most important infrastructure projects or achieving cost savings, because the more money they can bring home to their district, the more support they get for re-election from engineering and construction firms. It doesn't matter that Highway X doesn't need to be six lanes wide, or that the need for new light-rail tracks is far stronger in the city than in the exurbs.

Contrarily, Republicans (at least the new wave of Tea Partiers) don't see the need to invest in the future with capital expenditures like infrastructure. They make a big talk about running the government "like a business", ignoring the fact that the most successful businesses in the long run are the ones who invest in and plan for growth instead of hacking their budgets to the bone for short-term results. They are afraid - scared to death that the US is going to become the next Greece or Spain. It's not gonna happen.

Either we stop planning for growth now and watch that growth flow to India and China in the future, or we make smart investments in infrastructure and watch as we outstrip struggling, shrinking Europe by leaps and bounds and we tackle China's emergence head-on.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #883  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 12:03 AM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonboy1983 View Post
Yes, I have been. Maybe not all places think that way, but I do see a trend/pattern. Think about it.

Florida cancels plans for a HSR netowrk.
Ohio does the same thing right after Kasich takes office.
Now, Wisconsin is following suit. I could go on...

It's not just limited to HSR but infrastructure in general. The reason behind their rationale? "Oh, that's exessive spending."

I guess the one exception (or one of very few, anyway) is California.

Don't mock me. I pay very much attention to politics in this country. Do tell me about other examples that would prove me wrong, tho. I'd love to hear about them!!

Clearly we are not on the same page here. This was your original quote:

Quote:
So, all of that just to same a measily 10 million a year? It will be cheaper to go with the status quo?!! Why must our Republicans be just as stupid and narrowminded as their Democratic counterparts when it comes to our nation's infrastructure improvements?!!
What else is to be gathered from this statement other than you are placing both Republicans and Democrats as equally guilty in terminating progressive transportation programs in favor of retrograde highway focused policies or the status quo?

If that is in fact what you meant, then I would have to wonder about how informed you are, hence the sarcasm, because that position is just factually incorrect.

Quote:
Florida cancels plans for a HSR netowrk.
Ohio does the same thing right after Kasich takes office.
Now, Wisconsin is following suit. I could go on...

All three of these examples are cases of newly elected far right Republican governors and legislative bodies, fueled by fiscal conservative hysteria, tanking ambitious projects on what I believe is ideological grounds, but were described as fiscally inappropriate programs, err "boondoggles" (the GOP loves this term), that the states couldn't afford even though the Wisconsin and Florida projects were almost entirely funded from federal grants.

These are the facts. You seem to be suggesting that the Democrats in these legislative bodies followed suit and voted AGAINST these projects with their Republican colleagues and leadership? That just is not correct.

Perhaps you misspoke?
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #884  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 12:09 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
For Teabaggers like Walker and Kasich, the appearance is more important than the reality, and they're unwilling to explain reality to voters. In reality, the Hiawatha is a very successful regional line that connects two huge sources of passengers. In reality, Madison is another such source with one of the largest concentrations of students in the nation, many of whom have strong ties to the Milwaukee area, and the rail line would have strong ridership. In appearance, it seems like a boondoggle because Madison has not had direct rail service in decades and has a thriving economy despite this.

I was never too hot on the Ohio 3C line, though. The expected speeds and travel times were lousy. If the state wants service on that corridor, it would be far cheaper and easier to give a small subsidy to Megabus, and the travel times would be better. If this reveals a huge unserved market, than Ohio can begin planning for a more ambitious rail project that would provide reasonable speeds and travel times. Alternatively, Ohio could test the waters by implementing commuter rail on the corridor - within metro areas, the train might beat congested highways, and the capital improvements would pave the way for intercity to come later at a reduced cost.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #885  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 12:34 AM
jpIllInoIs's Avatar
jpIllInoIs jpIllInoIs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,210
I hate to pile on to poor JonBoy because he seems to be a well meaning and interested poster.

