by VPayne
Some of you might know that I generally think new build mixed use high speed lines are the most economic form of transportation infrastructure that the US can build going forward. By this I mean lines able to handle passenger trains up to 125-140 mph while accommodating single level intermodal freight at 70-80 mph (with time separation passenger during the day freight with sub 110 passenger at night). I have attached references to two interesting articles that while they don't actually agree entirely with each other or my points are interesting in and of themselves.
I recently participated (as a member of the public but with using my PE to establish credibility with the consultants) in Tennessee's I-40/I-81 corridor study. It is clear that the established consultant process, even when a multimodal solution is supposedly on the table, is still heavily weighted toward congestion relief at any cost or finding funding from existing Federal programs without really creating a overall economic model to evaluate the benefits of differing investments irregardless of funding to match. As some of you might know the formulas generally cannot accommodate increased fuel prices and the corresponding drop in demand so you could imagine this would be a problem for a long range planning situation unless you just don't admit it.
Rail Solution has been involved here in the Southeast in pointing out that greater investment in truck freight facilities have poor payback potential while advocating for an open (read standard plate van trailer) freight intermodal solution.
I write this to suggest that we need to start advocating for more traction for economic analysis in the SAFTEA-LU renewal coming about around September of 2009. I am open to ideas on how to do so.....
Washington Post / New America Article - Rail Investment of stimulus
Millennium Institute Article - Oil Reduction for Security
I recently participated (as a member of the public but with using my PE to establish credibility with the consultants) in Tennessee's I-40/I-81 corridor study. It is clear that the established consultant process, even when a multimodal solution is supposedly on the table, is still heavily weighted toward congestion relief at any cost or finding funding from existing Federal programs without really creating a overall economic model to evaluate the benefits of differing investments irregardless of funding to match. As some of you might know the formulas generally cannot accommodate increased fuel prices and the corresponding drop in demand so you could imagine this would be a problem for a long range planning situation unless you just don't admit it.
Rail Solution has been involved here in the Southeast in pointing out that greater investment in truck freight facilities have poor payback potential while advocating for an open (read standard plate van trailer) freight intermodal solution.
I write this to suggest that we need to start advocating for more traction for economic analysis in the SAFTEA-LU renewal coming about around September of 2009. I am open to ideas on how to do so.....
Washington Post / New America Article - Rail Investment of stimulus
Millennium Institute Article - Oil Reduction for Security
