Passenger trains, how would you do it?

[edblysard]

Ok Guys and Gals,
We have a whole bunch of postings here in regards to passenger trains & passenger service, with lots of ideas cropping up, so lets put them in one spot so we all can see what each other thinks and how they would go about creating it.
So answer these questions.
A: How would you fund it, and would it have to be a for profit company, or part of the goverment, or both?
B: Who would you chose to run the service as General Manager, and who would you pick as CEO?
C: Local or transcontinintal, do you serve every city you can, or have a group of smaller services dedicated to certain centers of population?
D: Justify the exsistence of the passenger train, is it just high on railfans wish lists, or is ther a real need for passenger trains?
E: If you can justify it, where is it needed most?

Have fun, but keep it within reason, I really am looking for something that can be made to work now, not sci-fi for the future. Use real time techonology, real people and exsisting equipment.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[edblysard]

Me first,me first....
Ok, my two cents are in the pot, so here goes.
A: I think the federal goverment should invest in a passenger service, as a public service, similar to the interstate program. Due in part to the fact that the interstate has just about reached its capacity to handle traffic, and that most people who use the interstate outside of their city are on a short business trip, or a pleasure trip. Leave the interstate to the truckers, and those who just like driving 8 to 12 hours to get where they are going. Fund it with a gasoline or fuel tax, maby a penney per six pack or package of smokes, sort a sin tax.
Take the initial start up capital out of the general fund. Run it soley as a public service, with no attempt at self sufficency. Offer the agency the same real estate breaks we give airlines, with public lands set aside for right of way, depots, parking lots, train yards and such.
B: Mike Haverty, from KSC, is my pick as GM. You dont read or hear a lot about the guy, but he knows the one basic simple rule of sucessful railroading. If you dont get the train where its suppost to be going, when its suppost to be there, then your not serving your customers, and your railroad will fail. As CEO, Kay Bailey Hutchingson, she has been in pubic service for a while, knows how to make public projects work, and is serious about balancing a budget.
C: Both, but run as seperate services. Trans continintal to connect both coasts, east and west,with a northern, mid states, and southern route, and north and south routes, Canada to Mexico, say from the NY area to Miami, Chicago to Brownsville, and a Coaster up the west side, San Deigo to say, Spokane, or into Canada.
Local services, like the northeast corridor, maby a triangle between Houston, New Orleans, Austin, those service would have to be worked ot depending on what the local population would want.
D: Of course its high on the wish list, just read the postings all over this forum. But the service isn't to compete with airlines, there will always be those who have to get there within a day. But those of us on a trip, say going to grandmas house to stay for a week or two, try flying with three kids and all the luggage needed. All bias aside, if my choices were to cram all of them and all the luggage in the car, go to a airport, park the car, (ha ha ha) stand in line for two hours, (we have three kids rember) then get on the plane for a four hour flight, (we have three kids), then arrive, only to have to rent a car, cram everybody and everything into it, drive another hour or two, because most airports are no where near where you are going. Add the time up, and you just spent 12 to 18 hours getting to grannys, and you exhausted to boot. Now, how about driving to the depot, about 20 minutes to 1 hour, park the car, give my luggage to the porter, board the train, and then relax for the next two days. See the rockies, or the Texas desert at night, arrive at grannys in San Deigo, shes waiting at the depot to pick us up, or we take a cab, because the depot is only ten miles from her house, and my kids arent zombies or climbing the walls because they were cooped up in a seat for the last 18 hours. Hummm...not a hard choice for someone with three kids. And because its federaly funded, the cost to me is about the same as airline tickets. Or I could drive from Houston to San Deigo. Again, Ha Ha Ha...only if I can duct tape my kids to the roof of the station wagon.
E: Due to the uproar caused by the Amtrak issue, seems as if Americans still want passenger service. they just cant decide how to pay for it.
Obviously, the northeast, with it dense population, would have to keep the northeast corridor, Florida seems to want city to city passenger service, and commuter rail, I know Texas does, and the west coast fills up the coasters and other passenger trains, Cal Trans and the like, so justification would depend on the local population wishes.
I'll leave the technology issues at this. We have exsisting equipment to run passenger trains at 180 to 200mph, as long as we have a dedicated right of way, without any grade crossings, 200mph plus would be feasible on a transcontintinal train, 80 to 100 mph on commuter rail.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[oltmannd]

OK. I'll take a crack.

