6 ms·

The choices here are to spend $100bn adding a lane to I-5 or a $50bn high speed rail between the cities. Adding a lane doesn’t reduce traffic in the long term,

The choices here are to spend $100bn adding a lane to I-5 or a $50bn high speed rail between the cities. Adding a lane doesn’t reduce traffic in the long term, and doesn’t reduce drive time even in the best of traffic conditions. (You still can’t go as fast as the bullet train). I think even at double the price it would still be the superior choice. But how will the highway construction companies lobby to get the work for the extra lane? Car-centric lifestyle has to go. It is maddeningly stupid and wasteful.

abcpassword 7y ago
It would cost far more than 50B. If you think that cost is accurate, I have a boat to sell you.
- ericmay 7y ago
  In my comment I noted that I think that even at double the price I still think it would be worth it.
- markus_zhang 7y ago
  That's pretty much true for everything related to construction...
  - ken 7y ago
    It's true for every major project, of any type. I can't think of any multi-year, >$10B software projects that ended up being completed on-time and on-budget, either.
- maccard 7y ago
  Do you think the 100B number for the highway is aaccurate?
  - criddell 7y ago
    I would wager it's closer to reality than the number for rail. We've built enough highways that we have a pretty good idea what the costs are. High speed rail has fewer companies bidding on it and less experienced overseers.
  - intrepidhero 7y ago
    My guess would be that the rail line would need entirely new right of way which would radically increase the variability of the cost and may result in it being down right impossible. (Speaking as someone who closely watched the drama around getting new right away along I5 for high voltage transmission) While the highway expansion probably already has the land they need for most of the project.
Mountain_Skies 7y ago
Interstate 5 goes many places other than just Portland and Vancouver. Of course the train can add in additional stops, reducing its speed advantage but will never be able to compete with a road in terms of destination count or the network effect. Which doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad idea, just that there needs to be enough people going between just the destinations served to compare to the number that would the additional road lane. Induced demand exists but is a sign of success of utility of the road. The comparisons even when everyone is being honest aren't all that clear cut and involve a huge number of variables. Also consider most companies that build roads can also build rail infrastructure or at least parts of it. A rail line isn't starvation for them and they would likely get a piece of that pie.
- ericmay 7y ago
  “ Induced demand exists but is a sign of success of utility of the road. ” Oh boy. That’s one way of putting it. I’d argue, however, that it’s a dangerous perversion of what induced demand is because it doesn’t respect the negative externalities of the action.
bitxbit 7y ago
The US, especially the NW, is not that dense which means the infrastructure must accommodate automobiles. The country is simply way too spread out to implement something that resembles rail systems in EU and Japan. While I would like to see high speed rails in the states, I believe the focus is rather myopic considering that it doesn't necessarily solve the underlying transportation problems.
- ericmay 7y ago
  I-5 will still be there. They are talking about adding a $100bn lane to the highway vs a stated cost $50bn bullet train.
- zip1234 7y ago
  Adding lanes to freeways only encourages and perpetuates such lack of density. Cars will do just as well with the current number of lanes. Induced demand is a real thing.
- CalRobert 7y ago
  The infrastructure in the US, especially the NW, is built to accommodate automobiles, which means it is not that dense.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  > The country is simply way too spread out to implement something that resembles rail systems in EU and Japan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China The only thing that’s lacking is political will to invest in public infrastructure.
  - bitxbit 7y ago
    Well I would argue that there’s also a significant cultural difference. The American car culture is not going to go away. People here love their cars. In addition, people in China didn’t have broad access to cars until 1990s. Even now, it’s likely below 30% per HH. So in that sense investing in alternative transportation infrastructure makes a lot of sense. I just think we are expecting almost an insurmountable change in our culture if we were to actually utilize a fully flushed out rail system.
Shivetya 7y ago
because like any of these proposals supporting high speed rail the numbers are always bullshit. first they don't even have their route down and even when they do it will be years in courts as every little concerned group gets a word in edgewise and their payout. the road costs are pretty much safer and likely cheaper as right of way is already secured and unlike rail you don't need to complete it all at once to have service nor complete it in connected stages. plus you have all those wonderful exits which will always be in greater frequency than train depots and they all have industry or other features using them then comes the one aspect of rail they always love to leave out, maintenance and ongoing costs. part of the reason the rail transit systems used by Amtrak and even those in cities have nearly a hundred billion dollar deficit. rail is always cheaper when you don't maintain it. then of course passenger numbers are always dream state numbers. Oh its quite fun to dream up stuff, rail always has this odd romanticism about it, but in the end who does it serve?
- hourislate 7y ago
  Actually the reason Amtrak runs a huge deficit is their long haul routes (cross country). Their local routes like the eastern corridor and even the ones on the west coast are profitable. Even their regional routes either break even or are very close. I would point you to the following Wendover Productions video that gives a great analysis. Amtrak’s Grand Plan for Profitability https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSw7fWCrDk0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSw7fWCrDk0
notJim 7y ago
Worth noting that Seattle, Portland and Vancouver all have made significant investments in public transit, so once you're in the city, you also can do pretty well without a car.
- jeffnappi 7y ago
  You certainly can - I have. We moved to downtown Seattle and sold both of our cars. Almost everything is available within a few blocks of walking, I bike commute to the office and can take bus/light rail to most places we need to go. About once a month we rent a car for a day to do further out errands - there are many options for this downtown - ShareNow, Zipcar, Avis etc. It typically costs < $200/mo including insurance etc.
throwawaysea 7y ago
The chance that this train will cost just $50b? None. Look at CA HSR. The price started out with a $40B cost and now it’s trending towards over $100B, with reduced coverage and service compared to what voters expected. It will probably end up being 4-5x its original cost in the end, if the original promise is delivered. I have higher confidence that the road will be significantly closer to its original cost estimate.

