High Speed Rail to Ann Arbor
via DetNews, but a long time coming:
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood will visit Detroit and New York on Monday to make major high-speed rail funding announcements.Last month, Michigan applied for more than $560 million in funding - including joining three other states as part of a joint request. Michigan officials expect the state will receive significant funding for some grants sought.The state sought track improvements in Detroit and a new transit terminal in Ann Arbor, and new trains are part of Michigan's pitch for more federal money for high-speed rail after Florida said it didn't want $2.4 billlion.
A national high-speed rail network sure would be nice for those of us who are afraid to fly but aren't John Madden.
Statically flying is very much safer than driving.
Irrational fears are irrational.
There's another comment rating we need for MGoBlog 3.0: "tautological."
I vote this tautological.
I'm leaving open the possibility that it is some form of rhetorical irony.
I thought there was a meme
but I fear it's not as widespread as you or I think. I've used that construction a lot, and people usually just look at me like I'm weird.
Thank you; thought I was going crazy.
You misunderstand: I am proposing it as a +1 modifer.
Yes it is, and I have flown hundreds of times in my lifetime and I still do. But as much as I can rationalize it with statistics I still have a tough time suppressing my angst.
That's true, but I wonder about the relationship of any individual accident to fatalities probability.
What percentage of the total number of auto accidents end in fatalities?
What percentage of passenger aircraft accidents end in fatalities?
I'd bet that the latter percentage is far, far larger than the former. Which means that, given a choice between being involved in an auto accident vs being involved in an aircraft accident, I think my chances of surviving are far greater in a car accident. In the minds of many nervous flyers, I think this counteracts the overall statistical probability in favor of flying's safety that you mention.
Ahem, wikipedia wins.
| Deaths per billion passenger-journeys | Deaths per billion passenger-hours | Deaths per billion passenger-kilometres |
|---|---|---|
| Bus: 4.3 | Bus: 11.1 | Air: 0.05 |
| Rail: 20 | Rail: 30 | Bus: 0.4 |
| Van: 20 | Air: 30.8 | Rail: 0.6 |
| Car: 40 | Water: 50 | Van: 1.2 |
| Foot: 40 | Van: 60 | Water: 2.6 |
| Water: 90 | Car: 130 | Car: 3.1 |
| Air: 117 | Foot: 220 | Bicycle: 44.6 |
| Bicycle: 170 | Bicycle: 550 | Foot: 54.2 |
| Motorcycle: 1640 | Motorcycle: 4840 | Motorcycle: 108.9 |
So you should never ride a motorcycle.
Jump on the bus, Gus.
Make a new plan (motorcycle) Stan.
Bones heal, chicks dig scars and the U.S. has the highest doctor-to-daredevil ratio in the world. -- Captain Lance Murdock
The charts record DEATHS, not accidents.
walking is more dangerous than driving.
And that my friend, is the primary reason why I am 31 and have yet to fly on a plane.
According to the Federal Bureau of Miscellaneous Information, flying ON a plane is far more dangerous than flying IN a plane.
Doing just about anything statically is much safer than driving.
Would you kindly hold my beer while I clean this shotgun?
The europeans have something to teach us in this respect. E.g., one can go from London to Paris by eurostar in just over two hours for about $80 (40 pounds).
Not a bad deal. It would probably benefit commerce in the midwest as well.
Did they drop the price? Ever since London St. Pancras opened it's been more like £70 / €150 from LSP to Gare du Nord; at current conversion rates that's over $200 smackaroos.
The rate I mentioned is only for a one-way though, which I didn't know. It is a bit more expensive than it was last time I went.
London to Paris is, according to Google Maps, almost exactly the same distance as Detroit to Chicago.
You can buy an Amtrak ticket leaving at 6:00 PM this Monday for only $31.
If you drive, the distance is ~280 miles. Assuming a 20 MPG car and $4 a gallon gas, you can drive there for $56 - you only need one friend to make it even cheaper than the train (and you can leave whenever you want).
...you need to include insurance costs, vehicle maintenance, the price of the vehicle,..etc.
Mass transsportation is less costly in general.