BUT..... In Iowa the newly elected Republican Gov. Branstad put the brakes on the Chicago to Iowa City service even though the route had secured $268 mil in Fed funds. That route is currently being planned to extend only to the Quad Cities with a terminal Rock Island, IL.

And perhaps the most ridiculous display of anti-rail venom comes from the state of Nebraska and Rep. Gov. Heinieman who has failed to authorize payment on Nebraskas annual dues of $15,000. to the Midwest Interstate Passenger rail compact. citing "cost cutting". 15 Grand!!! REALLY. in fact a republican state legislator has introduced a bill to withdraw from the MIPRC.

I want to caution all posters that this particular issue has ruined many transportation and rail transit threads in the past 4 years. Ardecila doesn't need my permission or advice to keep this on track. This thread has avoided that plague and remains current and factual and without acrimony. I hope that continues.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #886  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 12:39 AM
Jonboy1983's Avatar
Jonboy1983 Jonboy1983 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The absolute western-most point of the Philadelphia urbanized area. :)
Posts: 1,721
Ok, suffice to say we're not on the same page. No, the Dems are not necessarily voting against these projects. They do propose some bills to pay for certain projects, but their source of funding seems to be 100% from tax dollars or from borrowed money since our country is broke. (Actually, infrastructure projects are something we SHOULD be spending money on, so that remark about the dems, yeah, I take it back!)

My remark was supposed to focus mainly on the far right policy makers for their ignorance and indifference regarding improving our infrastructure. Yes, this country is out of money, and I'm not entirely in favor of more spending, but there are things we really need to spend money on and should NOT be considered as excessive spending.

If we're supposed to get back on our feet, rebuilding and upgrading our infrastructure will help get us there!
__________________
Transportation planning, building better communities of tomorrow through superior connections between them today...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #887  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 12:48 AM
Nexis4Jersey's Avatar
Nexis4Jersey Nexis4Jersey is offline
Greetings from New Jersey
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: North Jersey
Posts: 3,261
California High Speed Rail Network
Size : 800+ Mi (1,300kms)
Number of lines : 6
Stations : 25+
Projected Ridership : 95 Million a Year or 260,730 Daily
Top Speed : 220mph (350Km/h)
Cost : 68.5 Billion $

Midwest High Speed Rail Network
Size : 700 Mi+ (1,296Kms)
Stations : 76+ (Feeders factored in)
Lines : 6+ with 7 Feeders
Projected Ridership : 43 Million a year or 120,000 daily (Feeders factored in)
Top Speed on Trunk lines : 220mph (350Km/h)
Top Speed on Secondary / Feeder lines : 125mph (201Km/h)
Cost : 58 Billion $


Northeastern High Speed Network
Size : 1940 Mi+ (3,592kms)
Lines : 4+ with 6 Feeders
Stations : 90+ (Feeders factored in)
Projected Ridership : 127 Million a year or 350,000 daily (Feeders factored in)
Top Speed on Trunk lines : 220mph (350Km/h)
Top Speed on Secondary / Feeder lines : 125mph (201Km/h)
Cost : 120 Billion $


Taken from MWHSR , CAHSR and AMtrak Next gen sources , all done by 2050 or 2060 which is easy to do...Some of the lines are under Construction I do count the 110mph lines for now. I would say that 300 miles is under construction for enhancements and HSR prep in the Northeast which means 110mph , with room for 125mph Electric service down the road.

