French Engineering

[elfenix 34,684]

43 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

The most appealing thing about Lubbock would be the HSR connection out of town

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 

i drove past the lubbock airport once.  all the planes were leaving.

[The People’s Elbow 707]

6 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Uber

Scooter sharing

Car sharing

Moped sharing

 

Plenty of proven last-mile solutions that are easy to deploy

You’re talking last mile in response to an example that’s literally almost 20 miles? Unless you want to make a dedicated and shared scooter and drunk driver lane on 35, it doesn’t seem like you really grasped Bates’ point. 

[52-80 19,377]

2 hours ago, The People’s Elbow said:

You’re talking last mile in response to an example that’s literally almost 20 miles? Unless you want to make a dedicated and shared scooter and drunk driver lane on 35, it doesn’t seem like you really grasped Bates’ point. 

Austin is 20 miles away from...Austin? 

The last-mile thing is a label.  Car share (as in onthefly rentals, not carpooling) are more appropriate for longer distances, and things like mopeds are for short distances.

And if they aren't, the 50 residences of Buda aren't exactly the original target audience of a high speed rail in the first place

[ChickenSandwich 9,932]

6 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Austin is 20 miles away from...Austin? 

The last-mile thing is a label.  Car share (as in onthefly rentals, not carpooling) are more appropriate for longer distances, and things like mopeds are for short distances.

And if they aren't, the 50 residences of Buda aren't exactly the original target audience of a high speed rail in the first place

Maybe they should be. Urbanization causes home scarcity. It cost a ton for cities to try to address this issue in already densely packed areas and one home only helps one family. The price for homes in the burbs and surrounding areas are way cheaper and would be better served for affordable housing projects. 

Solving the transportation issue with trains and the like, will serve millions of families per/dollar rather than paying 3x market rate for city property and 100 beds.  Land is a resource we have in abundance.

Transportation isn’t an easy problem but the benefit per dollar to fight affordable housing in dense population centers is exponential compared to one bed one person. 

*but this would be the city leaders conceding tax dollars and losing voting power with a more spread out population. (Diff discussion)

Edited June 25, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

Just now, ChickenSandwich said:

Maybe they should be. Urbanization causes home scarcity. It cost a ton for cities to try to address this issue in already densely packed areas and one home only helps one family. The price for homes in the burbs and surrounding areas are way cheaper and would be better served for affordable housing projects. 

Solving the transportation issue with trains in the like, will serve millions of families per/dollar than paying 3x market rate for city property and 100 beds. 

Transportation isn’t an easy problem but the benefit per dollar to fight affordable housing in dense population centers is exponential compared to one bed one person. 

Yep, and without that public transportation suburban low cost housing wouldn't work.  We have got to start developing a mass transit system like Europe, but our love affairs with cars is awfully damned strong.

[ChickenSandwich 9,932]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yep, and without that public transportation suburban low cost housing wouldn't work.  We have got to start developing a mass transit system like Europe, but our love affairs with cars is awfully damned strong.

Technology can adapt the car problem. Car sharing and driverless cars for the “last 5 miles”. Electric bus caravans from burbs. High tolls for private cars etc etc. We can work with what we have without demolishing everything and starting from scratch. 

[ABSR 5,369]

On 6/24/2019 at 1:21 AM, Telegraph_it said:

The future is high speed e scooters. Rail is so 19th century. 

Has anyone looked into high speed Gondolas?

[clapclapclap 9,000]

19 hours ago, Loco said:

No, that's not what happened.  It was politics pure and simple.  See spoiler for details

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Original referendum

In November 2000, Florida voters approved an amendment to Florida's constitution mandating the state establish a system of high speed trains exceeding 120 mph to link its five largest urban areas, with construction to commence by November 1, 2003. The Florida Legislature enacted the Florida High Speed Rail Authority Act in March 2001, creating the Florida High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA).^[7] The HSRA established a Vision Plan for the system which proposed construction in several phases.^[8] Preliminary assessments and environmental studies were begun to develop an initial phase of the system between Orlando and Tampa.^[7]

The first phase, planned for completion in 2009 under the original referendum, would have connected Orlando to Tampa (Phase 1, Part 1), with a later extension to St. Petersburg (Phase 1, Part 2).^[9] Later phases might have extended the network to Miami, Fort Myers, Jacksonville, Tallahassee and Pensacola.