Fact #1. Frt RRs need add'l capcy in the future and can't afford it.

Fact #2 Highways and Airports are nearing capcy in spots and additional investment is HUGE bucks.

Fact #3 The country has grown over the past 50 years such that it has many, closely spaced, large population centers, much like Europe, east of the Mississippi.

Fact #4 Fed bucks for transportation improvements are limited.

Solution:

Most cost effective way to add intercity transportation capacity is by adding trackage and improving to existing rail routes.

Play "connect the dots" with large cities east of the Mississipi (plus Texas & Missouri). This relieves pressure on airports and highways in these cities, reducing need to expand roads and airports (which ALWAYS gather a big crowd of NIMBYS)

Passenger svc on these routes could be int he 90-110 range without huge investment (SEHSR project is good example). Most existing rail allignments won't support more speed than this, even with tilting trains. Realligned/new ROW is HUGE $$. Generally, maintain one track for passenger and one for freight and operate as single double track route for meets/passes.

Lay the groundwork for a network now while commuter rail and other transit projects plow the ground for successful intercity rail. Intercity rail is generally successful when there is a good local feeder system. Lots of new transit projects underway or in planning stage.

Frt RRs would benefit from reliability and capacity that comes with double track plus chance to market and operate higher speed freight service (something that could compete with team drivers, for example.) States and Feds save on highway and airport construction.

Long distance overnight trains would generally operate only where they connect many cities in the network. Trains to and from the west will likely remain status quo. Might do better if they pandered to tour operators while maintaining basic service for local patrons (ala Alaska RR). Maybe Amtrak gets out of the sleeper and diner business?

Funding will have to come from the Fed and States pretty much equally. How and where the money is raised really makes little difference in the end. The gov. likes to pretend they keep differnent money in different "accounts", and it's only proper to spend certain dollars on certain things. But, a tax is a tax and spending is spending no matter what it's called. Some also say it's not "right" for the gov to directly subsidize private companies. It's better to subsidize government corporations? What we citizens deserve is the biggest bang for the buck and direct gov investment in rail capacity is just that!

-Don

[Anonymous]

The market will decide.If sufficient profit levels are attainable, then some entity,private or public,will make it happen.Not unlike everything else,offer a product/service that people want.

[Modelcar]

....Forget the profit. That is just not going to happen. Anywhere. Must treat it as a service and there are lots of people in this country especially in these metropolitan areas that will take advantage of it.

QM

[Anonymous]

It's rather simple:Provide a competitive product/service at a competitive price, and they will come.

[Anonymous]

I'll take a shot Ed.

A: First, we would need a part of the federal gas tax, maybe a penny or so,on all fuels for transportation. Also, any city that was served, would have to have some kind of sin tax. This would be from liquor, beer, or cigarettes. Possibly a part of the tax on hotel/motel rooms. This would help support station expenses.
Second, tax breaks. How this would be done I'm not clear on. Some relief on property, equipment, etc.
Third: I know you didn't ask, but by using existing ROW, not rails, just the property, you will tend to cut your nimby's down. Its already in their backyard. When existing property is used for your new system, give a break to the existing RR. Possibly in the form of property tax relief. Of course there will be places where property will have to be bought. Trying to buy next to existing freight, route would be best.
There would have to be a tax break for frieght railroads. You would want there backing for this plan. If they get breaks, they might be able to add capacity to existing rails.

B: Mr.Haverty, would be my choice.

C: There should be a transcontienal route, where speeds could be in the 190 - 220 mph. range. We have already achieved that. Keep it outside the major metro areas. Provide feeder service to the main route(s). This could be in the range of 140-160 mph.
Example: Transcon. east-west main thru, say Illinois, would make a stop in Springfield. Feeders would come from St.Louis, and Chicago, and all stops in between. This same main, stopping north of Columbus, Oh. Feeders from Louisville, Cincinnati, & Columbus, from the south. Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, etc. from the north. Let your feeder trains deal with the conjestion. Keep your transcon. route free from this. Your feeder service would also provide local service, between cities. This line would be a dedicated route for our trains.

