monrails are better than trains.... per modern marvels. I suppose it's true, take charlotte for example they just built their light rail system. a monorail would have cost around 1/4 less and be safer.... it blew my mind, but makes sense. MONO-RAil! *cue music*

2/3/2010 5:00:43 PM

1) Truth -> NCDOT Pet project ...
2) We've already spent $300 million with very little to show for. I don't see how another $545 million will produce anything tangible.
3) I love my car.

2/3/2010 5:01:24 PM

Quote :

"You can't compare our country with Europe or Japan, its an apples to oranges argument."

So the density of certain parts (Cali, NE, Even Raleigh to Atlanta on I-85) isn't dense enough? Hmmm...http://www.ponderthis.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/g-gpw-population-map.gif

Noone's talking about putting trains between Raleigh and Wilmington, or Iowa and Idaho. Durrr.

2/3/2010 5:11:19 PM

Quote :

"a monorail would have cost around 1/4 less and be safer"

I want to know more! How can this be? Is it because of reduced land costs? I admit, I would rather have trains flying over-head on monorails than large hulking platforms blotting out the sun. But certainly it is due to land use, as in a rural setting a train much be cheaper?

2/3/2010 5:57:55 PM

Yeah, I'm curious about this monorail thing as well. I can't understand how for intercity travel, a monorail would be cheaper both in laying down new track as well as maintaining it.

2/3/2010 11:25:00 PM

what is there to maintain. its just one indestructable rail. the train is what you maintain.

2/3/2010 11:32:38 PM

I like this map because you can easily connect the dots, in terms of population mounds, down the NE coast, through DC & Richmond, through that majestic city known to all who behold it as Raleigh-Durham, down to Charlotte, on to Atlanta Georgia, and to the next state down Florida which is full of populations centers all vertically lined up. The only downside is this is a 1990 map, so surely many of those areas have grown in the past 2 decades. It also notes that "Coastal areas are home to over half of the U.S. Population"

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/ams-usa-population.png

2/4/2010 2:08:06 AM

^ Yep. someone should probably build a highway, or maybe a rail freight line... Oh right, they already have. Well, then, stop wasting money building what has already been built in other ways. Maybe use 0.01% of the money you were going to use for high-speed rail and instead run express bus service which will be almost as fast, far more energy efficient, and a tiny fraction of the cost.

2/4/2010 2:34:36 AM

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/ams-usa-population.png

Yeah, old map. RDU has surpassed the density of Minneapolis as of 2008... and it's continuing to grow.

2/4/2010 10:00:03 AM

Considering Charlotte knocked it out of the park with the lightrail, if they have half the success of the lightrail it would be worth it.

2/4/2010 11:45:41 PM

^
Knocked it out of the park? Citizens were so fed up with the cost over-runs they launched a ballot referendum to kill the construction project.

2/5/2010 10:28:09 AM

Quote :

"California high-speed rail advocates are already backpedalling on the numbers, and from experience with other such projects, it will only get worse. In the face of the state’s perpetual budget crisis, some Californians are beginning to regret their votes in favor of the $9.9 billion high-speed rail bond last year. Even though proponents of the train have now admitted the bond was only a down payment on the actual cost to build the system, the numbers that were projected are changing—and all in the wrong direction. The business plan released by the train’s advocates last month show the dramatic differences in what the voters were told and what reality is. For example, the price of a ticket from San Francisco to Los Angeles is now projected at $105, up from the previous $55 estimate. That new number changed the ridership predictions: now 41 million annual riders by 2035, down from last year’s prediction of 55 million passengers by 2030. The cost for building the train system has also grown. The proponents had been thinking $33.6 billion (2008 dollars) but have revised upward to $42.6 billion. Recently, the Obama administration announced $2.25 billion in funding for the project. Proponents said federal money would be used to close the gap between the voter-approved bond and the ultimate cost, but this is a drop in the bucket and still will not work. Do not expect a true LA to SF high speed rail line for less than $75 billion and the ridership numbers are still absurd, as discussed here. By the way, Southwest’s advanced fair from LAX to SFO is $114 right now. If you are willing to go Burbank to Oakland, the fair is $90."