The Florida HSRA issued a Request for Proposal to Design, Build, Operate, Maintain and Finance (DBOM&F) the Orlando to Tampa Phase In October 2002. Two of the four received in February 2003 were reviewed further, one from a consortium of Fluor Corp. and Bombardier Transportation and one from Global Rail Consortium. The proposals showed cost of the Orlando-Tampa route to be approximately $2.4 billion. Both proposals offered private equity contributions to support operations of the system and show willingness of the private sector to share risk associated with projected ridership revenues.^[7] In June 2003 Florida Governor Jeb Bush vetoed funding for the project that the Florida Legislature had approved.^[10] The HSRA continued moving forward with the project, using funds already authorized by the federal government, and in October 2003 ranked the Fluor Bombardier proposal first.^[7]

In early 2004, Governor Jeb Bush endorsed an effort to repeal the 2000 amendment that mandated the construction of the High Speed Rail System. On October 27, 2004, the authority voted to prefer the consortium of Fluor Corp.and Bombardier Transportation to build and operate the system, using Bombardier's JetTrain technology. However a month later in November, Florida voters repealed the 2000 amendment, removing the constitutional mandate for the system. Although the amendment was repealed, no action was taken by the state legislature in regard to the Florida High Speed Rail Authority Act. With the law still in effect, Florida's HSRA continued to meet, and completed the environmental impact statement for the Tampa-Orlando segment in 2005. With the constitutional mandate gone, however, funding for the project came to a halt and very little action was taken over the next several years.^[7]

Plans revived in 2009[edit]

Passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 designated $8 billion for the development of a high-speed intercity passenger rail system. The Federal Railroad Administration named Florida one of ten high speed rail corridors potentially eligible for the federal funding.^[11] The HSRA met on February 26, 2009, to begin planning their application for these funds.^[12] Due to the passage of time, potential legal issues, and new federal funding criteria rendering the earlier bids from 2003 inapplicable, the decision was made in May 2009 that a new bidding process would be necessary.^[13][14] A first round application was submitted in August 2009 for $30 million to conduct a two-year environmental study on the Orlando-Miami route. In October 2009, the authority submitted an application during the second round for the entire Tampa - Orlando - Miami corridor, broken into two components: Orlando-Tampa and Orlando-Miami.^[15] Connect Us, a political action committee, was launched on August 18, 2009, to rally public support for these applications.^[16]

On December 16, the Florida Legislature passed a bill authorizing FDOT move forward with the purchase from CSX of the Central Florida Rail Corridor for the SunRail commuter rail project, and providing much needed additional funding for South Florida's Tri-Rail commuter rail system.^[17] Funding of these initiatives was vital to the state's hopes to win federal HSR funding, as it showed the state of Florida was committed to creating a comprehensive rail network allowing connectivity between high speed rail and local mass transit systems.^[18] The legislation also replaced the Florida High Speed Rail Authority with the Florida Rail Enterprise, a new agency created under the FDOT, responsible for construction, maintenance, and promotion of the state's high-speed rail system, as well as development and operation of publicly funded passenger rail systems in general.^[19]

On January 28, 2010, the White House announced that Florida would receive $1.25 billion of its request, about half of the cost of the Tampa-Orlando segment.^[2] The state's efforts towards high speed rail between 2000 and 2005 put Florida ahead of the field in terms of the level of planning already completed, and this proved to be a major factor in winning the funds.^[3] The preservation of the I-4 corridor by the FDOT, and completion of the environmental impact studies in 2005 meant that the project could have proceeded to construction in a very short time frame for a relatively affordable cost. In March 2010 the Florida Rail Enterprise was still seeking to refine cost estimates based on advanced engineering, finish development of possible Early Works (Install permanent barrier systems along most of I-4 and remove/relocate elements in median) and contract for bid in 2010 and finally initiate a new bid procurement process specific to the Tampa to Orlando phase.^[1] In June 2010, the Federal Railroad Administration issued its record of final decision, the final stage of approval for the design, purchase of land and construction of phase one. Tendering was thus able to begin.^[20] In October 2010, Florida received $800 million more towards construction from the FY 2010 High Speed Rail allocations.^[21]