abcpassword 7y ago

It would cost far more than 50B. If you think that cost is accurate, I have a boat to sell you.

ericmay 7y ago
In my comment I noted that I think that even at double the price I still think it would be worth it.
markus_zhang 7y ago
That's pretty much true for everything related to construction...
- ken 7y ago
  It's true for every major project, of any type. I can't think of any multi-year, >$10B software projects that ended up being completed on-time and on-budget, either.
maccard 7y ago
Do you think the 100B number for the highway is aaccurate?
- criddell 7y ago
  I would wager it's closer to reality than the number for rail. We've built enough highways that we have a pretty good idea what the costs are. High speed rail has fewer companies bidding on it and less experienced overseers.
- intrepidhero 7y ago
  My guess would be that the rail line would need entirely new right of way which would radically increase the variability of the cost and may result in it being down right impossible. (Speaking as someone who closely watched the drama around getting new right away along I5 for high voltage transmission) While the highway expansion probably already has the land they need for most of the project.

Mountain_Skies 7y ago

Interstate 5 goes many places other than just Portland and Vancouver. Of course the train can add in additional stops, reducing its speed advantage but will never be able to compete with a road in terms of destination count or the network effect. Which doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad idea, just that there needs to be enough people going between just the destinations served to compare to the number that would the additional road lane. Induced demand exists but is a sign of success of utility of the road. The comparisons even when everyone is being honest aren't all that clear cut and involve a huge number of variables. Also consider most companies that build roads can also build rail infrastructure or at least parts of it. A rail line isn't starvation for them and they would likely get a piece of that pie.

ericmay 7y ago
“ Induced demand exists but is a sign of success of utility of the road. ” Oh boy. That’s one way of putting it. I’d argue, however, that it’s a dangerous perversion of what induced demand is because it doesn’t respect the negative externalities of the action.

bitxbit 7y ago

The US, especially the NW, is not that dense which means the infrastructure must accommodate automobiles. The country is simply way too spread out to implement something that resembles rail systems in EU and Japan. While I would like to see high speed rails in the states, I believe the focus is rather myopic considering that it doesn't necessarily solve the underlying transportation problems.

ericmay 7y ago
I-5 will still be there. They are talking about adding a $100bn lane to the highway vs a stated cost $50bn bullet train.
zip1234 7y ago
Adding lanes to freeways only encourages and perpetuates such lack of density. Cars will do just as well with the current number of lanes. Induced demand is a real thing.
CalRobert 7y ago
The infrastructure in the US, especially the NW, is built to accommodate automobiles, which means it is not that dense.
claudeganon 7y ago
> The country is simply way too spread out to implement something that resembles rail systems in EU and Japan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China The only thing that’s lacking is political will to invest in public infrastructure.
- bitxbit 7y ago
  Well I would argue that there’s also a significant cultural difference. The American car culture is not going to go away. People here love their cars. In addition, people in China didn’t have broad access to cars until 1990s. Even now, it’s likely below 30% per HH. So in that sense investing in alternative transportation infrastructure makes a lot of sense. I just think we are expecting almost an insurmountable change in our culture if we were to actually utilize a fully flushed out rail system.

Shivetya 7y ago

because like any of these proposals supporting high speed rail the numbers are always bullshit. first they don't even have their route down and even when they do it will be years in courts as every little concerned group gets a word in edgewise and their payout. the road costs are pretty much safer and likely cheaper as right of way is already secured and unlike rail you don't need to complete it all at once to have service nor complete it in connected stages. plus you have all those wonderful exits which will always be in greater frequency than train depots and they all have industry or other features using them then comes the one aspect of rail they always love to leave out, maintenance and ongoing costs. part of the reason the rail transit systems used by Amtrak and even those in cities have nearly a hundred billion dollar deficit. rail is always cheaper when you don't maintain it. then of course passenger numbers are always dream state numbers. Oh its quite fun to dream up stuff, rail always has this odd romanticism about it, but in the end who does it serve?

hourislate 7y ago
Actually the reason Amtrak runs a huge deficit is their long haul routes (cross country). Their local routes like the eastern corridor and even the ones on the west coast are profitable. Even their regional routes either break even or are very close. I would point you to the following Wendover Productions video that gives a great analysis. Amtrak’s Grand Plan for Profitability https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSw7fWCrDk0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSw7fWCrDk0

notJim 7y ago

Worth noting that Seattle, Portland and Vancouver all have made significant investments in public transit, so once you're in the city, you also can do pretty well without a car.

jeffnappi 7y ago
You certainly can - I have. We moved to downtown Seattle and sold both of our cars. Almost everything is available within a few blocks of walking, I bike commute to the office and can take bus/light rail to most places we need to go. About once a month we rent a car for a day to do further out errands - there are many options for this downtown - ShareNow, Zipcar, Avis etc. It typically costs < $200/mo including insurance etc.

throwawaysea 7y ago

The chance that this train will cost just $50b? None. Look at CA HSR. The price started out with a $40B cost and now it’s trending towards over $100B, with reduced coverage and service compared to what voters expected. It will probably end up being 4-5x its original cost in the end, if the original promise is delivered. I have higher confidence that the road will be significantly closer to its original cost estimate.