Top Regional Rail Networks by 2050

Midwestern Regional Rail Network - OH - IN - IL - MI - WI - MN - MO - KS - NE - ND - SD
Size in 2012 : 527.7 Mi
Size by 2050 : 2740 Mi
Electric lines in 2012 : 76 Mi
Electric lines by 2050 : 890 Mi
Number of lines in 2012 : 12
Number of lines by 2050 : 36
Top Speed 2012 : 100mph
Top Speed 2050 : 125mph
Daily Ridership in 2012 : 304,600
Daily Ridership in 2030 : 780,000


Northeastern Regional Rail Network - NJ - NY - CT - DE - MA - RI - NH - ME - VT - PA - MD - DC - VA
Size in 2012 : 3493 Mi
Size by 2050 : 9,300 Mi
Electric lines in 2012 : 2150 Mi
Electric lines by 2050 : 8,400 Mi
Number of lines in 2012 : 64
Number of lines by 2050 : 134
Top Speed in 2012 : 125mph
Top Speed in 2012 : 125mph
Daily Ridership in 2012 : 1.6 Million
Daily Ridership by 2030 : 4.2 Million


California Regional Rail Network
Size in 2012 : 716 Mi
Size by 2050 : 892 Mi
Number of lines in 2012 : 12
Number of lines by 2050 : 17
Electric lines in 2012 : 0 Mi
Electric lines by 2050 : 630 Mi
Top Speed in 2012 : 90mph
Top Speed in by 2050 : 125mph
Daily Ridership in 2012 : 107,500
Daily Ridership by 2030 : 480,200


Taken from the various State , County , City Plans and Proposals and Transit advocate wishlists... Ridership Projections for 2030 are from me....factoring in various TOD and service enhancement projects aswell as new lines.
I have yet to do the LRT / Metro and streetcar build out comparisons...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #888  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 12:48 AM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,302
I think we are in agreement that, of course, infrastructure projects that are in the public's interest should NOT be politicized. But we apparently do not agree that IMO only one party is doing the politicizing. Make sense? Oh and the country is NOT broke. Ever heard of "starving the beast?" This "We don't have any more money" routine while passing trillion dollar tax cuts )and arguing for more) while simultaneously engaged in trillion dollar wars is an enormous deception, and if Americans were more politically engaged they wouldn't put up with it.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #889  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 12:59 AM
Jonboy1983's Avatar
Jonboy1983 Jonboy1983 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The absolute western-most point of the Philadelphia urbanized area. :)
Posts: 1,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
I think we are in agreement that, of course, infrastructure projects that are in the public's interest should NOT be politicized. But we apparently do not agree that IMO only one party is doing the politicizing. Make sense? Oh and the country is NOT broke. Ever heard of "starving the beast?" This "We don't have any more money" routine while passing trillion dollar tax cuts )and arguing for more) while simultaneously engaged in trillion dollar wars is an enormous deception, and if Americans were more politically engaged they wouldn't put up with it.
So, I really should not be worried about our 12 trillion-plus dollar debt then? Ok...
__________________
Transportation planning, building better communities of tomorrow through superior connections between them today...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #890  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 1:08 AM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,302
I know it sounds contrary to logic and definitely not what the right would have you believe, but, NO. Our long term debt is not a crisis on par with what Greece or the Club Med countries are facing. The US is not Greece. We are the richest most robust ecomony in the world, and running debts and deficits (deficits being much easier to close) will not "kill" our country as is incessantly rattled by the right wing echo chamber fear mongers, even if the 15 trillion figure seems unimaginable. I'm no economist, but I do know, mirroring Ardecila comments, that not investing in our future (infrastructure, energy, education...) while preaching factually debunked trickle down theory and indiscriminately throwing gobs of tax cuts at rich SOB's (most of whom don't own businesses and are in no direct position to "hire" anyone), further depleting revenue is no solution to the "debt problem."
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #891  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 2:44 AM
bnk bnk is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 12,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey View Post
California High Speed Rail Network
Size : 800+ Mi (1,300kms)
Number of lines : 6
Stations : 25+
Projected Ridership : 95 Million a Year or 260,730 Daily
Top Speed : 220mph (350Km/h)
Cost : 68.5 Billion $