In December 2010 the US Department of Transportation redistributed approximately $1.2 billion in HSR funds that had been rejected by governors elect in Wisconsin and Ohio. Florida was projected to receive as much as $342.3 million of the reallocated rail funds which would have closed the gap of the entire projected cost of project. Construction of the line was to begin in 2011, with the initial phase completed by 2014.^[3]

Cancellation[edit]

On February 16, 2011, Governor Rick Scott formally announced that he would be rejecting federal funds to construct the project, attempting to kill Florida High Speed Rail. On March 4, 2011, the Florida Supreme Court unanimously turned down the request of two state senators to force Scott to accept the federal funding for the project. Shortly thereafter, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced that he would be redirecting the funds intended for Florida to other states and on May 9, awarded $2.02 billion to 22 projects in 15 states.^[22]

 

 

That doesn't conflict with what I wrote.  Orlando-Tampa was going to be the first segment, which was too short for HSR to be very viable and pull many out of their cars.  It wasn't planned like a commuter rail system, there were only going to be a few stops.  Even Brightline's short term WPB-Mia service in a far more congested corridor with higher ridership potential is losing money on every ticket (Last I heard fares were covering less than 1/3rd of expenses.)  The potential profit were in the longer corridors (SE FL to Orlando/Tampa) where driving was closer to 3 or more hours.  So the proposed HSR starter system would have had to extend to Mia from Orlando, at a much higher cost than the Brightline option because they couldn't use existing rail lines and would have had to completely grade separate on new ROW.  Even using highway corridors, it an't cheap to adapt those to the much different engineering requirements of HSR.

There were a lot of prudent fiscal and community impact considerations (for and against) that came into play, it wasn't just "Politics!"  Of course politics played a role, but not everything is a simple conspiracy by "Other side bad!"

Edited June 25, 2019 by clapclapclap
Choo choo

[Jiggy-Z 3,509]

 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

21 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Technology can adapt the car problem. Car sharing and driverless cars for the “last 5 miles”. Electric bus caravans from burbs. High tolls for private cars etc etc. We can work with what we have without demolishing everything and starting from scratch. 

Not in favor of high tolls for cars. I never like the concept of we'll make something artificially expensive so you won't do it anymore.  Too much big brother going on there for my taste.

A really good mass transit needs to be able to get people directly to points A and B without too many different transportation connectors.  I'd figure at some point trains take over lanes from the highway systems as we move from that form of transportation, but that also gets into national defense plans so probably not gonna happen any time soon.

['stache 22,129]

If what I'm reading about the speed of development in driverless vehicles, my prior love for bullet trains has diminished. When that technology is in full swing, cars will be able to go well over 100mph safely, and the occupant can be productive during the trip. The larger problem is our governments can't even afford to maintain the roads they've built, theres no way they'll get the trillions needed for long distance high speed rail. We missed the boat on that about a century ago. I'd rather focus on existing infrustructure, driverless technology, and reducing or eliminating the internal comustion engine, which will be possible by a combination of battery technology improvements and driverless cars (they can find charging stations on their own while your not occupying it).

Edited June 25, 2019 by 'stache

[Asithappens 978]

On 6/23/2019 at 12:43 PM, Horn_Spanker said:

I know, right.  The people that gave us Renault &  Peugeot.

But, I was in France earlier this month and zoomed around the country at 320 kph (198.839 mph).  Every American I met on the train asked, why can't we have this?

Why can't we have this?

 

We can. We just don't have the balls.

Edited June 25, 2019 by Asithappens

[ChickenSandwich 9,932]

[clapclapclap 9,000]

24 minutes ago, 'stache said:

If what I'm reading about the speed of development in driverless vehicles, my prior love for bullet trains has diminished. When that technology is in full swing, cars will be able to go well over 100mph safely, and the occupant can be productive during the trip. 

