7 ms·

The widening of I-25 between Denver and Colorado Springs, about a 60 mile stretch, is a great example as to why you're wrong. To add an extra lane to help the

The widening of I-25 between Denver and Colorado Springs, about a 60 mile stretch, is a great example as to why you're wrong. To add an extra lane to help the load of roughly 20% of Colorado Springs residents (~50k people) that commute between the cities, costs $350 million. To build an HSR would be around $1.8 billion. There was a push to put in a rail as this seemed like a perfect use case (spoiler alert, it showed how niche HSR actually is and how it was a bad idea for lots of places) Even if you charged $10 for a day pass and you had a 100% usage rate by those commuters on every work day (22 workdays a month) that's an income of $132 million a year for the HSR. Hopefully energy, labor, insurance, repair, and upgrades for the rail will be free for the lifetime as well. That's just a constant sink for the public for hair thin marginal benefit. If you make that trip often, you get a fuel efficient car at around 30mpg (what I did). That's about $10 in gas a day. Why would I pay to wait and be on someone else's time? Most commuter rails have narrow commuter hour windows. Not like you can hang out in the city. Worse when you need to travel around the spanse of the city quickly throughout the day. As in, on your time, not on someone else's. Btw, that 50k population ground that commutes, a lot are contractors. As in, they use vans and trucks to carry tools, equipment and materials... so, the practical number of regular users is going to be less. So, will a politician like to try to convince a population for tax raises for $350 million or for something that's 5 times more expensive? Spoiler again, when it comes to you having to pay for it, you're going to be economical. People were cool with the slight tax hikes for the widening of I25. Not for the major hike that the HSR would need. Doesn't seem political to me. Ain't get more practical than that there good buddy. Let that marinate. Source, I lived there when this was going on. It's all easy to research since it was a well reported issue. Also, I made that commute somewhat often. HSR wouldn't have worked for me since I was an IT contractor for different companies in the city and needed to move nimbly throughout Denver.

thethethethe 6y ago
Roads don't pay for themselves, we even make them free to drive on. We pay for them with our taxes. Are they a drain on society because there is no revenue stream and they are expensive to maintain? No, of course not, the cost is payed off many times over by the benefits of the economic activity it facilitates. Same thing with HSR. It will shorten commutes for everyone, not just people on the train, enabling those contractors and utility workers do their jobs more efficiently. These things have ripple effects opening up new economic avenues for all different types of people, and not just those who ride the train
- TMWNN 6y ago
  >Roads don't pay for themselves US highways do pay for themselves (http://www.bts.gov/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/pdf/entire.pdf http://www.bts.gov/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passeng...) (non-PDF version: http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/index.html http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pub...), and help pay for other modes of transportation. Transit receives the biggest subsidy per passenger-mile, with rail and airlines in between. (For those wishing more detail: From the executive summary (http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/html/executive_summary.html http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pub...): >*Highways* >* Users of the highway passenger transportation system paid significantly greater amounts of money to the federal government than their allocated costs in 1994-2000.(http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/html/figure_01.html http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pub...) This was a result of the increase in the deficit reduction motor fuel tax rates between October 1993 and September 1997, and the increase in Highway Trust Fund fuel tax rates starting in October 1997. >* School and transit buses received positive net federal subsidies over the 1990-2002 period, but autos, motorcycles, pickups and vans, and intercity buses paid more than their allocated cost to the federal government. >* On average, highway users paid $1.91 per thousand passenger-miles to the federal government over their highway allocated cost during 1990-2002.)
  - Fern_Blossom 6y ago
    Don't know if it's my end, but your links aren't working. Did a quick search, is it this site you're referencing? https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/federal_subsidies_t...
    - TMWNN 6y ago
      Yes; thank you for finding the current site.
adrianN 6y ago
You seem to be comparing the cost of one additional lane to the cost of a railway. That doesn't seem fair since trains have a much higher capacity than a single lane of a highway. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding?
- Fern_Blossom 6y ago
  The goal was to help 50k people commute between two cities. One potential solution is to widen the highway by one lane on both sides. One other solution is to setup a dedicated commuter rail. The money was being spent for commuters, you are basing cost to commuter capacity ratios. Even if an HSR train could take 50k people is one go, that still doesn't make it better. In reality, everyone will not show up at the same time. In reality, the 50k people that do commute, not all of them could use the rail due to their occupational requirements of tools/material transpo and/or needed to travel throughout the city during the work day. In reality, operational costs out weigh the benefits. An HSR is like the Gravina Island Bridge project, aka, Bridge to Nowhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge A $400m dollar bridge to replace a ferry for a town of 50 people. Yes, the bridge has a better capacity than the ferry. It still isn't useful because of all the costs associated for so few people.

thethethethe 6y ago

Roads don't pay for themselves, we even make them free to drive on. We pay for them with our taxes. Are they a drain on society because there is no revenue stream and they are expensive to maintain? No, of course not, the cost is payed off many times over by the benefits of the economic activity it facilitates. Same thing with HSR. It will shorten commutes for everyone, not just people on the train, enabling those contractors and utility workers do their jobs more efficiently. These things have ripple effects opening up new economic avenues for all different types of people, and not just those who ride the train

TMWNN 6y ago
>Roads don't pay for themselves US highways do pay for themselves (http://www.bts.gov/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/pdf/entire.pdf http://www.bts.gov/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passeng...) (non-PDF version: http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/index.html http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pub...), and help pay for other modes of transportation. Transit receives the biggest subsidy per passenger-mile, with rail and airlines in between. (For those wishing more detail: From the executive summary (http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/html/executive_summary.html http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pub...): >*Highways* >* Users of the highway passenger transportation system paid significantly greater amounts of money to the federal government than their allocated costs in 1994-2000.(http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/html/figure_01.html http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pub...) This was a result of the increase in the deficit reduction motor fuel tax rates between October 1993 and September 1997, and the increase in Highway Trust Fund fuel tax rates starting in October 1997. >* School and transit buses received positive net federal subsidies over the 1990-2002 period, but autos, motorcycles, pickups and vans, and intercity buses paid more than their allocated cost to the federal government. >* On average, highway users paid $1.91 per thousand passenger-miles to the federal government over their highway allocated cost during 1990-2002.)
- Fern_Blossom 6y ago
  Don't know if it's my end, but your links aren't working. Did a quick search, is it this site you're referencing? https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/federal_subsidies_t...
  - TMWNN 6y ago
    Yes; thank you for finding the current site.

adrianN 6y ago

You seem to be comparing the cost of one additional lane to the cost of a railway. That doesn't seem fair since trains have a much higher capacity than a single lane of a highway. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding?

Fern_Blossom 6y ago
The goal was to help 50k people commute between two cities. One potential solution is to widen the highway by one lane on both sides. One other solution is to setup a dedicated commuter rail. The money was being spent for commuters, you are basing cost to commuter capacity ratios. Even if an HSR train could take 50k people is one go, that still doesn't make it better. In reality, everyone will not show up at the same time. In reality, the 50k people that do commute, not all of them could use the rail due to their occupational requirements of tools/material transpo and/or needed to travel throughout the city during the work day. In reality, operational costs out weigh the benefits. An HSR is like the Gravina Island Bridge project, aka, Bridge to Nowhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge A $400m dollar bridge to replace a ferry for a town of 50 people. Yes, the bridge has a better capacity than the ferry. It still isn't useful because of all the costs associated for so few people.