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2010/02/its-just-going-to-get-worse.html

2/8/2010 6:55:41 PM

Quote :

"Knocked it out of the park? Citizens were so fed up with the cost over-runs they launched a ballot referendum to kill the construction project."

Yet people are extremely happy with it now. It's brought the city way more growth than costs. It's looked at by other cities as an example to strive towards. In the last election, all of the spending past because people are so happy with it. It has outdone even the most liberal of projections several times over.

2/8/2010 9:00:09 PM

^ In that you mean it lost less money than they thought it would? Well done, you manage to not bankrupt the city, a huge success! We should all copy it! [/sarcasm]

2/8/2010 11:26:43 PM

^^lol


^pretty much


Show me a rail system in the US that isn't in the red on a yearly basis outside of the NYC subway system and I'll show you a liar.

2/8/2010 11:47:39 PM

Quote :

"n that you mean it lost less money than they thought it would?"

More than that, it's provided a corridor of growth for new business and a great deal of convenience for residents of Charlotte and reduced the traffic and parking in uptown.

2/9/2010 12:03:01 AM

Reduced traffic and parking such as building another road and parking deck, which would have cost less money and had more of an impact? Oh, and turned a profit for the government through gasoline taxes?

2/9/2010 7:18:59 AM

You guys are so short-sided. First off gasoline taxes would be a broken window, secondly by putting in a parking deck you prevent other businesses from operating downtown and artificially push up real estate prices higher than they need to be. The government can get additional taxes off of that building, it's tenants, and their employees.

2/9/2010 8:36:12 AM

^explain to me why the train runs only till 1:30am. Why the hell would you stop running the train 30 minutes before the bars close. Is it to increase revenue through DUI tickets?

And please, let us know when the whole project turns a profit.

2/9/2010 9:04:27 AM

Most of the people I know from Charlotte were against it, until it happened, and now they're happy with it. Some who opposed it originally even voted for McCrory for governor because he did that in Charlotte.

2/9/2010 1:21:14 PM

I'd be happy to use it, but all the money its costing them...yeah not so much.

2/9/2010 1:22:16 PM

A better high-speed rail network would definitely be put to use by business travelers for trips less than 500 miles or so. As someone who takes 75-100 flights a year, trains are a much more pleasant way to travel. I used to live in the northeast and took trains quite often between philly and DC/NYC/Boston, wish i had that luxury now that i'm in Atlanta. I have co-workers with projects in Charlotte, Greenville, Jacksonville, RDU etc who fly every week who would use the hell out of high-speed rail (or even few-stop 86 mph rail).

So while this service may not make sense for most of the population, I think enough people would use it for it to be in the black. As major population centers in the south continue to grow, at some point we're going to have to look for transportation alternatives to cars, as we can't continue to invest in widening freeways forever.

2/9/2010 1:41:27 PM

Increased density does not make a train profitable. Hell, the New York Subway system operated with a $1.2 billion deficit in 2008. Trains in today's world cannot turn a profit, they have too much competition from buses, airplanes, and cars. From an engineering perspective, trains are simply terrible at transporting people.

2/9/2010 5:04:12 PM

Quote :

"explain to me why the train runs only till 1:30am."

I'd expect it is because of the rise in security and maintenance that would be required by having a larger number of intoxicated passengers, but I don't agree with it, I think they should have it run until 2:30.

Quote :

"And please, let us know when the whole project turns a profit."

As I stated, there is more financial benefit than just the tickets.

Quote :

"I'd be happy to use it, but all the money its costing them...yeah not so much."

We happily voted against repealing the tax (I know who would have though a landslide victory FOR a tax), and we have voted to give the city more money for similar projects due to their success with this one.

Quote :

"Increased density does not make a train profitable. Hell, the New York Subway system operated with a $1.2 billion deficit in 2008. Trains in today's world cannot turn a profit, they have too much competition from buses, airplanes, and cars. From an engineering perspective, trains are simply terrible at transporting people."