 

A just machine to make big decisions
Programmed by fellows with compassion and vision
We'll be clean when their work is done
We'll be eternally free yes and eternally young

What a beautiful world this will be
What a glorious time to be free

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

3 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

We can. We just don't have the balls.

It balls filled with a whole fucking lot of money. Rail construction costs in the US are more expensive than anywhere else in the developed world.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

Just now, clapclapclap said:

 

A just machine to make big decisions
Programmed by fellows with compassion and vision
We'll be clean when their work is done
We'll be eternally free yes and eternally young

What a beautiful world this will be
What a glorious time to be free

Been humming that in my head thru this whole thread. Don't forget the matching spandex jackets !!!

[Loco 3,754]

30 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

That doesn't conflict with what I wrote.  Orlando-Tampa was going to be the first segment, which was too short for HSR to be very viable and pull many out of their cars.  It wasn't planned like a commuter rail system, there were only going to be a few stops.  Even Brightline's short term WPB-Mia service in a far more congested corridor with higher ridership potential is losing money on every ticket (Last I heard fares were covering less than 1/3rd of expenses.)  The potential profit were in the longer corridors (SE FL to Orlando/Tampa) where driving was closer to 3 or more hours.  So the proposed HSR starter system would have had to extend to Mia from Orlando, at a much higher cost than the Brightline option because they couldn't use existing rail lines and would have had to completely grade separate on new ROW.  Even using highway corridors, it an't cheap to adapt those to the much different engineering requirements of HSR.

There were a lot of prudent fiscal and community impact considerations (for and against) that came into play, it wasn't just "Politics!"  Of course politics played a role, but not everything is a simple conspiracy by "Other side bad!"

"In December 2010 the US Department of Transportation redistributed approximately $1.2 billion in HSR funds that had been rejected by governors elect in Wisconsin and Ohio. Florida was projected to receive as much as $342.3 million of the reallocated rail funds which would have closed the gap of the entire projected cost of project.

I guess you just didn't read what I posted.

Also, the notion that Government should only provide services that produce profits is very much a political idea.  The goal of government is to provide services that individuals alone are not able to provide (courts, law enforcement, education, infrastructure, etc).  Taxes are collected to pay for those services.  The people of Florida overwhelmingly voted for high-speed rail.  One party did not want it because of the perception that it would have cost and therefore result in higher taxes. When money was available from the federal government to support the project, they rejected the funds...      It wasn't a pragmatic problem that killed HSR and it wasn't a bi-partisan decision to kill it either, it was a political one.  Easy to understand.

 

 

[RDCanecutter 26,863]

With virtual reality, connectivity, and robot minivans dropping off all our needs at the curb for our robot house-servants to fetch inside, there will soon be no need for passenger trains, planes, buses, cars, or trucks. We will have no need to ever go outside.

Except for us robot minivan pirates. We'll still be out there, digging the pit-traps.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

On 6/23/2019 at 1:47 PM, Parliament said:

I believe property rights in the US make it much tougher to get the rights of way to do such things.

No they don't.  Let's take a look at two different right of ways.  Here's I-10 in Houston.  Its something like a 1/4 mile wide.

Here's the TGV right of way in rural France.  Its maybe 20 feet wide.  Even in Paris, its rarely more than 4 tracks.

And the monstrosity that is I-10?  We built it from sea to shining sea right through the city centers of Los Angeles, Phoenix, Tuscon, El Paso, San Antonio, Houston, New Orleans, and Jacksonville.  And throughout its right of way, there is plenty of median and shoulder.  We could actually build an entire nationwide TGV in existing right of way that hits the city center of nearly every city in America.

The main issue for us is that we don't have any type of unified transportation plan.  We worship the car so much that even in transit rich areas, nobody can find a way to get straight right of way for new track to replace Acela's.  Here's what the NJ turnpike looks like though.  Straight as an arrow and plenty of space for 2 or 4 tracks.  Can't possibly take a little bit from there though.  Really, it isn't even discussed as an option.

