General Discussion

schlimm:

Frankly, the degree of opposition to improving passenger rail transit here makes me wonder if many of you work for the airlines and trucking concerns, not just opposing a government rail subsidy.

I do not work in the transportation industry myself but in healthcare--where one can see abuses going on. We recently had a hoohaw develop over untendered contracts being sent out to friends of people who were in the admin. of a local hospital--to the tune of about $1.45 million dollars. These went for consultants fees and services. A large chunk of change out of a hospital budget that is currently out by a few million. The individual was released from their duties with a nice severance package too, BTW.

Any subsidy would need vetted if these are going to be used. There must be strict guidences on these things to prevent those kinds of incidences --- hence the scepticism towards subsidies --- they can become a means of extending governmental bureaucratic controls--and the bureaucracies as well. 

schlimm:

  Frankly, the degree of opposition to improving passenger rail transit here makes me wonder if many of you work for the airlines and trucking concerns, not just opposing a government rail subsidy.

Nope, I am a dispatcher for a class one railroad.  I just hate to see my hard earned tax money wasted on someones pipe dream.

Now if you want to talk about banning all long haul trucking I am game!  Just think of all the fuel that would be saved, along with the increase in road capacity.

schlimm:

htgguy:

What it looks like to me, is they hauled a whole bunch of commuters.

1.8 billion is a whole lot of people, but I think it should be clear that they aren't all racing about Germany on high speed rail.

 

Glad you examined their site.  I wondered at first about that number too. Of course it includes commuters, although not all the commuter or regional services in Germany  (there is some competition).  But I and others are talking an integrated transport system including HSR where appropriate and upgrades short of true HSR on other routes.  BTW, I wonder how many commuters are carried in the US yearly?

Going from wikipedia (if you believe it-I guess I would for this kind of data), my figuring showed about 430 million a year. Wait, that's just heavy rail-I found light rail, and that adds another 530 million a year. So between the two, about 960 million a year. Darn near a billion people a year on rail transit! I am really surprised by that number.

Now I found another site from the American Public Transportation Association. I took the average weekly ridership for heavy rail, light rail, and commuter rail, and multplied each of them by 52 weeks. They added up to 737,380,800. So I guess the true number is between about 750 million and 950 million a year. That's rail commuters in the US. Oh I see I missed about 18 million a year trolleybus riders too. That's not much percentagewise.

Then I looked at buses. That looks like another half billion a year, 504,816,000 to be exact using the same methodology as for the trains.

That's what I have found. I'm surprised.

Jim

A complete system of HSR is just one small component of the national transportation system and its affiliated agenda of switching to 100% renewable energy for all purposes, and the new distribution smart grid that will link to new energy production sites and manage power usage.  And then there is the new catenary, track, substations, locomotives, rolling stock, and terminal facilities.  All of these facets of the big plan are somewhat interdependent, so they must advance more or less simultaneously. 

The $8 billion that has been committed to HSR is just a tiny symbolic token of what must ultimately be committed to the big plan.  The whole price tag would likely be in the several trillion-dollar price range, if an accurate price could even be calculated.  It is hard to believe that a project this large could be undertaken without spreading out over a long time.  But we are told that this is to address a national emergency, so quick action is implied.  And the people who have the authority to spend money have unbounded zeal to do so.  They will tell us that it is an investment that will yield a handsome return, so don’t worry about the price.

However, I have a hunch that ramping up spending on this scale will be impossible.  It would be almost like defying the laws of physics.  The institutions that spend money are suited to the flow of spending that they normally handle.  If you suddenly give them one-thousand times the amount they spend in one year, and give them one year to spend it, they won’t be able to do it. 

It is true that they must have the money to spend in order to spend it, but that is not enough when you ask them to spend way out of scale.  The problem is that, even though they are given the money to spend, they will need more resources just to spend it.  If you give them a trillion dollars to spend fast, they will need another trillion to ramp up their resources and assets needed to spend the first trillion.  And due to the tendency to milk this kind of windfall, they will need a third trillion to spend the first two.  It will spiral into spending lockup by its own inertia. 

I suspect we will see that just with the $8 billion for HSR.  The bigger the chunk of money we lay on the table, the less efficiently it will be spent.  I would not be surprised if $8 billion only buys some track improvements.

