High Speed Rail (Norfolk, Richmond, Hampton: apartments, rent, credit)

[citydweller]

Originally Posted by Tej147

Yay! Kinda feelin' bad for HR though.... Richmond and HR have been discussing hsr for years. But who knows! Maybe R-mond and HR will be connected soon. This link may look familiar to some of you.

Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Study

But then again, high-speed-rail may be different from 'passenger rail'. Really hoping that it's hsr though....

It will include HR. The map is a little flawed as there will be a leg going over to the Peninsula and also to the Southside (Norfolk).

Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor

[CAVA1990]

One reason we don't have things like high speed rail is Americans choose to spend more on homes, cars and other personal items as well as defense (to secure all the stuff we own) and less on public infrastructure than other developed countries.

[sls76]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

One reason we don't have things like high speed rail is Americans choose to spend more on homes, cars and other personal items as well as defense (to secure all the stuff we own) and less on public infrastructure than other developed countries.

Please point me to the data that support your claim. I cannot find any evidence, for example, the Europeans spend a smaller share of their income on housing than Americans.

[AJNEOA]

Originally Posted by sls76

The problem with your argument is that it is not supported by government data. The attached study shows that rail and transport subsidies per mile are extremely large relative to highway and air. In other words, your argument that highway and air users don't pay their fair share is bogus. See page 25 and 26 for net federal subsidies per thousand passenger miles.

Powered by Google Docs

ETA: Here is the same data in a more user friendly format:
BTS | II. Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation (http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/html/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation.html - broken link)

The problem is that there are little subsidies into rail projects in this country, leaving it hugely inefficient and incomplete. A smaller portion of people ride because other methods have been so heavily invested in. Coverage has been shown to be a major issue into getting people to use public transport. Just like if there were less roads that were in terrible condition and gas was more expensive...less people would likely drive on them. This would skew your numbers to make roads seem like much less of a subsidy. Plus, there's play on the term "subsidy", leaving many tax incentives and other short-cuts to allow avoidance of government-coined "subsidy".

In another thread in the Urban Planning forum, this has been discussed in detail...I think it was called "Do roads pay for themselves". I think there are a bunch of other threads on it too.

[sls76]

Originally Posted by AJNEOA

The problem is that there are little subsidies into rail projects in this country, leaving it hugely inefficient and incomplete. A smaller portion of people ride because other methods have been so heavily invested in. Coverage has been shown to be a major issue into getting people to use public transport. Just like if there were less roads that were in terrible condition and gas was more expensive...less people would likely drive on them. This would skew your numbers to make roads seem like much less of a subsidy. Plus, there's play on the term "subsidy", leaving many tax incentives and other short-cuts to allow avoidance of government-coined "subsidy".

In another thread in the Urban Planning forum, this has been discussed in detail...I think it was called "Do roads pay for themselves". I think there are a bunch of other threads on it too.

Again with the, if we spent more, it wouldn't cost so much mentality. We don't have the money. If we build it but go bankrupt in the process (as the current POTUS seems to think nothing of increasing our deficit by $1.6 trillion/year) what good is that going to do? HSR is heavily subsidized all over the world and profitable almost no where--in other words, your claim that if we spent an adequate amount it wouldn't be so expensive is not true based on the HSR experience in other countries. Europe spends a tremendous amount of taxpayer money on HSR but still has relatively low ridership compared to other virtually unsubsidized modes of transportation (like air travel).

[AJNEOA]

Originally Posted by sls76

Again with the, if we spent more, it wouldn't cost so much mentality. We don't have the money. If we build it but go bankrupt in the process (as the current POTUS seems to think nothing of increasing our deficit by $1.6 trillion/year) what good is that going to do? HSR is heavily subsidized all over the world and profitable almost no where--in other words, your claim that if we spent an adequate amount it wouldn't be so expensive is not true based on the HSR experience in other countries. Europe spends a tremendous amount of taxpayer money on HSR but still has relatively low ridership compared to other virtually unsubsidized modes of transportation (like air travel).