Edited June 25, 2019 by FondrenRoad

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

4 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

No they don't.  Let's take a look at two different right of ways.  Here's I-10 in Houston.  Its something like a 1/4 mile wide.

Here's the TGV right of way in rural France.  Its maybe 20 feet wide.  Even in Paris, its rarely more than 4 tracks.

And the monstrosity that is I-10?  We built it from see to shining sea right through the city centers of Los Angeles, Phoenix, Tuscon, El Paso, San Antonio, Houston, New Orleans, and Jacksonville.  And throughout its right of way, there is plenty of median and shoulder.  We could actually build an entire nationwide TGV in existing right of way that hits the city center of nearly every city in America.

The main issue for us is that we don't have any type of unified transportation plan.  We worship the car so much that even in transit rich areas, nobody can find a way to get straight right of way for new track to replace Acela's.  Here's what the NJ turnpike looks like though.  Straight as an arrow and plenty of space for 2 or 4 tracks.  Can't possibly take a little bit from there though.  Really, it isn't even discussed as an option.

Seems like the corridors are already there. Take a lane/mediun from the Highway system in some places.

Edited June 25, 2019 by Onboard 2.0

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,999]

Standard gauge is about 4.71 feet wide. So based on that photo the ROW is anywhere from 80 to 100 feet wide. And the interstate can be used by people who live up and down it's length. HSR only really benefits people who live at either end at the expense of those who live in the middle. 

[Loco 3,754]

16 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Standard gauge is about 4.71 feet wide. So based on that photo the ROW is anywhere from 80 to 100 feet wide. And the interstate can be used by people who live up and down it's length. HSR only really benefits people who live at either end at the expense of those who live in the middle. 

unless you count taking cars off the existing road and easing congestion

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

25 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Standard gauge is about 4.71 feet wide. So based on that photo the ROW is anywhere from 80 to 100 feet wide. And the interstate can be used by people who live up and down it's length. HSR only really benefits people who live at either end at the expense of those who live in the middle. 

That's why every HSR system in the world has local and express service.  In Japan, there is local, express, and superexpress.  The people in the middle can and should have a stop in their town.  Even Acela has local stops served by Northeast Regional service.

Also, rural ROW for trains does have an additional buffer zone because it can.  In urban areas it usually doesn't.  Its elevated, sunken, or at grade with fencing only 1 foot or two from passing trains.  Either way, the ROW needed for rail is a rounding error compared to what is needed for interstates.

[GringoSalado 1,652]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

And the monstrosity that is I-10?  We built it from sea to shining sea right through the city centers of Los Angeles, Phoenix, Tuscon, El Paso, San Antonio, Houston, New Orleans, and Jacksonville.  And throughout its right of way, there is plenty of median and shoulder.  We could actually build an entire nationwide TGV in existing right of way that hits the city center of nearly every city in America.

You seem to be advocating installing HSR in existing highway ROW (on I-10 and the Jersey turnpike), and I don't think that would work, or at least as simply as you make it sound. Not an engineer but it seems to me that HSR has much stricter grade and turn requirements than freeways.

I doubt even freight rail could follow I-10 ROW for those reasons.

 

Maybe not

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2019 by GringoSalado
double negative, doesn't ou not suck

[Neonmoon 38,130]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

It balls filled with a whole fucking lot of money. Rail construction costs in the US are more expensive than anywhere else in the developed world.

The money is not a barrier. There are private companies that will fund these trains. There is nothing stopping trains from being built other than the usual excuses (and a new one, Wildlife migration)

 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

The money is not a barrier. There are private companies that will fund these trains. There is nothing stopping trains from being built other than the usual excuses (and a new one, Wildlife migration)

 

No the money is a barrier according to many in the industry.  That was one of the things discussed in the NPR piece. The cost of rail here is just astoundingly high.  It makes getting anything approved extremely difficult.

The wildlife issue shouldn't be one. They built the Alaskan pipeline, and included that in the equation, so it's just a matter of establishing the known routes.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,999]

14 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

The money is not a barrier. There are private companies that will fund these trains. There is nothing stopping trains from being built other than the usual excuses (and a new one, Wildlife migration)

 

Wildlife migration isn't really a problem if enough is elevated and there aren't tall fences preventing it. As pointed out earlier in the thread, about half of the proposed track is supposed to be elevated.