Go ahead and give us an alternative for the New York subway system.

2/9/2010 7:06:19 PM

Privatization. The unionized workforce will go away, replaced with lower paid better drivers (as occurred when Britain privatized its bus system, since bad drivers can now be fired). Some train lines will be abandoned or have schedules cut back. At the same time, the number of bus routes will explode, including express door-to-door bus service, combining with denser schedules, as the number of competing bus lines grows. As the bus system becomes more competitive with the automobile, drivers will leave their cars, causing a virtuous cycle: as the demand for bus traffic increases, the bus network gets even more convenient to use, causing even more demand. The average daily commute should fall from its current 2.5 hours, each way, to a more reasonable 1.5 hours. The exact opposite of what happened when Santiago nationalized its bus system.

"Planning Order, Causing Chaos: Transantiago", by Michael Munger. Econlib, September 1, 2008.

Curb Rights: A Foundation for Free Enterprise in Urban Transit, by Daniel B. Klein, Adrian Moore, and Binyam Reja

2/9/2010 10:23:50 PM

^ is this synopsis in reference to a better option to the NYC subway system? If that's the case, you have obviously never driven in Manhattan, Brooklyn, or the Bronx to believe that a bus system would ever win out over the subway there....

2/9/2010 11:05:07 PM

The government isn't a for profit enterprise, it is to provide public goods (without excluding the poor), create positive externalities for its citizens, and create infrastructure.

Quote :

"1) Jobs 2) Recovery 3) Infrastructure 4) Environmentally Sound 5) In North Carolina"

Education also runs at a massive loss for government. But the goal of government isn't profit, nor should it be.

2/9/2010 11:32:15 PM

Quote :

"I'd go for a little more than 50. However, you have to arrange rides or parking on either end."

Or do it like the Japanese. Parking decks near large stations. Bike parking decks at all stations. Buses that coordinate with the train schedule at most stations.

Quote :

"explain to me why the train runs only till 1:30am."

Where I live now the last train is usually around midnight. It's effing retarded but they do it that way so they don't disturb people that live next to the tracks apparently.

[Edited on February 9, 2010 at 11:54 PM. Reason : a]

2/9/2010 11:43:56 PM

Quote :

"At the same time, the number of bus routes will explode"

Have you been to New York before?

2/9/2010 11:58:12 PM

Yes I have. And like most cities, the heavy automobile traffic that is getting in the way of bus traffic is caused by the inept bus service. We saw this in Santiago: when the bus system was nationalized, the people took to their cars. While the traffic was already bad, since the city wasted all its money on the light-rail line and neglected even basic road maintenance, the city ground to a halt under a wave of new automobile traffic. As you can see in New York, the taxi is a major means of transportation, which is absurd. In Santiago, the city had a very small taxi fleet, thanks to good bus service. However, taxi service exploded after nationalization as inept bus service became a poor substitute for cars/taxis.

[Edited on February 10, 2010 at 11:05 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/10/2010 11:03:18 AM

Quote :

"as we can't continue to invest in widening freeways forever."

From a financial point of view this is still the best alternative.

Lonesnark is correct in his views. The NYC system would be much better run as a private enterprise, the unions (across almost all trades) in NYC are destroying the city. I lived in NYC for 3 years and I'm in agreement with his proposal

2/10/2010 11:41:43 AM

NC needs a fresh corruption injection.

2/10/2010 11:45:17 AM

^^ i'm not knocking the privatization idea, i'm knocking the idea that a huge bus system would be the result....

[Edited on February 10, 2010 at 12:35 PM. Reason : .]

2/10/2010 12:35:06 PM

Quote :

"We saw this in Santiago"

NYC is several times more populus than Santiago, so this isn't really relevant.

Quote :

"As you can see in New York, the taxi is a major means of transportation"

Far less than the train, but the taxi is for people who need to get to a specific location immediately, busses won't provide that, they'll essentially be a train that wastes fuel and clogs traffic.

Quote :

"From a financial point of view this is still the best alternative."