Midwest High Speed Rail Network
Size : 700 Mi+ (1,296Kms)
Stations : 76+ (Feeders factored in)
Lines : 6+ with 7 Feeders
Projected Ridership : 43 Million a year or 120,000 daily (Feeders factored in)
Top Speed on Trunk lines : 220mph (350Km/h)
Top Speed on Secondary / Feeder lines : 125mph (201Km/h)
Cost : 58 Billion $


Northeastern High Speed Network
Size : 1940 Mi+ (3,592kms)
Lines : 4+ with 6 Feeders
Stations : 90+ (Feeders factored in)
Projected Ridership : 127 Million a year or 350,000 daily (Feeders factored in)
Top Speed on Trunk lines : 220mph (350Km/h)
Top Speed on Secondary / Feeder lines : 125mph (201Km/h)
Cost : 120 Billion $


Taken from MWHSR , CAHSR and AMtrak Next gen sources , all done by 2050 or 2060 which is easy to do...Some of the lines are under Construction I do count the 110mph lines for now. I would say that 300 miles is under construction for enhancements and HSR prep in the Northeast which means 110mph , with room for 125mph Electric service down the road.

Top Regional Rail Networks by 2050

Midwestern Regional Rail Network - OH - IN - IL - MI - WI - MN - MO - KS - NE - ND - SD
Size in 2012 : 527.7 Mi
Size by 2050 : 2740 Mi
Electric lines in 2012 : 76 Mi
Electric lines by 2050 : 890 Mi
Number of lines in 2012 : 12
Number of lines by 2050 : 36
Top Speed 2012 : 100mph
Top Speed 2050 : 125mph
Daily Ridership in 2012 : 304,600
Daily Ridership in 2030 : 780,000


Northeastern Regional Rail Network - NJ - NY - CT - DE - MA - RI - NH - ME - VT - PA - MD - DC - VA
Size in 2012 : 3493 Mi
Size by 2050 : 9,300 Mi
Electric lines in 2012 : 2150 Mi
Electric lines by 2050 : 8,400 Mi
Number of lines in 2012 : 64
Number of lines by 2050 : 134
Top Speed in 2012 : 125mph
Top Speed in 2012 : 125mph
Daily Ridership in 2012 : 1.6 Million
Daily Ridership by 2030 : 4.2 Million


California Regional Rail Network
Size in 2012 : 716 Mi
Size by 2050 : 892 Mi
Number of lines in 2012 : 12
Number of lines by 2050 : 17
Electric lines in 2012 : 0 Mi
Electric lines by 2050 : 630 Mi
Top Speed in 2012 : 90mph
Top Speed in by 2050 : 125mph
Daily Ridership in 2012 : 107,500
Daily Ridership by 2030 : 480,200


Taken from the various State , County , City Plans and Proposals and Transit advocate wishlists... Ridership Projections for 2030 are from me....factoring in various TOD and service enhancement projects aswell as new lines.
I have yet to do the LRT / Metro and streetcar build out comparisons...
Thanks for your hard work on finding all of those stats. Kudos to you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #892  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 3:01 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs View Post
I want to caution all posters that this particular issue has ruined many transportation and rail transit threads in the past 4 years. Ardecila doesn't need my permission or advice to keep this on track. This thread has avoided that plague and remains current and factual and without acrimony. I hope that continues.
Yea let's dial it back and keep this thread for news only.

I've tried to present a balanced perspective in my political posts on this thread. I suppose I would be a paleoconservative or libertarian, so the Democratic approach often seems reckless and wasteful while the Tea Party approach seems overly punitive and counter-productive. I'm hoping against all hope that some kind of third party can rise in this election cycle - they cannot ask for a better opportunity.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #893  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 7:41 AM
Nexis4Jersey's Avatar
Nexis4Jersey Nexis4Jersey is offline
Greetings from New Jersey
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: North Jersey
Posts: 3,261
Midwestern Light / Heavy Rail Network - OH - IN - IL - MI - WI - MN - MO - KS - NE - ND - SD
Size in 2012 : 322.4 Mi
Size by 2050 : 820 Mi
Number of lines in 2012 : 15
Number of lines by 2050 : 59
Stations in 2012 : 268
Stations by 2050 : 420+
Daily Ridership in 2011 : 815,290
Daily Ridership by 2030 : 3.8 Million


