Smart Highways Instead Of A Stupid "High-Speed" Train
Politicians in California are effectively putting money into horseshoes. Billions upon billions of dollars.
In the LA Times, UCSB econ prof Dick Startz explains that "there's a better, cheaper, more California solution to moving people long distances: smart highways":
For an estimated $2 billion, we can add smart lanes to Interstate 5 in both directions between Los Angeles and San Francisco. For those keeping track, that's 32 times less costly [than trains]. And much of the necessary technology is being developed here in California. In contrast, while future high-speed trains might be built in the United States, the California High-Speed Rail Authority has asked for and received a waiver of the "Buy America" requirements for the first prototype trains.High-speed rail might be a good solution if we had a flat, unoccupied plot running from Los Angeles to San Francisco with no mountains, valleys and expensive land to purchase in the way. Obviously, we don't. And even an ideal landscape wouldn't solve the "last mile" problem -- getting to and from the central rail stations. With rail, if you live far from the railhead (which almost everyone does), you need to drive through traffic to the central station, find a place to park and arrange transportation at the other end. But high-tech highways can have many entrances and exits and link up with the existing highway system.
In theory, modern railways have a speed advantage over modern highways. Not only would the bullet train travel faster than existing autos, it would also travel faster than computer-driven cars along certain stretches, notably from Los Angeles to San Jose, with a promised top speed of 220 mph. Along other stretches, however, including San Francisco to San Jose and Anaheim to Los Angeles, the train's anticipated speed will be 110 mph. We have regular cars that can beat that now. Granted, we don't allow cars to reach their top speeds due to safety concerns. But on a high-tech highway, computer-driven cars would be able to achieve high speeds routinely and safely.
...The high-tech highway offers yet another plus that's not often mentioned: Unlike rail, it's not a one-size-fits-all solution run by a monopoly. Once highway lanes are added and standards are established for just how smart a vehicle has to be, anyone can go into the smart highway transit business. There will be small-business opportunities for renting and "driving" smart autos, smart vans, smart limos and smart buses. How about a 120-mph luxury bus trip with no driver but with a steward serving drinks and snacks? The Dutch have already built a prototype 23-passenger, electric-powered limo with cruising speeds of 160 mph.
The use of high-tech highways need not be limited to driverless vehicles. Current technology is very close to allowing high-speed cars and buses with just enough smarts (such as smart cruise control with lane-guidance technology) to "platoon" in reserved lanes. Packing vehicles tightly together as they travel would cut wind resistance enough to overcome energy efficiency issues, enabling at least some car models in current use to cruise at 120 mph.
Pardon me, but just exactly how is Senator Feinstein's husband supposed to graft - er, profit from - smart highways?
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at November 25, 2015 12:12 PM
Just another reason to transition transportation options, like roads, highways and mass transit, to the private sector, so that such innovations can be implemented without government picking winners and losers.
mpetrie98 at November 25, 2015 12:23 PM
This is complete nonsense. Anybody who studies transportation at length will notice that you cannot build highways to build your way out of traffic jams. The real solution is to reduce the need to be in traffic.
This might be a difficult, nay, impossible pill to swallow but you do not have to be somewhere else to do a great many things.
Just what fraction of you are going to be using the smart highway?
Radwaste at November 25, 2015 1:23 PM
I don't see how this is nonsense Rad. Trains are no less of a congestible resource than highways. But the brown streak is a very expensive and inefficient transportation project. So compared to that highways make sense.
Ben at November 25, 2015 2:47 PM
Ben:
The real question is this: who and what needs to be on the highway/rail/transportation corridor?
Joe Sixpack doesn't want to be on a bus, or any "ordinary" train, trapped with those nasty "other people".
Determine the need for travel before you debate the means of travel.
And while you're doing it, think of the return of $4/gallon gas.
Radwaste at November 25, 2015 4:55 PM
I can believe that Californians look at things that way Rad. I am certainly not a fan of the state. And I really can't dictate or predict California's transportation needs. But I must say you come off as anti-development in any form.
Beyond that I understood this train was a boondoggle right from the start. Some time back I read that it was cheaper and faster to just fly instead of taking this train.