D: Highways are crowded, airports are jammed. Provide a service that would take 15 to 16 hours to cross the nation. Most travelers would average 10 to 12 hours travel time. Figure you have to be in the airport 2hrs, before your flight, 5 hours in the air, 2 hours in the baggage claim and getting a rental car. You just spent 9 hours min. It would have been alot less hassle to take the train.
Also, you must retain some of Amtraks routes. What about the person who wants to travel from Detroit to Chicago, or from Toledo to Chicago. They are not going to travel south to go west, and then north to their destination. This existing service, would have to be upgraded with higher speed equipment. Here again an additional track along the existing ROW.

E: You should have a north transcon. route. Say from NYC to San Fransisco. No more than 5-6 stops. There should be a south transcon. route also. From LA to Washington DC. Here again no more than 5 to 6 stops along the way. You didn't ask, a rough cost would be 9 trillion dollars for each transcon route. This wouldn't cover engineering, or design. We had better start soon, it'll take years to complete. The nice thing about it is, that we have the capability to do it TODAY.

[oltmannd]

All passenger transport in the Western world loses money and gets some direct or indirect subsidy. Apparently, that's the way we like it or public policy would be different. Transport is often viewed as a catalyst for economic growth, so is worth some subsidy.

The question is how much and where the subsidy goes. What achieves the social and economic goals regarding transport and how do we get the most bang for the buck? The cost vs. value decision the users make only comes into play after the subsidies are applied because they directly impact the cost.

[douginut]

just a few ideas that I have not heard of before.
1. Any line or track that carried passengers in a convenient and necessary manner would be tax exempt.
2. attachment of commuter style coaches to "hot shot" transconental trains might help too.
3. requirement of all postal transportation to be by passenger train where availible.
three for a start.

Doug in Utah

[Anonymous]

Nine trillion dollars? The latest statistics I can find on the internet, FY2002, is the $9 million per mile of double track high speed rail (186 mph), if electrified add $3 million per mile. Tops $12 million per mile.... Nine trillion will build 750,000 miles of high speed track....Way too much track....

The most miles I have heard we need to build high speed rail tracks is around 20,000 miles (and I think this figure is too high), which comes to $240 billion.... No where near $9 trillion....

I am of the opinion we can build high speed rail tracks from New York City, Albany, Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, and to Chicago, using my Rand McNally Road Atlas, is 1127 miles. Chicago, Milwaukee, to Minneapolis is 470 miles. Chicago, St.Louis, Kansas City, Tulsa, Okla.City, Dallas to Houston is 1362 miles. Dallas, San Antonio to Houston is 475 miles. Houston, New Orleans, Birmingham to Atlanta is 782 mile., Atlanta, Jacksonville, Orlando, Miami, and Orlando to Tampa is 830 miles. Atlanta, Charlotte, Greensboro, Raleigh, Richmond to DC is 669 miles. Kansas City to Denver is 612 miles. New Orleans, Mobile, Tallahassee to Orlando is 649 miles. Buffalo to Toronto is 105 miles. Albany to Montreal is 226 mile. Oakland, Sacramento, Fresno, Los Angeles to San Diego is 598 miles. Los Angeles to Phoenix is 367 miles. Portland, Seattle to Vancouver is 426 miles. San Antonio, Laredo to Monterrey is 291 miles. DC to Cleveland is 407 miles. Chicago, Indy, Louisville, Nashville to Atlanta is 718 miles.

This wonderful track network of high speed rail in the West, Midwest, and East coast areas connecting every city with a metropolitan population of over 2 million is 21,005 miles..... or $252 billion.....that is for electrified double high speed track, For something less, such as a 150 mph using Jet Train technology of double high speed rail without electrification, the 21,005 miles would cost $189 billion. We can build more lines or we could build fewer lines, I am sure everyone has an opinion where a line should go. But this plan would be a great place to start. Find the financing for $200 billion over 20 or 30 years, which isn't much, and this could be built.....

I prefer the option of forgoing any highway and airport construction, use all of the DOT's budget for highways and airports, some $33 billion annually, and build this high speed rail network..... It could be built in 7 years! When we are finished, we won't need to spend as much on highways and airports.....

[oltmannd]

I think you have it about right! (You probably need to add something parallel to I-75, I-65 and I-95 and maybe I-40 as far west as the Missisippi, too. New Orleans to Jax is probably a waste of time. KC to Dallas, too) To do all that in 7 years within the framework of Fed. regulations and hoops to jump through would be quite a feat. It takes years just to do the environmental and alternatives studies before you can get to any of the real engineering....