Edit: a pipeline is a little different than a train ROW with tall barbed wire topped fences on either side, as it doesn't really impede the flow of wild animals.

Edited June 25, 2019 by NotActuallyALonghorn

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

15 minutes ago, GringoSalado said:

You seem to be advocating installing HSR in existing highway ROW (on I-10 and the Jersey turnpike), and I don't think that would work, or at least as simply as you make it sound. Not an engineer but it seems to me that HSR has much stricter grade and turn requirements than freeways.

I doubt even freight rail could follow I-10 ROW for those reasons.

 

Maybe not

 

 

 

Freight rail could follow it for sure, and does for quite a bit of it, I believe. 

HSR would be a problem where interstate isn't up to modern interstate guidelines, but elsewhere, its pretty straight.  HSR would have a bigger problem with grade changes than turns on I-10.  It would need to be elevated in Houston to avoid the artificial hills created by overpasses.   By the time it gets to the I10/45 interchange, it will have had to slow down anyway since it will almost be at Houston station.  Most HSR systems don't run near full speed in urban areas.  The advertised top speed only happens in the countryside and suburban areas. Still looking at the map, a better alignment would probably be to route it from I10 to Westpark Tollway near 359 in Brookshire.

The NJ Turnpike is nearly entirely straight and flat.  The big problem with using it as a ROW is that it skips Philly, but with some additional ROW to cut the corners at the PA/NJ turnpike interchange and the 95/PA turnpike interchange in Philly, it can be done.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/01/why-its-so-expensive-to-build-urban-rail-in-the-us/551408/

This is a fun article

Quote

In his exposé, Rosenthal talked about labor problems: severe overstaffing, with some workers doing jobs that are no longer necessary, and wages well into six figures. These issues are not exclusive to New York. A chapter in a textbook about megaproject construction states that “as a result of existing union agreements covering the eastern seaboard area of the United States, underground construction employs approximately four times the number of personnel as in similar jobs in Asia, Australia, or Europe.” European subway construction uses union labor, just like American construction, but the work rules that have accumulated over the decades permit higher productivity and fewer workers doing each task.

But the problems are not just to do with labor. Working alongside active commuter or intercity rail lines brings a slew of new requirements and regulations. The Green Line Extension is notable for running in a trench next to a commuter rail line, and several Boston-area rail activists told me that a key reason for its high cost is that construction is not permitted to disturb commuter rail service. Another light rail line running alongside commuter rail and Amtrak, San Diego’s Mid-Coast Trolley extension, costs $2.1 billion for 11 miles; by contrast, other light rail projects on San Diego’s wishlist are projected to cost less, about $100 million per mile in 2010 dollars.

In California, the quality of contractors is to blame for some problems. The San Diego Union Tribune ran an article in 2013 focusing on Tutor Perini, which has a pattern of submitting low bids to win public construction contracts but then running over because of change orders and courtroom battles, contributing to an average 40-percent cost overrun in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Thanks Unions

[clapclapclap 9,000]

1 hour ago, Loco said:

"In December 2010 the US Department of Transportation redistributed approximately $1.2 billion in HSR funds that had been rejected by governors elect in Wisconsin and Ohio. Florida was projected to receive as much as $342.3 million of the reallocated rail funds which would have closed the gap of the entire projected cost of project.

I guess you just didn't read what I posted.

Also, the notion that Government should only provide services that produce profits is very much a political idea.  The goal of government is to provide services that individuals alone are not able to provide (courts, law enforcement, education, infrastructure, etc).  Taxes are collected to pay for those services.  The people of Florida overwhelmingly voted for high-speed rail.  One party did not want it because of the perception that it would have cost and therefore result in higher taxes. When money was available from the federal government to support the project, they rejected the funds...      It wasn't a pragmatic problem that killed HSR and it wasn't a bi-partisan decision to kill it either, it was a political one.  Easy to understand.

