- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: New Infrastructure Spending Plan likely means a NOLA -Baton Rouge passenger rail link
Posted on 4/6/21 at 2:09 pm to dewster
Posted on 4/6/21 at 2:09 pm to dewster
quote:
But here's a pile of federal cash for transportation infrastructure that might take some cars off that highway. Even if you don't believe all of the surveys and studies on it; the worst case scenario is that it totally flops and you are left right where you are now....no passenger train service, but with brand new cross arms, safer rail crossings, and a new rail bridge that your state tax dollars won't have to pay to replace.
I’m against the entire Federal plan.
As for the railroad bridges, they are owned by the railroads. So are the RR crossings. They will fix and repair them as needed.
Now if the Federal bill passes as it is now, I would use the commuter train money as best I could. If it’s this project, fine; however, there might be a better one that would do more and cost less to operate.
2
Posted on 4/6/21 at 2:10 pm to doubleb
quote:
Wd should get more than that. Half the country sends us their sewer.
One of the reasons it struggles to pay for infrastructure is the terrain. All of these lakes and rivers are expensive to cross and control.
Louisiana gets thrown a few pennies for being raped for its resources.
It should take every bit of federal funding offered, then demand more - especially for transportation, flood protection, and education. Anything the state can do to make itself more competitive economically should be done.
Posted on 4/6/21 at 2:10 pm to doubleb
quote:
As for the railroad bridges, they are owned by the railroads. So are the RR crossings. They will fix and repair them as needed.
Tax dollars are going to cover that stretch. Too many people are going to lose money to not go beg the feds to pay for it.
This post was edited on 4/6/21 at 2:12 pm
Posted on 4/6/21 at 2:16 pm to tigerinthebueche
After Katrina commuter bus services were put in place between BR and NOLA. Why is train service going to succeed where the bus service failed? Oh, it worked briefly in the immediate aftermath of the storm but rapidly fizzled out. If there was such demand for public transport between the two cities, it seems that a robust bus service would running strong. Why does Amtrak have a history of operating losses? If it weren't for state and local subsidies and Federal grants, Amtrak would have ceased long ago. Why have low costs been so often exaggerated? Why was the LA to San Fran high speed rail budget estimate off by so much? In 2008 voters were told it would cost $45B, now the estimate is over $100B. Why should we believe anything proponents of a NOLA/BR line say now (ridership, construction and maintenance cost, on time arrivals, etc.)? This has boondoggle written all over it and smacks of crony capitalism at its worst. This will do little but line the pockets of politicians and favored donors. But as long as the US Treasury just continues to print money, it's all good.
Posted on 4/6/21 at 2:20 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:
The plan is to improve the quality of the rail lines for high speed. There are stretched on Amtrak between Detroit and Chicago where speeds go 110 mph. The Acela in the NEC reaches 150 mph. If we build and maintain steel rail and traditional wooden ties you can go that fast.
Correct.
The big problem that the Acela still faces in the north east is track condition and competing passenger traffic from both regional commuter systems and other slower Amtrak trains (Amtrak owns most of those particular tracks). There are stretches where additional lines are needed but there simply isn't enough space - which is a problem Texas, Louisiana, and the mid west are less likely to have.
The ones they are planning/building in California and Texas are supposed to have their own lines entirely right? If so, they can control the track grade, electrification, curves, and crossings to the point where they can achieve a much higher speed. The newer Acelas are limited to 160 in the North East corridor. The older ones can realistically only get to about 140. Both are capable of higher speeds with the right track conditions.
The old 2013 plan for this Louisiana link accounts for a max speed of 79MPH, which is the current limit on freight lines in the state. The plan also calls for improving to a max speed of 110 mph over time with gradually improving track conditions. It would use readily available and fairly cheap diesel locomotives, not electric. It's a pragmatic, reasonable approach. I think California's plan might be a little beyond that.
Posted on 4/6/21 at 2:22 pm to 92Tiger
Again, we subsidize every type of transportation, including interstates. If you had to cover the actual costs of interstates/roads with gas/diesel tax you would have double to triple gas prices. The new Hwy 1 bridge had a larger price tag then this entire project, including 10 years worth of operations.
LA to San Fran railway is like asking why we should invest in attracting air travel when the Concorde failed.
LA to San Fran railway is like asking why we should invest in attracting air travel when the Concorde failed.
This post was edited on 4/6/21 at 2:23 pm
Posted on 4/6/21 at 2:27 pm to doubleb
quote:
As for the railroad bridges, they are owned by the railroads.
Should we not have included rail crossings on any of the taxpayer funded Mississippi River bridges in south Louisiana?
It's actually pretty common for federal dollars to go towards upgrading and improving private infrastructure. Not saying that's how it should be. It just is.
Freight rail lines would probably look at the old wooden bridge over the spillway and be perfectly happy with that 10 mph speed limit until the darn thing is nearly ready to collapse.