And I'm not anti-train pro-highway. I'm very happy they are talking about a passenger rail link between Houston and Dallas. There is a real need here. I am very opposed to the new highway development Perry was pushing. It was another boondoggle and it would have damaged the inputs to the local aquifers. Unlike you I'm not going to dictate to people where they should live and how they can travel. If there is demand I am happy with increasing transportation infrastructure. But I am opposed to wasting tax payer resources building infrastructure that will not be used.
Ben at November 25, 2015 7:27 PM
Hey Rad. Joe Sixpack usually has a truck full of tools and has to hit at least 3 different jobs in the course of a week. The target market for the Brown Streak is more likely salespeople and vacationers.
Canvasback at November 25, 2015 8:42 PM
"Unlike you I'm not going to dictate to people where they should live and how they can travel."
Good gravy (facepalm).
When you talk about public works, you're talking about taxpayer money. Bunches of it - that less than 50% of the public actually pays.
It's NOT my opinion calling for examination of the ROI, it's called good sense.
The market and the State are going to determine where you can live and how you can travel. That's what they are doing today. Now some are pushing this fancy road.
Hey!
In what way is a "smart highway" more believable than a "high-speed train"?
And I am so sorry I didn't use a generic-enough term for the average CA motorist. Obviously, "Joe Sixpack" was a field worker for an air conditioning company who has to drive the length of the state every day.
Radwaste at November 26, 2015 2:40 AM
"Good gravy (facepalm).
When you talk about public works, you're talking about taxpayer money. Bunches of it - that less than 50% of the public actually pays.
It's NOT my opinion calling for examination of the ROI, it's called good sense.
The market and the State are going to determine where you can live and how you can travel. That's what they are doing today. Now some are pushing this fancy road."
Not exactly.
Most states don't realize this, but they are all competing for residents and businesses with each other.
Make yourself less competitive at providing infrastructure that your citizens need and want, to maintain their employment, and lifestyle, they will decamp, with their tax dollars to places that do, leaving your state with a large dependent welfare class, and often millions of illegals who are net tax Recipients.
The state deciding to put their citizens on a "road diet" to reduce traffic makes about as much sense, as Whole foods deciding that they are going to double the price on anything with added sugar, because they really really know what is best for you, and are going to take care of your health.
Trader Joes down the street, who is not so mind numbingly stupid, then acquires most of their former customers.
Thirty years ago, most tennis and golf academies were in California, for a very good reason. Weather and a friendly business climate. Now they are all in Texas and Florida. Care to guess why?
Isab at November 26, 2015 6:04 AM
I have to say Isab, it aint the weather. The difference in my electrical bill between mid summer and mid winter is about $200/mo. Right now it is a pleasant 75F outside so my electrical bill this month should be ~$20.
Rad, I am all about ROI and efficient use of public funds as I made clear. But that is not what you were talking about.
Ben at November 26, 2015 7:50 AM
Trains operate on an "if you build it" basis. Because until there is actually a train, it's not an option for commuters and travelers, so they use other means of travel.
The problem lies in not understanding how having a rail option will affect travel. For intra-city subways, it can be predicted. Travel from the suburbs to the city center is also fairly predictable. People are already making these trips and the advantages of subways over roads in crowded urban areas is already established.
An SF-LA train, however, is an unknown. The first question to ask is why the people making this trip are making it. Where are they going? What do they need at the end of the trip (a rental car, perhaps)? City center SF to city center LA means they'll need transport to their final designation. Will that be available via city rail transit or available surface transit (i.e., taxis or buses)? Will the rail trip be shorter or of comparable length to the alternatives? When I commuted to SF from the outlying cities, the trip via rail was 45 minutes, compared to a 90-minute drive during rush hour. The advantage in taking rail was clear.
Can the number of people using the new train reach levels that will enable the system to make money? Keep in mind most heavily-used city subways are money losers - mostly due to union contracts driving up operating costs.
The Brown Streak is a solution in search of a problem. Until I-5 and 101 are so crowded as to significantly delay driving between LA and SF, or the airports experience regular significant delays for flights between the two, the likelihood that travelers will opt for rail transit are low.
Conan the Grammarian at November 28, 2015 10:35 PM
Leave a comment