Pages

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Exactly What Does the US Mean When It Calls for High-Speed Rail? 60 MPH

Updates


March 23, 2011: Another example of high-speed rail in the US. $461 million cut travel time from Charlotte and Raleigh, North Carolina, by 13 minutes.

Original Post

These are the data points for the administration's "Sputnik moment," a high-speed train between the two Wisconsin cities: Madison and Milwaukee.
  • Currently there is no passenger service between these two cities
  • Bus fare costs $20/ticket
  • High speed train fare: $30 (with $70/ticket subsidy paid with state taxes) = $100/ticket
  • In 2013, if built, the train would average 57 mph
  • By 2020, if built, the train would average 60 mph
  • By 2022, if built, the train would average the same, 60 mph
  • Cost of project (Madison to Milwaukee): $785 million; with inflation, $800 million
  • Studies: 32 percent ridership on new trains (2013) -- not exactly overwhelming support; most prefer to stick with bus; easier access points, and gets them closer to their homes
  • Likely operator: Amtrak -- noted for its on-time service 
  • Biggest reason promoters advocate the "high-speed" train: if the state doesn't take the federal money, it (the money, not the train) will go to Florida.
Miscellaneous quotes from the article:
  • "High-speed rail is slower than flying, is less convenient than driving and five times more expensive than either one." 
  • "But if it's not really high-speed, it's just a name they're putting to it."
I can't make this stuff up.

2 comments:

  1. The gov of Florida seems to be holding out against high speed rail project. It will be intersting to see how this ends. My guess is that the gov will see the wisdom of high speed rail. What do you think will happen to hs rail in fl?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't know if it will be built in Florida, but if it is, I can almost guarantee: a) it will be way over budget; b) its average speed will be 60 mph; c) it will still be faster and more convenient to drive coal-powered cars; d) its ridership will never cover the cost of operations, much less the cost of building; e) it will require taxpayer subsidy forever; f) it will have no effect on overall transportation in the state; and, g) our grandchildren will gaze in amazement at this product of a president's "Sputnik" moment.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.