I'd start by adding track to existing routes, use JetTrain or even conventional diesel to 110 mph then let incremental improvements (electification, curve reallignment, etc.) pay their own way. We'd have a better idea of the yield in ridership for these increments if it was done this way. Also, would get buy-in from and ancillary benefits for frt RRs this way.

-Don

[Anonymous]

I am against using the private railroad companies track. I want brand new fast passenger only track with trains going at least 150 mph (Jet train) or better such as 186 mph, TGV/ICE trains). What is the sense of placing a fast passenger train on tracks of the freight companies whose trains only go 80 mph? We'll end up slowing the fast passenger trains to 80 mph! Not to mention the dispatching nightmares (safety).

You must admit my plan is pretty fluid, connecting to metropolitan areas of 5 million, then 2 million, but alas, like you say my 21,000 mile plan could be improved to 24,000 miles (using your suggestions).

The funds are already there in the budget. All we have to do is put a moratorium on federal highway and airport speding for 6-7 years, and viola, we would have a modern passenger railroad the envy of the world. The moratorium would be painful, but when the public sees what has been built, the moratorium would be forgiven. When this modern railway is built, we wouldn't need to spend so much on highways and airports.....after the moratorium....

As far as conventional diesel, I am sick of traveling at less than 30 mph on slow tracks nationwide, here and there, when the same cars I am riding on travel at the speed of over 100 mph in some of the areas of New York's Empire corridor....

Yes, the cost of new right of way could be reduced by just building the new tracks alongside interstates. In urban areas, when the right of way gets tight, we can always build above using bridges. Of course, any high speed system would require a large reduction in stops, we should only serve the larger cities depending upon the routes. At the very least, we should be able to build new track up to a mile within the stations and depots we will stop at, only having to use the private tracks for very short distances.

Well, that is my opinion.

[oltmannd]

I think you vastly overestimate the problems of dispatching a double track RR with mixed traffic and underestimate the capacity of double track. Most of the routes you mentioned as candidates (outside of the northeast) are single track. Going to double track more than doubles capacity (much more!). Train delays go way down, too, making the movement of traffic more predictable. Much existing RR ROW is single that once was double, so cost for adding 2nd track back is cheap. Much ROW has 2 deg curvature (max) so, getting 100+ mph is doable (with tilt and 6" superelevation). Remember, the difference over a 100 miles for 150 mph vs 120 mph is only 10 minutes (and in reality, a lot less, given acceleration and deceleration, station stops, etc.)

Your costs for building were in line with NEC project from NH to Boston. New ROW would be much more expensive. (like x10? Just doing a 60 mile commuter line in Atlanta - adding 2nd track along existing CSX route for 30 miles, 79 mph plus a half dozen train sets - will cost $6M/mile) Securing ROW and grading are not chicken feed. Also, don't forget the cost of adding highway access to suburban stations for the new high speed routes. Outside of the NE where there is good commuter feeder systems and mass transit, this is where most of the ridership will be getting on and off. Nobody in Atlanta or Nashville would even consider driving downtown to catch an intercity train. The idea of taking a train anywhere is absurd to most people who live outsid the NE or Calif. It will take culture change to change the thinking.

Also, most highway money these days is maintenance, particularly of all those 50 year old bridges - safely issues. Most new construction is for HOV lanes in urban areas needed to comply with EPA clean air plans. I don't think there is much new construction money that can be saved. Not that much to be saved in airport construction either. Don't think there are any new big ones on the drawing board.

The Empire Corridor is a perfect example of how frt and passenger can and should mix. Albany-Rensselaer to Hudson has been 100+ mph (in spots) since the late 70s. NY state paid (and still pays) the extra for class 5 and 6 track with 6" superelevation plus cab signal installation. Frt operation continues to this day - mostly at night, but there is room for quite a bit of daylight train operation, if needed. This is the blueprint for CP169 to Buffalo. Now that NY and CSX have finished their pissing match over how much property tax is fair, some progress might actually be made.

I've ridden the Hudson and Chicago Lines thru NY state a gazillion times (mostly in the 70s and 80s). A big improvement can be had for small bucks!