Northeastern Light / Heavy Rail Network - NJ - NY - CT - DE - MA - RI - NH - ME - VT - PA - MD - DC - VA
Size in 2012 : 1302 Mi
Size by 2050 : 2526+ Mi
Number of lines in 2012 : 71
Number of lines by 2050 : 163
Stations in 2012 : 947
Stations by 2050 : 1784+
Daily Ridership in 2011 : 7.2 Million
Daily Ridership by 2030 : 20.3 Million



California Light / Heavy Rail Network
Size in 2012 : 431.8 Mi
Size by 2050 : 1051+ Mi
Number of lines in 2012 : 22
Number of lines by 2050 : 54
Stations in 2012 : 302
Stations by 2050 : 680+
Daily Ridership in 2011 : 1.1 Million
Daily Ridership by 2030 : 5.8 Million
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #894  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 9:57 AM
Ch.G, Ch.G's Avatar
Ch.G, Ch.G Ch.G, Ch.G is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Yea let's dial it back and keep this thread for news only.

I've tried to present a balanced perspective in my political posts on this thread. I suppose I would be a paleoconservative or libertarian, so the Democratic approach often seems reckless and wasteful while the Tea Party approach seems overly punitive and counter-productive. I'm hoping against all hope that some kind of third party can rise in this election cycle - they cannot ask for a better opportunity.
I don't intend to continue the political discussion, but, objectively speaking, there is no equivalence between the Democratic approach and the Republican approach. The former have tried, maybe occasionally fumblingly, to advance alternative transportation methods in this country; the latter have done everything in their power to prevent this from happening. A "balanced perspective" would still weigh overwhelmingly against the GOP.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #895  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 3:54 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

Ignoring costs completely isn't being non political, even if most of you think so.

For example, looking at the data posted previously, just to air this issue.
Just looking at the regional ridership gains projected earlier.

Midwestern gains = passengers
3,800,000 - 815,290 = 2,984,710

Northeastern gains = passengers
20,300,000 - 7,200,000 = 13,100,000

California gains = passengers.
5,800,000 - 1,100,000 = 4,700,000

Total projected gains in ridership = 20,784,710
Considering Amtrak's total yearly ridership is around 30,000,000 today, that's a significant increase.

But, to rub salt into the wounds, or twist the knife in the taxpayers back.....
Amtrak subsidizes on average $5 on every passenger NEC regional ticket today. Assuming the same subsidy will be required in the future for corridor services nationally, that's an additional $104 Million in yearly subsidy.
20,784,710 x $5 = $103,923,550

Source of $5 per ticket subsidy for NEC Regional trains
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/...ubsidies_N.htm

That's being very generous, I doubt MidWestern and California per passenger subsidy will ever be that low. Non NEC Amtrak trains subsidy are averaging $32 per ticket today. I'm not even going to calculate what the additional subsidy would be at $32 subsidy exactly, but it should be around 6 times larger.

That's an additional $104 Million per year subsidy each and every year from additional ridership at today's money value. That's right, when you're losing money on every passenger, having more passengers mean you're losing even more money.

While some may think increasing infrastructure is always a great idea, no matter the costs, some of us think infrastructure should at least maintain the status quo within the existing subsidy and budgets.

We're already running record deficits. You can't keep increasing the budgets of all agencies in today's dollars. For some agencies to gain, some must lose. The Federal budget is finite. The pie or cake is only so large. We can't agree Amtrak should get a bigger slice because we can't agree which agency should get a smaller slice. Some of us think Amtrak should be amongst the agencies getting that smaller slice.