 

 

 

Um, that full funding was just for the Orlando to Tampa section.  Less than 1/3rd of the entire Miami-Tampa route.  And there were other potential issues:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/us/17rail.html

Mr. Scott said at a news conference in Tallahassee on Wednesday that cost overruns related to the Tampa-to-Orlando line could leave Florida taxpayers stuck with a $3 billion tab. Further, he said that if the state deemed the project too costly after having started construction, it would be required to return the $2.4 billion to the federal government. He also said he believed that estimates of riders and revenue for the rail line were too optimistic, and that state taxpayers would have been left to pay for subsidies to keep the line running because it would be unable to pay for itself.

Mr. Scott said that although one study had projected that three million people would use the Tampa-to-Orlando line annually, only 3.2 million people rode Amtrak’s Acela trains in the Northeast Corridor in 2010, even though the population centers along the Acela route have as many as eight times the population of the area that would be served by the proposed Florida line.

 

Those were all legitimate concerns and points, several of which have played out in the growing fiasco that is the California HSR project mentioned in the same piece:

The current proposal for a high-speed Tampa-to-Orlando line, which was supposed to eventually connect with Miami, was one of two high-speed lines approved by Congress. The other would connect San Francisco and Los Angeles at speeds up to 225 miles per hour. That project has received federal pledges of about $3 billion, though the cost has been estimated to be $43 billion.

 

California now estimates that their HSR project would cost $79 billion, not $43 billion.  A bit of a cost overrun, wouldn't you say?  So much so that the new governor has basically halted the future phases of the project for a complete review and overhaul.  Which may result in having to repay the feds some of that money received.  And the ridership projections have been criticized as wildly over optimistic by groups from across the political spectrum.

And who says govt should only fund projects that are profitable?  I didn't.  But a private or public-private project that requires billions less of taxpayers dollars than a similar govt or public-private project might be a better deal for a state than the latter.  

[clapclapclap 9,000]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

Here's the TGV right of way in rural France.  Its maybe 20 feet wide.  Even in Paris, its rarely more than 4 tracks.

Lulz, please claim you meant 20 meters.  The cars alone are 9.5' wide, there's 2 tracks, plus the safety margin in between the tracks, then to each set of poles, then drainage, and then adjacent areas to accommodate slope, etc.  You see that fence?  That's likely one of your property lines.

 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

43 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

Lulz, please claim you meant 20 meters.  The cars alone are 9.5' wide, there's 2 tracks, plus the safety margin in between the tracks, then to each set of poles, then drainage, and then adjacent areas to accommodate slope, etc.  You see that fence?  That's likely one of your property lines.

 

You're right.  Its twice the size of I-10's ROW.  And drainage?  I-10 sure doesn't have that.  Impossible to build.  We'll never have HSR in America because I lowballed the width of the ROW in that arbitrarily selected picture.  Let's double I10's width again instead.

Or how about you stop nitpicking over bullshit and respond to the actual content of the post?

[clapclapclap 9,000]

2 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

The main issue for us is that we don't have any type of unified transportation plan.   

I'd expand that and say we haven't had the political will to muscle through and make the necessary tough changes, taking on interest groups, setting aside ideological dogma, and be willing to pay the somewhat high costs.  It will require changes at the federal level. 

Congress long ago granted special rights to railroads that now often run counter to the public's interests.  There was good reasons for doing so and still good arguments for much of it remaining (for example you don't want every podunk jurisdiction arbitrarily imposing their own speed or time of use limits or simply force them to relocate without very good reasons and negotiations.)  But with so much dense development of our cities and the cost to insert new infrastructure there, it really would be better policy to relocate some freight mainlines to outside of larger cities and repurpose those urban lines for commuter and intercity passenger use, with freight use curtailed to nights or at least non-rush hours.

The Georgetown to San Antonio regional passenger rail line would already be running except the owner, Union Pacific, for years appears to have had excessive demands and eventually terminated talks and rejected any offer of relocation.  So dug in that the regional rail commission then disbanded.  To be fair, maybe the commission wouldn't agree to adequately fund it, but they had the state behind the effort, so I doubt that.  (130 was originally going to be designed to accommodate the freight line.)

