General Discussion

I love railroading. Always have.

Some of my earliest recollections are of walks as a four year old back in '66 with my great-grandfather to see the Georgia Railroad passenger train roll through Thomson. The first issue of Trains I purchased was back in the early '70s, the one with a night shot of an EL unit at Bison Yard on the cover. Since then I have collected every issue--Vol 1, No. 1 to present and plan on reading Trains till I no longer exist.

However, I must be one the "howling high-speed critics" Mr. Wrinn editorializes in the December issue. His criticisms fit me to a tee, except the anti-government part. I am more a anti-tax increase, anti-deficit spending type.

In an ideal world, I would love for America to have a high speed rail network. However, in the real world our governments have chosen to spend our tax dollars like a gambler with a fresh cashed paycheck(and an unlimited credit card) in a casino.

The 55% of working Americans who pay income taxes already have to work 4 months of the year just to pay their annual tax burden--not even considering the deficit spending of the past 12 months. How long will we be working in a decade or two to pay the current burden? Not to mention our children and their children.

What will our standard of living be when that tax burden becomes 6 months or more? To me, that is when we can really start batting the "uncivilized" word around.

I have been to Europe. I have ridden the TGV between Paris and Lyon. It is a wonderful experience to ride a train traveling smoothly along at 180+ mph but not wonderful enough to put my childrens' future at stake.

As far as less pollution, better land use, and less congestion, what load factor will the high speed trains have to attain to make these benefits true? What service level? What user fee(in today's term, operating subsidy)? What propulsion?

Safety? We already have a high speed passenger network with a better safety record than railroading--the commercial airlines.

Call me obtuse, but this "howling high-speed critic" wants to know when the "high-speed supporters" truly get it.

Jay 

BTW--How many of the Europeans calling us "uncivilized" know the geography of the US? $8 billion is not even a downhill roll toward creating a network in America. By the time a truly national network is completed, $8 trillion would probably be closer to the truth. It is always easier to be a critic when the critic has nothing at risk. 

 And Europe's system is subsidized and expensive to ride. The per mile cost of a train ticket is typically about 3 times the coach fare of Amtrak.

 The government has carefully chosen which national problems to throw money at: all of them. This is the housing bubble shifted to the government borrowing bubble -- it too will burst!

garr:

Jay 

BTW--How many of the Europeans calling us "uncivilized" know the geography of the US? $8 billion is not even a downhill roll toward creating a network in America. By the time a truly national network is completed, $8 trillion would probably be closer to the truth. It is always easier to be a critic when the critic has nothing at risk. 

If you are going to make an  argument against high speed rail, you might at least want to suggest a a somewhat less exagerated cost number.  The operating cost estimate for electrified double track 200MPH passenger rail is 50 to 60 million dollars per mile.  $8 trillion would build something on the order of 150,000 miles of lines.  Given that the Interstate Highway system is about 48,000 miles, perhaps that would be a bit more than we really need.  (BTW, the inflation adjusted total cost of the construction of the Interstate System has been pegged at about $500 billion).

In fact, no serious high speed rail porposals suggest much  more than 5000 miles or so.  For the sake of illustration, let's double that.  A 10,000 mile system would cost something on the order of $500 billion and I guess would be more than necessary to provide service between all the heavier traveled under 500 mile markets in the US.  Just for comparison,  $500 billion is on the order of what we spend annually for each of for what is currently our highest government spending priorities, i.e., defense, social security and government paid health care. 

Just as it was with the IH system, the building of a high speed rail system would probably take a couple of decades.  If you figure 20 years, the annual expenditure for the project would run about $25 billion.  Obvioulsy, the $8 billion plus a few extra proposed for the next few years is far short of what would be required, even for something just to demonstrate the concept. 

So at this point it is clear that we have put up little more than enough money to provide for talking points.  If we decide to proceed with the project, we are first going to have to decide on funding.  The only choices are shifting money from other government programs, borrowing the money or raising taxes.  I hear where you stand on two of those options.

Those of us who support high speed rail tend to be rather vague with the benefit side.  I would like to suggest a real potential benefit that would accrue to almost anyone.  In the US, we are currently using over 130 billion of gasoline each year.  As you know, gasoline prices dropped from a high in 2008 of over $4.00 a gallon to about $2.70 today.  Unless you believe that the price dropped because petroleum companies thought they were making too much money, you have to figure that the price drop was due to the recession causing a drop in demand.  I pose this:  Is it possible that high speed rail could cause a sufficient shift from the use of automobiles to reduce demand for gasoline to a level that would impact gasoline prices?  If the difference was only 25 cents per gallon, the savings to the driving public would more than offset the cost of boilding the railroads.