This post was edited on 4/6/21 at 2:30 pm
Posted on 4/6/21 at 2:34 pm to dewster
It took CN burning theirs down before they replaced the span. And Amtrak probably is being charged appropriately there.
This post was edited on 4/6/21 at 2:35 pm
Posted on 4/6/21 at 2:43 pm to member12
Can't believe this relatively straightforward thread made it beyond 5 pages.
Posted on 4/6/21 at 2:49 pm to member12
"Can't believe this relatively straightforward thread made it beyond 5 pages."
Would you prefer we talk about Title IX and why O is afraid of being transparent before the La Senate? I mean this is his chance to clear the good name of his program.
Would you prefer we talk about Title IX and why O is afraid of being transparent before the La Senate? I mean this is his chance to clear the good name of his program.
Posted on 4/6/21 at 2:49 pm to member12
For the most part I think there is great info in here. Pretty decent discussion for the OT was well.
Especially given the topic.
I have been surprised at the amount of people who don't realize the link between the two cities is already pretty strong. Also how some don't realize how different the rest of the world works compared to their lives.
Especially given the topic.
I have been surprised at the amount of people who don't realize the link between the two cities is already pretty strong. Also how some don't realize how different the rest of the world works compared to their lives.
Posted on 4/6/21 at 2:54 pm to 92Tiger
quote:
Would you prefer we talk about Title IX and why O is afraid of being transparent before the La Senate?
NO. That's just going to piss me off.
Posted on 4/6/21 at 2:54 pm to fightin tigers
I have been surprised at the amount of people who don't realize the link between the two cities is already pretty strong. Also how some don't realize how different the rest of the world works compared to their lives.
Does that "link" include sufficient numbers of passengers commuting between the cities to justify the cost? A few hundred riding the rails daily will reduce I10 traffic by what 1/100th of 1 percent. Why isn't electric or propane buses a solution? We could do buses at minuscule fraction of the cost of rail.
Does that "link" include sufficient numbers of passengers commuting between the cities to justify the cost? A few hundred riding the rails daily will reduce I10 traffic by what 1/100th of 1 percent. Why isn't electric or propane buses a solution? We could do buses at minuscule fraction of the cost of rail.
Posted on 4/6/21 at 2:56 pm to member12
"NO. That's just going to piss me off."
Agreed, so let's all talk about trains and forget about the state of the program for a while.
Agreed, so let's all talk about trains and forget about the state of the program for a while.
Posted on 4/6/21 at 2:58 pm to 92Tiger
Unless we do bus lanes or HOV on the interstate I don't see the time advantage.
There is a time advantage of using rail from NOLA to BR. Anyone who has made the commute will laugh at someone suggesting the trip is 75 minutes by car. This advantage is gone if the mode of transportation is subjected to the same forces of traffic.
Also, the original bus line was direct BR to NOLA without stops between.
There is a time advantage of using rail from NOLA to BR. Anyone who has made the commute will laugh at someone suggesting the trip is 75 minutes by car. This advantage is gone if the mode of transportation is subjected to the same forces of traffic.
Also, the original bus line was direct BR to NOLA without stops between.
Posted on 4/6/21 at 3:01 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
Anyone who has made the commute will laugh at someone suggesting the trip is 75 minutes by car.
Far from that at rush hour.
Posted on 4/6/21 at 3:07 pm to goofball
I couldn't count the amount of +2hr trips from NOLA to Pville I have been involved in.
Me and the other 400 people commute must make a real mess of travel
Me and the other 400 people commute must make a real mess of travel
This post was edited on 4/6/21 at 3:09 pm
Posted on 4/6/21 at 3:09 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
Also, the original bus line was direct BR to NOLA without stops between.
Problem with buses that they end up just getting stuck in traffic too. Like you said, they need HOV lanes for that to work. And it does work in Houston. But there's a lot of HOV lanes separated from the freeway by barriers there. The buses are able to blow by traffic.
It's a nice goal for Louisiana, but it's likely more expensive than just using a rail line given that they'd have to add decking to many miles of elevated highway.
Posted on 4/6/21 at 3:11 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
I couldn't count the amount of +2hr trips from NOLA to Pville I have been involved in.
Me and the other 400 people commute must make a real mess of travel
One of the things that makes me very worried about moving to Louisiana next year is that I fly for work a lot. I have had the worse luck with getting to MSY from Baton Rouge when I lived down there in the past.
Probably going to end up just using BTR and taking a layover somewhere. The little airport is trying to get more service.
Posted on 4/6/21 at 3:16 pm to dewster
All about timing really. The new exit for the airport takes a lot of hassle out of the incoming traffic.
BR always seemed easier to get in and out of, but services are limited. You still get BR traffic which could be hard to deal with depending on where you are headed when you leave.
All in all two good airports that only lack because of their low flight numbers.
BR always seemed easier to get in and out of, but services are limited. You still get BR traffic which could be hard to deal with depending on where you are headed when you leave.
All in all two good airports that only lack because of their low flight numbers.
This post was edited on 4/6/21 at 3:17 pm
Page 21 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News