Certainly the government can spend money in any amount if they simply transfer it in one big chunk.  But the kind of spending that will be required with these infrastructure projects needs bids, contracts, and management-- all performed by government bureaucracies.  Think what that will cost for letting a trillion dollars worth of work. 

So, in my opinion, spending on this scale, in a short time frame, will simply not be possible.  There is not enough money or resources anywhere on earth to meet the ballooning cost of managing spending on this scale.  It will consume money like a black hole.        

 Saw this in the New York Times, 11/18/2009:

"A recent study in Britain concluded that one flight from London to Los Angeles produced more carbon dioxide per person than the average British commuter produces in a year by traveling by train, subway or car."

schlimm:

Saw this in the New York Times, 11/18/2009:

"A recent study in Britain concluded that one flight from London to Los Angeles produced more carbon dioxide per person than the average British commuter produces in a year by traveling by train, subway or car."

So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)?

And how many people were on the flight that produced more carbon dioxide than ONE commuter?

What is the point of your post in this discussion? If I posted statistics that showed how much more carbon dioxide was emitted as a result of travelling by rail versus bicycle, would that be the basis of an open and shut case to eliminate rail travel? Why not?

htgguy:

schlimm:

Saw this in the New York Times, 11/18/2009:

"A recent study in Britain concluded that one flight from London to Los Angeles produced more carbon dioxide per person than the average British commuter produces in a year by traveling by train, subway or car."

So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)?

And how many people were on the flight that produced more carbon dioxide than ONE commuter?

What is the point of your post in this discussion? If I posted statistics that showed how much more carbon dioxide was emitted as a result of travelling by rail versus bicycle, would that be the basis of an open and shut case to eliminate rail travel? Why not?

Strange context mangling in that article.

Maybe we could advocate for wind powered waterborne vessels---also known as the tall ships I guess

htgguy:

So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)?

And how many people were on the flight that produced more carbon dioxide than ONE commuter?

What is the point of your post in this discussion?

Apparently the point was missed.  The article is only saying that air travel produces a lot of CO2, not any of the "straw man" points you interjected.

schlimm:

 Saw this in the New York Times, 11/18/2009:

"A recent study in Britain concluded that one flight from London to Los Angeles produced more carbon dioxide per person than the average British commuter produces in a year by traveling by train, subway or car."

 

Again: Read the sentence you wrote down here. The thing was comparing two specific contexts here--air travel and car. I am not sure why a mode of travel--in this case air travel to another continent over the ocean was used to compare a local commute with!! To me this only proves that you can use any statistical tool to prove anything---all you gotta do is find something that'll have a higher number -- in this case they used air travel---not just LOCAL air travel but a LONG DISTANCE one! Sheesh!!

blownout cylinder:

To me this only proves that you can use any statistical tool to prove anything---all you gotta do is find something that'll have a higher number -- in this case they used air travel---not just LOCAL air travel but a LONG DISTANCE one!

Calm down.  I didn't make the comparison.  The study cited in the Times did. Anything that shows air travel in a somewhat negative light seems to get you so upset.  Anyway, I suspect a short-hop flight would produce a lot of CO2 also.  Take-offs and low altitude flights burn a lot of fuel compared to cruising at 35000.  

schlimm:

blownout cylinder:

To me this only proves that you can use any statistical tool to prove anything---all you gotta do is find something that'll have a higher number -- in this case they used air travel---not just LOCAL air travel but a LONG DISTANCE one!

 

Calm down.  I didn't make the comparison.  The study cited in the Times did. Anything that shows air travel in a somewhat negative light seems to get you so upset.  Anyway, I suspect a short-hop flight would produce a lot of CO2 also.  Take-offs and low altitude flights burn a lot of fuel compared to cruising at 35000.  

I'm calm--I just use drama to emphesise the point! LOL!! The article itself is problematic in that the way the thing was constructed could have been used to advocate tall ship travel as the way to go then. And take off/landing will have been taken care of by just adocating a much slower form of travel----mmm--I wonder how many travellers will go for that As for short hop commuter flights, that might haave been a better thing to do the comparison with-----

blownout cylinder:

htgguy:

schlimm:

Saw this in the New York Times, 11/18/2009:

"A recent study in Britain concluded that one flight from London to Los Angeles produced more carbon dioxide per person than the average British commuter produces in a year by traveling by train, subway or car."