I too am concerned about the future of my children and grand children, but I must say that I am more concerned by the prospect of a future where their mobility is severly limited by the availability and cost of petroleum fuels.  There have been federal deficits for all but two years of my life and for a couple of war years, the debt as a percentage of GDP was actually higher.  We are still here.

I read Jim Wrinn's editorial in December 2009 Trains; and 50 years ago read David P Morgan's Who Shot The Passenger Train. We all know what happened to the American passenger train. Even as late as 1959,many trains that ran on US railroads were superior to trains in Europe. I lived in Britain in 1959 and 1960 and would say the Burlington's Zephyrs,Milwaukee's Hiawathas and the C&NW's 400s were better trains than anything running on British Railways except the Golden Arrow and Bornemouth Belle. While our trains got worse, theirs got better. On Britain's West Coast Main Line they completely rebuilt it. Steam was replaced by electric and faster trains and new rolling stock.Deltic class diesels appeared on the East Coast main line and decreased running times. Britain in 1959 opened its first stretch of Motorway (Freeway).The taxpayers money was hard at work. Today the inter city trains are excellent but other trains have become crowded and expensive.It cost me $7.00 to go from Worcester England to Great Malvern England, a distance of 8 miles. Here in Minnesota we have the good people of Big Lake Minnesota complaining that they must pay $8.00 to travel the 42 miles between Big Lake and downtown Minneapolis on the new Northstar commuter trains. It's all about money and how you want to spend it. You cannot have high speed rail service and ride it for Greyhound prices.The real miracle of Britain's high speed rail is that the right of way was engineered in the reign of Queen Victoria, the American taxpayer will not get by that cheap.

 Well, if we don't build high speed rail, how will we as a nation and economy travel in the 21st century?  By airplanes?  If so, will one of the "howling critics" compare the full costs of air travel with high speed rail?  Please include all the costs, as your crowd loves to do for passenger train proponents.

   Advanced railroads and high speed rail are things we must have if the national economy is to compete and grow within the modern world.  I think we have to see this as a required investment, not a toy, a luxury, or a plaything that benefits a very few and is unnecessary.  

   I also recall many people of this ilk ridiculing Los Angeles some years ago for building their rail transit system.  "It's too late, people will never forsake their cars."  Well, in the words of Ira Gershwin, "Who's got the last laugh now?"

   Does America compete in the 21st century or quit the race because it costs money to make up for the lost time of the last 40 or 50 years?  I'm glad to pay more taxes to keep my country competitive and strong.  

jeaton:

Just as it was with the IH system, the building of a high speed rail system would probably take a couple of decades.  If you figure 20 years, the annual expenditure for the project would run about $25 billion.  Obvioulsy, the $8 billion plus a few extra proposed for the next few years is far short of what would be required, even for something just to demonstrate the concept. 

So at this point it is clear that we have put up little more than enough money to provide for talking points.  If we decide to proceed with the project, we are first going to have to decide on funding.  The only choices are shifting money from other government programs, borrowing the money or raising taxes.  I hear where you stand on two of those options.

jeaton,

Don't get me wrong, as I stated, I would love to have a high speed rail system in the US.

I just believe that our governments have spent our tax dollars in a very unwise manner over the years. With our quoted deficit in the $10+ trillion range and the unfunded figure (which some economists claim as the true figure) in the $60+ trillion range, I just don't see how a massive project such as high speed rail is in our best interest today.

No different than my personal finances. If I choose to spend my money on whims and luxuries where is the money for the basics going to come from? Credit? How sound is that. 

I guess I can best put my thoughts this way--what billion dollar expenditure is the breaking point for the US financially? If everyone keeps wanting and getting for their favorite project, the day we teeter over that cliff will be here sooner than we expect. Sometimes the answer needs to be No--it could be argued that the answer should always be No when we as a country is in so much debt.

I would love for the US to be free of Mid East, Russian, Mexican, and other oil interest. But a few of those billions/trillions spent sent the mid '70s should have put us further along that road than where we are today.

Just because the federal government has survived during our lifetimes living on credit doesn't mean the reckoning day for these unsound principles will never come.    

Jay

BTW--I didn't say the cost would be $8 trillion, just closer to it than $8 billion if the system is ever completed. Say 20 years, as you stated, for a true national high speed system(180+mph) with inflation added in for good measure and the annual operating deficits. 

While the original post purports to be about high speed rail, it appears to me that it is really about deficit spending which the OP seems to think the current administration dreamed up.

In reality it is about priorities.  We could have built a great high speed rail network with the money we threw down the rat hole in Iraq.  We have lost track of more money in the CIA and defense budgets than Amtrak needs.  The 8 billion dollar crumbs currently promised to begin high speed rail is 50% LESS money than the cost of the replacement presidential helicopter program that the last administration tried to buy and that the current administration has canceled.  Congressman Hinchey is still trying to reinstate it.