[Anonymous]

I am using current Florida numbers! In fact, Florida put in a 25% fudge factor into their plans. Four companies have bid, and all of them have put in a smaller bid than Florida had planned. I shall stick with $9 million per mile for Jet Train 150 mph unelectrified track. Of course, Florida is planning to build track alongside existing track (CSX wants a 25 feet buffer but this is not really necessary), and alongside already existing highways (whether in the median or outside, the property has already been bought).

Connecting the largest cities with metropolitan populations of 5 million, and then finishing the the network to cities with metropolitan areas of over 1 million would only be around 25,000 miles of new track, NATIONWIDE! The fifty states add that many miles of new highways every ten years NATIONWIDE! The money is there, it is only a matter of priority. I like the sound of the word moratorium, we would not miss highway and airport construction much until this high speed rail network is built. Then we wouldn't need to build so many new highways. Priorities indeed.

However, I will agree with you that most of America is not familiar riding trains anymore. But I have a feeling they will get used to riding fast trains, when their cars doors are blown off by a high speed train alongside the interstate.

If you recheck the federal highway spending, it is spent building new highways, or rebuilding old highways. Federal dollars do not go to repaving projects....

As for airports, most of the fedeal money goes to rebuild runways, reconfigure runways, and build new terminals and parking garages. Yes, no new airports are on the drawing boards, but every major airport has plans for new terminals and parking garages, the key word is major. O'Hare airport alone wants to spend up to $7 billion.....

Yes, we could achieve speeds of 100 mph for much less, but in reality most of America thought the trains went that fast already. They used too....

[Anonymous]

From what I have noticed riding Amtrak's transcontinentals, is the lack of a bar. While Amtrak does sell alcohol in its Sightseeing Lounge car cafe, the vast majority take the drinks against the rules into the Smoking room of the first coach car. Amtrak would be better off having a bar car, where smoking and drinking is allowed.....

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Only essential short hauk to medium distance services, or those which show a high ridership, should be funded. That lets out the long distance overnight trains such as the Capitol Limited or the Empire Builder. The federal government would fund up to 25% of the shortfall between revenues and the cost of providing the service. Up to another 25% of the funding would be split between the states through which the trains pass. The train operator would be required to collect a minimum of 50% of a train's operting cost through ticket sales. Passengers would be charged a tax on one-way and round trip tickets (but not commuter tickets) to provide a trust fund for updating and maintenance of the equipment.

[edblysard]

I like it..
More ideas coming?
Ed

[Anonymous]

1. Tax exempt: Real estate? Income? Sales? All of the above? Would the private carriers get the benefit?
2. Two words: Slack Action
Let any railroader tell how much fun a coboose ride could be. Ouch.
3. Not bad. I wonder how much travels via trian now.

Tom
Lemont, IL

[Anonymous]

A. Since no passenger rail system in the world makes money, it would at least have to be a public-private partnership. However, the private companies are understandably skeptical when they hear "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." The government-only solution has been tried for the last 30 years. Has that been a success? I guess the fact that the passenger trains still run could be viewed as a modicum of success. Is that enough?
B. I think the current railroad CEO's should be in charge of this public-private partnership, with some oversight (Jeez - it sounds like pre-1971!). The trains should return to their image-making status, giving the public a connection to the railroad companies. If the trains run poorly, then it would reflect on their corporate image. The losses would be subsidized to a certain extent, but the trains would be both an advertising tool and a provider of service.
C. These are not to be commuter trains. Local transit issues should best be handled on a local level. The trains in this partnership would be long distance trains by nature, with the levels of additional service left to the railroads to decide. The long distance trains would still stop in smaller towns across the country.
D. The passenger train is needed in small towns where there is limited access to airports and in high population areas. The balancing act will be to provide both types of service. More service would naturally be available in the high population areas. For example, it's a bit silly to have only one trip per day on the Chicago-Minneapolis route.
E. Service is needed most in populated areas that can provide the ridership to justify the operation of the trains.

So split the fleet, return what the rr's paid to join Amtrak in the first place (with interest), help address capacity issues with redirection of highway funds, and give the trains back to the companies who ran them before the Amtrak experiment. Levels of service would be mandated to a degree and partially subsidized (along with capacity improvement assistance), but how the rr's decide to operate the service would be theirs alone, but so would the consequences of running a class operation or a pathetic one.


Or not.