And really, how many passengers would Amtrak lose if they raised all NEC regional fares $5, or long distance fares $32, so they shouldn't even need a yearly subsidy?

Last edited by electricron; Apr 10, 2012 at 4:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #896  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 5:06 PM
natiboy's Avatar
natiboy natiboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 611
Federal Railroad Administrator Szabo Joins Senator Carl Levin, Congressman John Dingell to Help Revitalize Downtown Dearborn
Quote:
DEARBORN, Mich. – Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph C. Szabo today joined Senator Carl Levin and Congressman John Dingell to break ground on a new $28.2 million federally-funded intermodal train and bus station that will help revitalize downtown Dearborn and provide greater connectivity for residents throughout the region.

The project will consolidate Dearborn’s two passenger rail facilities into a pedestrian-friendly, intermodal station in the West Downtown section of the city, supporting President Obama’s vision to create livable cities by providing greater access to passenger rail service.

.....

“This new Intermodal Station will serve as Dearborn’s gateway to a modern 110 mile per hour regional passenger rail system,” said Administrator Szabo. “By 2015, nearly 80 percent of the Chicago-Detroit corridor will see sustained speeds of 110 MPH....
Source: http://www.fra.dot.gov/roa/press_rel...%2014-12.shtml
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #897  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 6:28 PM
schwerve schwerve is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
But, to rub salt into the wounds, or twist the knife in the taxpayers back.....
Amtrak subsidizes on average $5 on every passenger NEC regional ticket today. Assuming the same subsidy will be required in the future for corridor services nationally, that's an additional $104 Million in yearly subsidy.
20,784,710 x $5 = $103,923,550
subsidy/passenger is not a fixed cost.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #898  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 6:39 PM
sammyg sammyg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Amtrak subsidizes on average $5 on every passenger NEC regional ticket today. Assuming the same subsidy will be required in the future for corridor services nationally, that's an additional $104 Million in yearly subsidy.
20,784,710 x $5 = $103,923,550

...

That's an additional $104 Million per year subsidy
You do know that the Federal and State governments pour billions of dollars of subsidies into the highway and air transport systems, right? $104 million is nothing compared to that.

Back on topic: Metra is supposed to open the bids for the Englewood Flyover construction contract today - Now we can get a good sense of the cost and timeline for the project. http://metrarail.com/metra/en/home/m...s_greater.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #899  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 7:36 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammyg View Post
You do know that the Federal and State governments pour billions of dollars of subsidies into the highway and air transport systems, right? $104 million is nothing compared to that.
As long as you get that $104 Million from somewhere else within the Department of Transportation budget. I ask, which agency within the DOT would you get that money from? It's when you start to prioritize DOT funding where politics becomes involved. Amtrak's 30 Million passengers per year is a very small percentage when compared to total highway and airway passengers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #900  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 7:55 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,913
electricron:
Quote:
Amtrak's 30 Million passengers per year is a very small percentage when compared to total highway and airway passengers.
Does this underestimate the number of Amtrak passengers? When a airline passenger goes from LA to Boston via Chicago, this counts as two enplanements if the passenger changes flight number at Chicago.

I assume most rail travel is point-to-point but if any Amtrak passengers change trains en-route to their destination, this could be undercounted at the expense of other modes.

Another difference when comparing rail vs. air is that feeder trips on local commuter rail are not counted towards Amtrak's total ridership. On the other hand, passengers on commuter airlines that feed traffic to trunk routes at major hubs are counted towards the FAA's annual enplanement totals. Thus, a passenger from New Haven, CT, to Penn Station who then takes Amtrak to DC is counted as only one rail passenger but a passenger from Akron to O'Hare who connects to LAX is counted as two enplanements. This greatly exaggerates the difference of passengers between air versus rail.

Here is the link to the FAA's 2012 forecast. There were 730M passengers in 2011.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...20Forecast.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:32 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.