If the money used to bail out the investment houses and banks had been used to build a high speed rail network there would be a lot of people with jobs building it, and I bet none of them would be getting multi million dollar bonuses.

Extremely well said.  As to the response concerning the price of gasoline, if we were to start drilling our own oil we would (1) have a stable supply at lower cost, (2) stop funding international terrorism, (3) create high paying jobs here in the U.S. and (4) allow ourselves sufficient time to develop alternative energy sources.

John Timm

garr:

I love railroading. Always have.

Some of my earliest recollections are of walks as a four year old back in '66 with my great-grandfather to see the Georgia Railroad passenger train roll through Thomson. The first issue of Trains I purchased was back in the early '70s, the one with a night shot of an EL unit at Bison Yard on the cover. Since then I have collected every issue--Vol 1, No. 1 to present and plan on reading Trains till I no longer exist.

However, I must be one the "howling high-speed critics" Mr. Wrinn editorializes in the December issue. His criticisms fit me to a tee, except the anti-government part. I am more a anti-tax increase, anti-deficit spending type.

In an ideal world, I would love for America to have a high speed rail network. However, in the real world our governments have chosen to spend our tax dollars like a gambler with a fresh cashed paycheck(and an unlimited credit card) in a casino.

The 55% of working Americans who pay income taxes already have to work 4 months of the year just to pay their annual tax burden--not even considering the deficit spending of the past 12 months. How long will we be working in a decade or two to pay the current burden? Not to mention our children and their children.

What will our standard of living be when that tax burden becomes 6 months or more? To me, that is when we can really start batting the "uncivilized" word around.

I have been to Europe. I have ridden the TGV between Paris and Lyon. It is a wonderful experience to ride a train traveling smoothly along at 180+ mph but not wonderful enough to put my childrens' future at stake.

As far as less pollution, better land use, and less congestion, what load factor will the high speed trains have to attain to make these benefits true? What service level? What user fee(in today's term, operating subsidy)? What propulsion?

Safety? We already have a high speed passenger network with a better safety record than railroading--the commercial airlines.

Call me obtuse, but this "howling high-speed critic" wants to know when the "high-speed supporters" truly get it.

Jay 

BTW--How many of the Europeans calling us "uncivilized" know the geography of the US? $8 billion is not even a downhill roll toward creating a network in America. By the time a truly national network is completed, $8 trillion would probably be closer to the truth. It is always easier to be a critic when the critic has nothing at risk. 

jeaton:

[snip] Those of us who support high speed rail tend to be rather vague with the benefit side.  I would like to suggest a real potential benefit that would accrue to almost anyone.  In the US, we are currently using over 130 billion [gallons] of gasoline each year.  As you know, gasoline prices dropped from a high in 2008 of over $4.00 a gallon to about $2.70 today.  Unless you believe that the price dropped because petroleum companies thought they were making too much money, you have to figure that the price drop was due to the recession causing a drop in demand.  I pose this:  Is it possible that high speed rail could cause a sufficient shift from the use of automobiles to reduce demand for gasoline to a level that would impact gasoline prices?  If the difference was only 25 cents per gallon, the savings to the driving public would more than offset the cost of boilding the railroads.  [snip; emphasis added - PDN]

The 'external benefit' that is highlighted above is too important to be buried undifferentiated in the rest of a paragraph and a post which also makes a lot of sense.  To do the math - that 25 cents per gallon savings would be $32 Billion per year in savings.  See also this related article - ''Oil Industry Braces for Drop in U.S. Thirst for Gasoline'' by Russell Gold and Ana Campoy from page A-1 of the April 13, 2009  Wall Street Journal at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123957686061311925.html 

That principle and effect is also applicable to such similar aspects as:

- diesel fuel that can be saved by switching more freight to rail; and,

- airport costs and congestion that can be eliminated by instituting and use of high speed rail systems for trips of - say, less than 500 miles.

- Paul North.

jeaton:

If the difference was only 25 cents per gallon, the savings to the driving public would more than offset the cost of building the railroads.

oltmannd:

jeaton:

If the difference was only 25 cents per gallon, the savings to the driving public would more than offset the cost of building the railroads.

This is an excellent point, but local mobility is more important, and more miles are driven, than intercity mobility. (e.g. getting to work and the grocery store). We'd get more bang for the buck investing in urban/suburban transit than HSR. In fact, doing that first might actually pave the way for HSR later by providing first/last mile service. I think the current relatively modest investments in improved intercity rail are a more than reasonable - for now.