I'm not proposing that we spend the money on HSR. To be honest, I think metro areas need to fix their own public transportation woes to connect where people live to where they work before we worry about fancy ideas like HSR. I think HSR is being flashed around as a political means to a re-elected end.

The issue I have is that we spend an inordinate amount on roads, many of which will need trillions of dollars in repairs over the next decade, yet people don't want to sufficiently fund rail. Rail is an efficient alternative to cars, which have many problems and are very expensive to own. I would rather see equal investment to diversify our transportation infrastructure, without raising funding.

[ZUMAN]

^^ How do you propose to start replacing road systems, existing and proposed, with rail systems? Let's pretend there's a need to expand the total number of lanes from 6 to 8 on Broad St from Parham Rd. to I-195. What's your alternate solution to not spend the funds on this project and instead invest funds on a rail system that in theory, should remove enough cars that the Broad St widening project would not required?

[AJNEOA]

Originally Posted by ZUMAN

^^ How do you propose to start replacing road systems, existing and proposed, with rail systems? Let's pretend there's a need to expand the total number of lanes from 6 to 8 on Broad St from Parham Rd. to I-195. What's your alternate solution to not spend the funds on this project and instead invest funds on a rail system that in theory, should remove enough cars that the Broad St widening project would not required?

I'm not necessarily suggesting we fully replace road systems. I believe we need to stop initiatives like road-widening projects that never work as a long-term solution (because if you pave more lanes, traffic will fill those lanes, which flies in the face of trying to get more people using public transport).

Richmond used to have a streetcar system that worked very well with getting people in and out of the city. Creating some sort of Broad Street trolley between downtown and Short Pump would be a start. Add a few more lines (one north/south) to connect dense areas of the metro and I think it would be a good start to a long-term solution.

I think that re-introducing good public transport back into cities would be the most effective if the government treated all forms fairly. Removing tax subsidies off of gas and introducing toll roads in more areas would allow some roads to pay for themselves. Modify tax restrictions on rail (which are harsh) and rail would probably be able to be privatized. I think that's the only way we can diversity our transportation options in this country...people only do what's convenient and affordable (both of which rail is not in this country currently...except for maybe the NE).

I realize that's a very high-level, generic answer, but I'm certainly no expert and I'm getting ready to leave the country in the morning. I'll have to check back in on this conversation in a couple weeks.

[VA Yankee]

Originally Posted by AJNEOA

Richmond used to have a streetcar system that worked very well with getting people in and out of the city. Creating some sort of Broad Street trolley between downtown and Short Pump would be a start. Add a few more lines (one north/south) to connect dense areas of the metro and I think it would be a good start to a long-term solution.

Where are you trying to transport people to? When the streetcar system existed shopping was downtown, there was a buisness core downtown and most suburbs were built along the trolly lines. Where is the intended goal now?

Originally Posted by AJNEOA

I think that re-introducing good public transport back into cities would be the most effective if the government treated all forms fairly. Removing tax subsidies off of gas and introducing toll roads in more areas would allow some roads to pay for themselves.

Toll roads may create funds but they are a bottomless pit that never goes away. Look at the NY state Thruway they have been collecting tolls for 60 years, paid it off years ago and they still colelct tolls.

Modify tax restrictions on rail (which are harsh) and rail would probably be able to be privatized. I think that's the only way we can diversity our transportation options in this country...people only do what's convenient and affordable (both of which rail is not in this country currently...except for maybe the NE)..

Freight rail except for Conrail is private. Public rail will never be private because it is not profitable. Same with bus service if their was a profit to be made then how come no one has implemented it.

I don't object to public transit but I think you fail to realise that the buisness areas and shopping are so spread out now that trying to service them all would be challenging. Even now in the city many of the existing bus runs run light/empty and areas that people have express a desire for routes go unfilled.

[NorthEastSouthWest]

Florida Gov. just turned down 2 bill in HRS funding maybe you guy should go after that.