You don't even manage to look at anything past ticket sales, no one so short sighted could be an accurate judge of the "financial point of view".

2/10/2010 12:59:52 PM

Quote :

"NYC is several times more populus than Santiago, so this isn't really relevant."

So I guess NYC isn't really relevant to Charlotte, either...

Quote :

"busses won't provide that"

No, state run bus systems don't provide that. In NYC, taxis are primarily used because you want to go somewhere and no bus or train goes from here to there, much less with any semblance of speed.

Quote :

"You don't even manage to look at anything past ticket sales, no one so short sighted could be an accurate judge of the "financial point of view"."

The private bus system in Santiago operated at a substantial profit. Now that it has been nationalized, the system operates at an absurdly high deficit while providing far fewer routes and a significantly reduced schedule. Oh well, so goes socialism.

2/10/2010 1:14:17 PM

^^no, all things being said we the tax payers will never break even on these rail projects. If you like deficit spending and debt well then good for you. With developing a rail system in a city and expanding the rail and capacity you'll always be pushing the cart in front of the hourse, financially speaking. If you want to use NYC as an example they've had subways for over 100 years, run a deficiti budget, and are in the process of constructing several new extensions and even one entire new line. If you think they'll break even and make money after all that's done you're out of your mind.

Don't make the mistake that I don't think light rail is a good way to get around in a large city. It is, but unfortunately the cost is ridiculous and is something you can't overcome.

A large bus system could very well happen if more people took to the trains from their cars freeing up road space. A kind of funny secondary result. As it stands now several bus routes in the city are very efficient at getting people around. And as far as taxis I would have taken a taxi at almost every opportunity presented if I could afford it. $40/day in transportation fees was too rich for my blood though.


[Edited on February 10, 2010 at 1:19 PM. Reason : k]

2/10/2010 1:15:15 PM

Everything im reading about Santiago seems to prefer the newer "nationalized" system.


http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/64610/urbanbus_comp.pdf

page 5

Quote :

" The effects of liberalization clearly generated benefits to users as waiting times were reduced and the distance to the nearest bus route was shortened. However, as the process continued average capacity utilization dropped significantly. Average occupancy in buses and taxi buses dropped 55% and 32% during this period, respectively. In spite of this drop in capacity utilization and the large number of operators in the system, real tariffs increased by almost 100% between 1979 and 1990 (see Table 1)9. This increase was not related to increases in fuel prices. Figure 1 shows that, with the exception of 1986, domestic fuel prices were lower than its original level in 1979. The increase in the number of buses, their reliance on diesel fuel and the increase in the average age of buses - with lower technological standards - transformed the bus sector in one of the main generators of congestion and air pollution externalities in Santiago. By the late eighties, Santiago’s atmosphere was one of the most polluted in the world. The bus industry was not the only source of air pollution but it was one of the leading contributors. As a source of congestion, the fact that 80% of bus routes pass through the 7 main arteries of the city has clogged the main roads of the central urban area (Malbran, 2001). . . . . . "

After "nationalization" - by nationalization i mean its actually regulated private companies that bid on contracts to run certain routes.

Quote :

"By 2001 there were only 8,179 buses in operation [down from a peak of 13,000] in spite of the fact that the average number of passengers during a working day increase from 3,575,942 million to 4,275,913 million between 1991 and 2001. Occupancy of buses doubled during this period.12 The average age of buses dropped to 6 years and over half of the current stock meets EPA-91 or EPA-94 emission standards. Service quality?measured by network coverage and waiting times?were not affected by the reforms. The authorities did not modify the existing route design when tendering was introduced so the network coverage is the same as before. Waiting times at bus stops are on average only 4 minutes (Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Transporte y Telecomunicaciones, 1997). "

2/10/2010 7:40:42 PM

Quote :

"In NYC, taxis are primarily used because you want to go somewhere and no bus or train goes from here to there"

No

http://www.mta.info/nyct/maps/index.html

2/10/2010 7:42:59 PM

Quote :

"So I guess NYC isn't really relevant to Charlotte, either..."

I never compared the two.