Tom Klimczak
Lemont, IL

[Anonymous]

There are three categories of passenger trains:
1- Commuter- the responsibility of this operation is local and is basically to handle local traffic.
2- Regional- Trains under 500-600 miles. The states and Feds should work together on this, i.e., Cascades in Washington and Oregon. Trains are operated for local travel from smaller cities to the end larger cities.
3- Long Distance trains should be operated more like a cruise train as passengers normally want to relax and enjoy the trip or, they don't like the hassle of flying.
The thrill of flying is gone and is now a big hassle at the airports and passengers are crammed into smaller and smaller spaces and are treated like unwanted relatives.
The Cascades service between Vancouver, BC, Seattle, WA, Portland, OR and Eugene, OR has been a great success. The trains are slowly being speeded up by such things as higher train speeds through the many small towns, the tilting train which allows higher speeds on curving track and lightweight equipment. Installation of powered switches at the terminals has saved many minutes, but there are still many areas that need attention in order to increase the speeds, they include the elimination of road crossings, better signal system and some new trackage to eliminate some tight curves and also to reduce mileage on some round-about-routes.
The commuter and local trains can be used as feeders as well as dedicated buses as is done on the west coast.
Why should passenger trains be expected to pay their way when all other modes of transportation is highly subsidized?
We pay property taxes to help support our local airport, and the airport doesn't pay property taxes. Cheers, Roy

[Anonymous]

The only problem is that none of the commuter railroads, much less local bus systems, fund 50% of their operations. Why do you expect inter city trains to do the same? EVERY FORM OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IS SUBSIDIZED!

[oltmannd]

$9M/mile sounds like a good number for adding a track to existing ROW on flat terrain. Most of the country isn't like FL, though. Connecting Atlanta to Cincinnati, for example, with new ROW would be a whole lot more.

I live in GA, one of the most highway-happy states in the east. The "new" construction here is almost entirely HOV lanes for Atlanta and interchange and bridge reconstruction. The HOV lanes are mandated by the Feds, so the much of cost can't be avoided.

Airport spending for additions is huge, though, and probably can be avoided if money were spend on RRs. They are adding a runway in ATL for $2B. Problem is that highway funding all comes from gas tax and airport spending from ticket fees, so spending that money on RRs violates some people's idea of "fairness" so would be a hard sell. (I'm all for it, though).

There never really was much 100+ mph running in the US. MILW had some between Chicago and Minneapolis. ACL had some from Richmond to FL. Maybe some on the IC. Most other stories of 100 mph running were occasional "cheating" on the timetable max speeds for short stretches, which was more tolerated years ago than today.

It is pretty exciting to be driving along at 60 mph and have a train wiz by at double your speed, but I don't think that really makes much of an impression except on us railfans. Most people figure their door to door time balanced against cost, plus throw in a little for hassle factor and seating comfort. A good part of the reason the NEC does so well is that most of the major cities on the route have good transit feeder systems. Because of this, these cities have a high number of business trip origins and destinations in the city center. It is business trips that drive the economics of passenger travel. If you put high speed rail in place w/o the feeder systems, it won't do very well. You need the feeder systems to change the economics of land use to create the concentrated city centers that rail serves so well. Until then, we need an incremental approach to passenger rail.

[Anonymous]

Every major city have wonderful bus systems, with park and rides, if not commuter or light rail systems. More are planned. But have you looked seriously at the DOT's annual budgets: some 33 billion is being spent on highways, new or rebuilt highways, $11 billion is being spent on airports, and out of nowhere some $7 billion is being spent on buses and light or commuter rail systems nationwide. IF WE CAN SPEND THAT AMOUNT FOR INTRACITY RAIL, WE CAN SPEND THAT AMOUNT FOR INTERCITY RAIL TOO!

Since 1972, there has been a federal airport landing fee (tax). Since 1918 there has been a federal gasoline tax. However, railroads and Amtrak do pay a considerable amount of gasoline tax, with nothing in return.....

[oltmannd]

People who ride Acela trains don't ride SEPTA buses, but they DO ride SEPTA regional trains. You need that kind of feeder system. Express buses/bus rapid transit might work, but existing city bus systems just don't cut it.

Unfortunatley, the RR fuel tax, err, excuse me, "deficit reduction tax" is only a drop in the bucket because RRs are so fuel efficient. Only 10s of millions per year.