I've ridden around quite a bit of Europe on their rail and bus systems. They make it quick and easy to get around because they spent the time and money to make great systems.
The costs of cabs and everything else to get around once you're at your destination. Since you left your car at home.
We just took a long weekend to Chicago. Between subway and trains, we spent (2 people, 3 FULL days) anout 40 bucks on transportation in city. And we went ALL over.
Right, and then you need to both drive and park in Chicago.
The best thing about public transportation is you can be drunk. If it was $50 round trip to take a 2.5 hour train ride to Chicago that would totally be worth it to visit friends for a ballgame and night out. I never do it because the drive home sucks sober and is doubly terrible hung over, and you end up getting just one night to go out over a whole weekend.
Business-wise, it would be so friggin easy to meet clients if I could get on the train in A2, work for a couple hours on my computer, then get off and be downtown instead of in Bensonville.
You can plug in your laptop if you need to and bust out nearly 4 billable hours between Chicago and Ann Arbor.
But you don't factor parking into your equation. Which if you're going to park your car all day, can get pretty expensive. And then you have to drive back (unfortunately), so tack another $56 to your cost. So costwise, the train is probably a wash but when you factor in that you don't have to look for a parking spot.....it may be worth it.
There's just one problem: virtually all of these high-speed rail lines, whether in Europe, China or Japan, are colossal money-losers, in need of constant subsidies.
Here is a good article by the WSJ on why the high speed rail has stalled in the US.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487033050045755041800065305…
Also recently in China they had to reduce the speed on thei high speed rail. Like you said they are in debt of $271 billion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chinas-train-wreck/2011/04/21/AF…
When I was in China over spring break the train from the airport to downtown Shanghai went 433 km/hr or about 270 mi/hr.
Reduced speed or not, it's hard not to feel like the US is getting passed in the night.
You might be right, but it's a lot easier to build major infrastructure projects when labor is extremely cheap and plentiful.
We used Chinese labor to build our railroads, too.
And, as much as I love them and think they are neccessary, evironmental impact reviews are not a high priority in China.
All forms of transportation get subsidized.
Roads are paid for through taxes.
Airlines count on publically funded airports, and on taxpayers picking up the costs of security. If airlines had to pay for all they use, they would be out of business in a minute. Only the richest people would be able to afford to fly without taxpayer subsidies.
Roads -- even toll roads -- are in need of constant subsidies too. They are colossal money losers, and would be even moreso if you added in the externalized costs (a 10 ppb decrease in ozone, for example, increases productivity up to 4%.)
Are usually better run and profitable.
Citation Needed.
But not to claim and run....
Here's a good overview of examples...I'm sure people can google the data as well as me. But just to give an idea-
Big waste of money. Rails in California go unused, ridden by more coyotes than people. Is there that big a commuting population Detroit to Ann Arbor or back to use it? Where do you get off centrally in Detroit (or Ann Arbor for that matter) that gets you where you work? Is one walking across DETROIT to get to work every day? This works fine if you have separated cities that have dense downtown areas, but it's just a waste of tax dollars at a time no one can afford it. Not sure what's good about it.
Add Seattle as well in regards to light rail. Lost in all this conversation is the question of, "who really wants to take a train to Detroit?" The city is a cess pool and in serious decay on all fronts. This amount of money could be spent on much better things like giving it back to the residents of Detroit so they can locally fix the city by creating businesses, new jobs, etc etc.
Detroit must clean up it's act after decades of corruption under one party rule.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487043228045763038812134665…
I'm completely out of touch with this news. If a station was built in Ann Arbor, where would potential neighboring stations be? In other words, where could you get on said high-speed train?
Chicago-Grand Rapids-Ann Arbor-Detroit-Cleveland-Pittsburgh was the last proposal I saw but there've been so may. Cincy wants in too. And there's still that little bend southwards between Chicago and Grand Rapids you might have heard of.
The Velvet Touch?
Infrastructure spending FTW!
/no politics, but infrastructure is good
Always good to have more options to be able to move around the general area. Riding the commuter trains on the South Shore line from Michigan City to Chicago was alright, but it would really be nice to have another fast option to get there.