Quote :

"no, all things being said we the tax payers will never break even on these rail projects"

What is breaking even? Ticket sales exceed cost?

2/10/2010 8:34:47 PM

Quote :

"adj. Marked by or indicating a balance, especially between investment and return. n. In both senses also called break-even point. 1. The point, especially the level of sales of a good or service, at which the return on investment is exactly equal to the amount invested."

2/10/2010 9:01:33 PM

That's very difficult to calculate. To we count just ticket sales? Or do we go down to the lower number of policemen we have to have on the road due to people riding the train? Do we count the increase tax revenue from businesses that get larger income from nearby train stops? Do we count increase property taxes to new condos that spring up around the train? You folks seem to easily be able to state that the train is heavily subsidized, but there are several benefits that I am certain are not being counted

2/10/2010 11:32:45 PM

Quote :

"No, state run bus systems don't provide that. "

No, no bus system can provide that service. Just because a city has a private bus system doesn't mean that the buses will go any and everywhere people want. Kyoto and Osaka are perfect examples of that. They have several private bus companies in addition to their small city run lines and outside of major tourist attractions they have limited areas they cover.

2/11/2010 3:50:54 AM

^ True, if the demand is not there or if the private bus companies for whatever reason are discouraged from being so, then the system will not be all that. Maybe the system worked so well in Santiago because there were absolutely no rules whatsoever, combined with the relative poverty of the country pricing automobiles out of most people's reach. Maybe we Americans are so wealthy we would rather drive even confronted with a great mass transit system. Which means, of course, if riders will refuse to ride the bus even in Osaka, then why the fuck does anyone think they will ride the Train in Charlotte?

Quote :

"To we count just ticket sales? Or do we go down to the lower number of policemen we have to have on the road due to people riding the train? Do we count the increase tax revenue from businesses that get larger income from nearby train stops? Do we count increase property taxes to new condos that spring up around the train? You folks seem to easily be able to state that the train is heavily subsidized, but there are several benefits that I am certain are not being counted"

Kris, you need to be introduced to diverted demand. The income from nearby train stops? Those customers would have just shopped somewhere else. If it works, which evidence of light rail systems in other cities says it does not, but if it does then all you have done is diverted demand from elsewhere in the city to here. And the rest of the city paid for this privilege of having their demand stolen. All the people living in those condos would have just built condos elsewhere in the city, more diverted demand. You are depressing property values elsewhere in the city by taking away rental customers and raising taxes, just to subsidize the property values near the train, which tend to have politically connected land owners and above average income residents to afford the higher rents. Once again, you are taxing the relatively poor to subsidize the lifestyle of the relatively rich, as all communists do.

2/11/2010 9:32:44 AM

Quote :

"Kris, you need to be introduced to diverted demand."

And you need to be introduced to the parable of the broken window: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

Quote :

"And the rest of the city paid for this privilege of having their demand stolen."

A good deal of train riders are from out of town.

Quote :

"All the people living in those condos would have just built condos elsewhere in the city"

Says who? There is a great deal of housing right outside the city.

You don't seem to understand how money is created.

2/11/2010 6:02:23 PM

Quote :

"if riders will refuse to ride the bus even in Osaka, then why the fuck does anyone think they will ride the Train in Charlotte? "

A) I did not say people refuse to ride the bus in Osaka. The buses are at capacity in Osaka during peak hours. But they do not go everywhere in Osaka as you suggest a private bus system would. Thus most people ride the train and commute to and from their train station on their bicycle or in their car. Private buses are going to go where it's most profitable to go and ignore areas where buses are needed but not as much.

B) Considering Japan's trains look like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwbPdF5dIgQ

making the jump that because less people ride the bus than the trains in Osaka means no one will ride the trains in Charlotte is a stretch.