So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)?

And how many people were on the flight that produced more carbon dioxide than ONE commuter?

What is the point of your post in this discussion? If I posted statistics that showed how much more carbon dioxide was emitted as a result of travelling by rail versus bicycle, would that be the basis of an open and shut case to eliminate rail travel? Why not?

Strange context mangling in that article.

Maybe we could advocate for wind powered waterborne vessels---also known as the tall ships I guess

schlimm:

 Saw this in the New York Times, 11/18/2009:

"A recent study in Britain concluded that one flight from London to Los Angeles produced more carbon dioxide per person than the average British commuter produces in a year by traveling by train, subway or car."

 

Did it happen to say how long the average commute is?  The flight from London to Los Angeles is 5442 miles long.  I drive about 10 miles each way to work a day.  My yearly drive would be about 5200 miles, NOT counting the three weeks of vacation that I don't drive, the 10 personal days which I can use, or any sick days that I might need.  However since I will go in on by days off for OT every now and then, we will stick to the 5200 miles. Now I would think that 242 miles traveled extra would produce more carbon dioxide.  Lets look at some other things about long haul flights, did the study factor in air freight?  Just about any widebody flight, along with many narrowbodys, with have any room in the cargo carpartment that is not used for passenger's bags filled with freight.  It can vary from fresh fruits to autos.  Weight has a large effect on carbon output.  My 5200 miles commute a year is just little old me, with no freight to speak of.  What kind of aircraft was it, a 20 year old 747-400, or a 2 year old A330? I am sure my 2006 Mustang puts out much less CO2 than Blownout's 68 429CJ or Ed's 71 Challenger.   Did they study what the new, all composite 787 or A350 would be?  Both of those aircraft are making some large promises on how efficient they will be.  Maybe a better study, and less misleading, would be the amount of carbon dioxode produced vs ton hauled...

Edit...found this study on the web.  If this is true and the goverment is serious about the enviorment, I think the 8 billion would be better spent on sending America to the Biggest Loser rather than HSR.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517264,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/20/thin.global.warming/index.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Diet/story?id=4865889&page=1

schlimm:

blownout cylinder:

To me this only proves that you can use any statistical tool to prove anything---all you gotta do is find something that'll have a higher number -- in this case they used air travel---not just LOCAL air travel but a LONG DISTANCE one!

 

Calm down.  I didn't make the comparison.  The study cited in the Times did. Anything that shows air travel in a somewhat negative light seems to get you so upset.  Anyway, I suspect a short-hop flight would produce a lot of CO2 also.  Take-offs and low altitude flights burn a lot of fuel compared to cruising at 35000.  

Nope it didn't make the comparison, but you did post it.....here is the link by the way

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/science/earth/18offset.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=carbon%20dioxide&st=cse

 Anyway short haul flights could be a lot more efficient, by using turboprops instead of jets.  Anything under 500 miles the prop is much more efficient.  That being said, the public has shown an unwillingness the fly props, most feel that they are old or unsafe, regardless of the age of the aircraft and what the safety stats say.  So the aircraft builders came out the the "regional jet" which for the most part has taken over the under 500 mile aircraft routes.

Interesting parallel:  after 9/11 the post office stopped shipping USMail on passenger flights over the US, and look at what the lost revenue did to the airlines, and decades earlier, railroads.

Also, CO2 isn't the problem.  It's just an easy target.   I read somewhere that it accounts for only about 10% of the effects of "global warming".  Water vapor in the atmosphere is almost 10x more effective as CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere.  So let's ban di-hydrogen monoxide like California allegedly almost did.  Without sunshine on the ocean creating evaporation, the number one source would be contained.  Shall we ban sunshine, too?  Using reductions in CO2 production to justify electrification of railroading is a paper lion.  Barring government mandate (most likely unfunded to make it worse) electrification will have to stand on its own merits.  In our myoptic quarterly results driven management style, it won't happen. 

IMHO, the one to watch is BNSF, once Mr Buffet takes ownership.  Freed of the tyrrany of satisfactory quarterlies, they may have the ability to make a long-term, strategic, bet-the-company, investment that won't see results for several years in reduced operating costs.  If they can't do it, in all likelyhoood, no one can.