Personally, I'd like to see all the transportation taxes, fees, etc. be lumped into one pot labeled "mobility infrastructure improvement". Any project that improves mobility would be eligible for a fed. match. Same match for everything. Not 80/20 for roads, 50/50 for transit. Match could come from private or public sector. Could be for frt. passenger, highway, transit, etc. Projects prioritized by ROI so we get best bang for the buck. Kinda like a "super ISTEA". Too many political oxen would be gored doing it this way, so chances are slim it could ever happen.

But, I'd like to see, something, ANYTHING, happen before I'm old or dead. I kinda think SEHSR (NC & VA just might be the first ones to get something big done. The Chicago-StL project is moving along, but it is really small potatoes. I used to think NY would be the first, but they seem to spend too time arguing with CSX and Amtrak to get anywhere. They also way overspent on that new (but very nice) station for Albany.

[Anonymous]

There are already several bids to build some of the Trans Texas Corridors by contractors, but the state is not ready for bids.... One bidder, mostly following I-35, wants to build the whole enchilada, all 6 railroad tracks, and two higways one being a 6 lane turnpike for passenger cars and a 4 lane turnpike for trucks.....

It might happen sooner than you expect, at least in Texas.

[Anonymous]

I think as rails were being abandoned in the 60's & up they should had turned over the rails to the gov't for tax credits equal to the value the scrappers were gettingto ter out the rails . With that Amtrack could had developed a better combination of intragated routes , with mail & express figured in and be able to control more of thier own scheduling ( and destiny) by virtue of owning thier own rails

[Anonymous]

after riding from Kitzengen GDR to Cheb Czech rep. I would hire the manager of Germanys rail transportation as the New CEo of our new railroad.

[Anonymous]

I think we are all looking in the wrong direction if we want transcontinental high speed passenger transportation other than airlines and tracked rail service. Everyone knows that big bucks will have to be spent so why not look at new technology such as MagLev. Speeds on this type of system are quite astounding. As for paying for this, how about saying, "Mr Foreigner, we are going to need all our cash at home for the next few years. So sorry but you are on your own."
Pop

[Anonymous]

From what I have read about MAGLEV it is impressive, and expensive. Yes, we could spend $50 billion improving the 23,000 miles of tracks Amtrak uses to 100 mph. Yes, we could spend $63 billion building 7,000 miles of 150+ mph new high speed rail inside railroad or interstate right of way. Of course, we we could built the same on new real estate for probably twice as much. However, MAGLEV would cost even more. Obviously, the cheapest is to improve the tracks to 100. For just a bit more, inside current real estate of railroads and interstates, we can acheive half again as much speed....

[Anonymous]

One thing people seem to have forgotten is that we're forgetting what happens to a new automobile . . . it is usually hauled by train! All of this is very intricately tied together.

What about taxing shipments of new automobiles at, say, 10% of the total shipping cost for any rail-truck connection, but tax trucks at 11% for any direct dock-to-dealership or factory-to-dealership connection, to prevent cheating.

Award the freight railroads subsidies to passenger trains at 1% over freight costs of intermodal for the same distances, on the same ROW routes, for on-time passenger train performance (performance being specified by the average market needs of intermodal shippers).

An additional variable percentage rate would be figured into the rail subsidies based on total intermodal volumes + total passenger rail mileage on each freight railroad. Instruct the RRs to place the total subsidy directly toward infrastructure costs of tracks which run the heaviest tonnage.

Typically, this would be spent on mainlines with lots of bulk commodities, thus leading the RRs to separate their slower, heavier trains from their high-priority traffic. It would also encourage outgrowth of boxcar freight, since this can be heavier than intermodal and has slower loading times befitting its use on a slower secondary area. As these areas improve, transloading facilities will allow these "boxcar" secondaries to be designated intermodal, and therefore increase the total volume subsidy.

Also decrease truck fuel taxes for those trucks shipping intermodal over minimum distances where RRs break even when competitive with long-haul trucks to the same destinations. As more trucks ship by rail, costs will rise for the RRs because of operational constraints, leading either to capacity increases or fewer truck business.

At the same time, decrease landing fees by 1% of ticket cost at commercial airports for those airports with air-to-rail commuter connections linked to the national rail-freight system. Typically, commuter and regional rail will already have these links.

Once the funding has been figured out, the rest will follow.