Don,

Excellent point.  Start small to see if the public's habits change. It does no good to have a jewel of a rail system that the public admires from their automobile.

The local regional lines could feed the true high speed routes. Otherwise, people a more apt to decide to continue their trip in their cars if they have to drive an hour to a train station. IIRC, the first stop out of Paris on the TGV was Lyon, approximately 2 hours at over 150 mph for most of the route. 

Also, it was earlier stated that the national high speed rail system mileage projection is 5,000 miles.  That seems a bit low to be truly national. What is that 1 east-west transcontinental route and 2 north-south routes on each coast? Is the transcontinental route going to so far north it is useless to the people in the southern half of the country(and vice-versa) or will it be located in the middle so that it is inconvenient to most in both the northern and southern halves. Where is the mileage for the north south route in the midsection?

Plus, I do not believe 5,000 miles for the national system would be enough to garner the support to in Congress for the legislation to pass. Not enough congressional districts benefiting. And we wonder how our deficits occur.

Jay

Phoebe Vet:

While the original post purports to be about high speed rail, it appears to me that it is really about deficit spending which the OP seems to think the current administration dreamed up.

In reality it is about priorities.  We could have built a great high speed rail network with the money we threw down the rat hole in Iraq.  We have lost track of more money in the CIA and defense budgets than Amtrak needs.  The 8 billion dollar crumbs currently promised to begin high speed rail is 50% LESS money than the cost of the replacement presidential helicopter program that the last administration tried to buy and that the current administration has canceled.  Congressman Hinchey is still trying to reinstate it.

If the money used to bail out the investment houses and banks had been used to build a high speed rail network there would be a lot of people with jobs building it, and I bet none of them would be getting multi million dollar bonuses.

It is about deficit spending--however show me where I have singled out the current administration? All have been proficient in this regard.

Every dollar that the government receives in taxes represents somebody's hard earned dollar which that individual no longer has to spend on his/her needs. Our elected officials should realize what that money represents and spend it wisely. 

Get the country's finances in order, then talk national high speed rail. Infrastructure is important, but our elected officials need to have the discipline to say no to pet projects that take the money away from needed ones.

Maybe one day elected officials will be reelected for what they don't spend instead of what they do.

Jay

oltmannd:

jeaton:

If the difference was only 25 cents per gallon, the savings to the driving public would more than offset the cost of building the railroads.

This is an excellent point, but local mobility is more important, and more miles are driven, than intercity mobility. (e.g. getting to work and the grocery store). We'd get more bang for the buck investing in urban/suburban transit than HSR. In fact, doing that first might actually pave the way for HSR later by providing first/last mile service. I think the current relatively modest investments in improved intercity rail are a more than reasonable - for now.

That is a good point and I certainly won't argue.  Interesting that in terms of ridership, recent installations of local rail services have, for the most part, done better than expected.  While none of them provide me a service that I can use and some of my tax dollars may have been used to build those services, they do have something in common.  For every person riding those trains, we can assume a few less gallons of gasoline burned.  Remote, but perhaps the slightly reduced demand for gas has let me purchase my gasoline for a few pennies less.  Could I actually be ahead of the game?

Frankly, I do not see any single part of the entire energy/transportation environment as a magic bullet.  On transportation we are, and will probably forever be in a multi-modal environment.  Accordingly, I think we ought to be doing a better job of trying to get the best return for all the money we spend for transportation.  While I think there is a place for high speed rail service, I don't think it would make much sense to build a coast to coast line when airplanes do a fine job of providing that kind of service. 

Also, I don't think it would make much sense to build any rail passenger service to serve my little town of 8,000.  Thanks, but I think we will just have to do with using our cars to get to a rail terminal at a central population point. 

I would love to comment on this, but am currently reading the 1900 + pages of the House of Representatives bill on health care.

ed

oltmannd:

jeaton:

If the difference was only 25 cents per gallon, the savings to the driving public would more than offset the cost of building the railroads.

This is an excellent point, but local mobility is more important, and more miles are driven, than intercity mobility. (e.g. getting to work and the grocery store). We'd get more bang for the buck investing in urban/suburban transit than HSR. In fact, doing that first might actually pave the way for HSR later by providing first/last mile service. I think the current relatively modest investments in improved intercity rail are a more than reasonable - for now.

What market is HSR really going after?  In the less than 500 mile range, is it the automobile or the airplane?

I live an hour and a half South of St. Louis.  My family is in suburban Chicago.  I think it would be great to travel from here to there in three hours, but once I am there I will need a car.  That is why I will continue to drive to the Chicago metropolitan area even if HSR between those two cities happens.

I think that is why HSR will affect airlines more than Interstates.  Yes, no?