I think the best proposal would be for the feds to buy out the freight railroad's ROW and convert it to an open access system like the interstate is.  Move from mostly monopoly and duopoly freight rail service to one that has much more competition.  Similar to how Australia and much of Europe own their rail ROW's.  Set it up like the highways, state control with fed coordination and oversight.  Would lower the cost of commuter rail and light-rail projects, speed implementation, and lessen the often way too restrictive limits on frequency and operating hours impose by the freight RR's.

All that has to be paid for, so Republicans would have to go against some of their cut-n-paste talking points and stand up to some of the vocal knee jerks in their constituencies.

But you also need to review, revise, and make more flexible NEPA (environmental review process and regs), which means Democrats have to not reflexively scream how anyone proposing that wants to pollute our country and kill children.  The current process is too ham-handed, often onerous, and parts of it an unnecessary waste for many projects.  

Need to tighten up the legal process and lower the ability to sue over any tidbit that can delay projects for years by activists and NIMBY's with spurious claims.  

And then there's all the little political jurisdictional rivalries and local corruption that continue our often inefficient and balkanized multilayers of local governance.  I can't really blame suburban cities for not wanting to join or continue in regional transit districts when you see things like Houston Metro allocate most of their light rail money to lines into districts that serve the demographic check boxes favored by Houston city council members (of one particular party) while putting off serving high ridership generating job centers like Uptown/Galleria and Greenway Plaza, and telling everyone else that they will just get bus lines for the next 40 years.  So you similarly end up with a gap riddled DART, the T in Fort Worth, and Denton and Collin Counties separate agencies, and a line from downtown FW to DFW airport with a huge gap because Colleyville opts out (but residents can take advantage without paying taxes by simply driving to a nearby station.)  A regional multi-county agency planned by the COG's would be far more efficient and comprehensive for our biggest metro areas, but tough to actually get it off the ground in our current political setup.  Doesn't help that our legislature ridiculously only meets for a few months every 2 years, primarily because some Republicans jack off on how supposedly ideologically pure the idea is.

Don't get me wrong, buses are the backbone and have the highest ridership of most transit systems in large urban areas around the globe.  Houston's actually makes a lot of sense, given how dispersed employment is and the cost of building new rail ROW corridors.  But Metro owns the former railroad ROW that the Westpark tollway is built on and the 50' wide remaining portion set aside for transit.  A lot cheaper to build light rail on than in many corridors (and even the right demographics along much of it, but not as powerful political districts.)  Or at least an even cheaper Bus Rapid Transit.

DART and much of DFW for the most part are doing a good job expanding transit.  Any dip in percentage use of DART the last few years is a bit misleading, since they are laying the transit network base now, before it gets just even more expensive.  DFW is on pace to surpass the Chicago metro in size by 2030 (about 10 million people), Boston in 3 years, SF/SJ before Chicago, and even catch DC-Baltimore by 2041.  Lots can change, but within 25 years DFW may end up larger than all but greater NYC and LA.

 

Quote

Or how about you stop nitpicking over bullshit and respond to the actual content of the post?

Patience, grasshopper.

Edited June 25, 2019 by clapclapclap
I. Typeslow

[SimonBolivar 11,062]

Timely look back at the interurban service that once existed in Texas before the interstate system.

https://www.wacotrib.com/news/business/long-lost-electric-interurban-once-provided-big-city-escape/article_13477615-df1a-5b79-8038-af50470aae01.html

 

 

 

 

[elfenix 34,684]

4 hours ago, 'stache said:

If what I'm reading about the speed of development in driverless vehicles

uh, it's slowing down.  expect them to come later rather than sooner.  source: a good friend of mine works in robotics for nasa and goes to all the conferences on this shit.

[SydneyCarton 49,473]

29 minutes ago, elfenix said:

uh, it's slowing down.  expect them to come later rather than sooner.  source: a good friend of mine works in robotics for nasa and goes to all the conferences on this shit.

Bullshit, Houston is about to get driver-less Domino's delivery pizza. Check and mate, robots.