2/11/2010 6:18:09 PM

http://www.newsobserver.com/home/story/308621.html

Quote :

"North Carolina is expected to receive $520 million today as part of $8 billion in federal economic stimulus funds President Barack Obama will distribute in 31 states to start building a national high-speed rail network. The president touted high-speed rail in Wednesday night's State of the Union Address, and he and other administration officials are fanning out across the nation today to announce the funding. Lisa Jackson, administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, will come to Durham's new Amtrak station to discuss North Carolina's allotment in an event scheduled for 1:15 p.m. U.S. Rep. David Price, a Chapel Hill Democrat, disclosed North Carolina's funding share. "From Raleigh to Charlotte in the near term, and Raleigh to Washington in the long term, we're in that charmed circle of routes where train travel can really make sense," he said. The state will use its share to add and upgrade tracks, trains and stations and to provide faster and more frequent rail service between Charlotte and Raleigh. The effort is part of a planned Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor that will continue north from Raleigh to Richmond and Washington, D.C. North Carolina and Virginia have planned the corridor since the early 1990s. North Carolina has spent about $5 million a year, working with railroads to straighten curves, add double tracks and increase train speeds - cutting an hour from travel between Raleigh and Charlotte. Now, the state Department of Transportation will push a plan to cut that time by another hour. Train speeds are expected to reach 90 mph between Charlotte and Raleigh - and, eventually, 110 mph between Raleigh and Richmond."

The focus on the talk in this thread so far seems focused on Charlotte to Raleigh, so I thought I'd highlight Raleigh's connection to Richmond, DC, and beyond.

Also from the whitehouse.gov site:

Quote :

"Total Approximate Funding (entire corridor) : $620,000,000 Benefiting States : North Carolina, Virginia, Washington, DC Miles of Track : Upgraded - 480 miles The Southeast Corridor connects Charlotte, Raleigh, Richmond, and Washington, D.C. North Carolina and Virginia have a strong history of supporting passenger rail services in their states, and have engaged in substantial planning efforts to develop high-speed rail on this corridor. Several of the metropolitan areas in this region are among the fastest growing in the nation, and the states have recognized the need to invest in a diversity of transportation infrastructure that will accommodate this population growth. The long-term goal for this corridor is top speeds of up to 110mph, reducing trip time by one-third from Washington, D.C. to Richmond, and to four and one-half hours between Richmond and Charlotte. Eventually, the Southeast Corridor is expected to use Atlanta as a regional hub, with connections from Atlanta east to Charlotte, south to Macon and Jacksonville, north to Chattanooga, and west to Birmingham. Summary of Corridor Investments Charlotte - Raleigh: Nearly 30 inter-related projects will be undertaken in order to increase top train speeds to 90 mph and double the number of round trips between the two largest cities in North Carolina, serving 3 million people. Work includes the purchase and rehabilitation of locomotives and cars, track upgrades, and station security improvements. Raleigh - Richmond: Important congestion mitigation will involve construction of four new crossovers, which will reduce trip times. This will also aid the future development of high-speed rail lines between North Carolina and Virginia. Richmond - Washington, D.C.: New high-speed rail track, more than 11 miles in length, will be built between Richmond and Washington, DC. This project will eliminate one of the most severe bottlenecks along an extremely congested area on the Southeast Corridor. The improvements to the route will improve on-time performance and lay the groundwork for future high-speed rail in the region."

2/14/2010 6:04:11 PM

Quote :

"The focus on the talk in this thread so far seems focused on Charlotte to Raleigh, so I thought I'd highlight Raleigh's connection to Richmond, DC, and beyond."

I changed it because I think raleigh gets enough of charlotte's tax dollars for transportation.

2/15/2010 12:04:25 AM

Quote :

" Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor"

I hope this means at least:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1kptbFvKLA

and not just "more high-speed than what we have currently"

2/15/2010 1:33:16 AM

Trains AND nuclear reactors... now all he has to do is introduce the Euro to make us fully communist.

2/16/2010 5:51:31 PM

^so you're hoping for a communist style Chernobyl incident?

The US's labeling of this as "high speed" rail is laughable, though I suppose a step in the right direction. What is it, 30-40 year old technology we're trying to apply?

[Edited on February 16, 2010 at 8:48 PM. Reason : k]

2/16/2010 8:48:44 PM