It's about time that the Americans invest in an interstate high speed rail system. But the eight billion of dollars US is not enough to finance,paying and building an interstate high speed rail system for passengers. And this is not a real high speed rail system like Europeans and Asians people have it. Plus,the US high speed rail plan which these future high speed trains will be running on conventional and existing tracks and share the railroad tracks to freight trains except California that they plan to build a true high speed rail system like Europeans and Asian people have it.
Canada plans to study and building an high speed rail system too in the Quebec-Windsor Corridor to connect Quebec City-Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto and Windsor in the Quebec and Ontario provinces.
This project exist only in study and it was never realized and Canada talked about this project to put on these rails since the 80's about twenty-five years ago.
There another high speed project in Canada and he's the second.The Edmonton-Calgary corridor is in project too.
In my opinion,Canada,United States and Mexico countries must investing in high speed rail in their territories from coast to coast.
Raily Yours
Sylvain
Ten years ago politicians spent money for public goods and we talked about the cost of a project. Today, however, our politicians do not do that, they make "investments". The word is rapidly changing meanings.
That said, I think much of the money will go toward projects that raise the average speed of existing routes rather than HSR as the Japanese or Europeans understand the term.
Dakguy201 Ten years ago politicians spent money for public goods and we talked about the cost of a project. Today, however, our politicians do not do that, they make "investments". The word is rapidly changing meanings. That said, I think much of the money will go toward projects that raise the average speed of existing routes rather than HSR as the Japanese or Europeans understand the term.
Having flown quite a bit over the Eastern half of the country I find it amazing that there seems to be corridors already designed that could be used for HSR....High Tension Electrical power lines have many direct routes across vast distances that could be enhanced for HSR, as well has having a ready supply of power to be utilized if the HSR line is built as electrically operated.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
HIGH SPEED RAIL...a hot, glamorous, sexy term. But what does it mean? To whom? Just to be able to run a train hundreds of miles an hour may not be in the best inerest of the passenger. It is a system that has promise, I agree. But it has to be designed, implimented, and marketed within its abilities and not up to the expectations of the masses.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6 HIGH SPEED RAIL...a hot, glamorous, sexy term. But what does it mean? To whom? Just to be able to run a train hundreds of miles an hour may not be in the best inerest of the passenger. It is a system that has promise, I agree. But it has to be designed, implimented, and marketed within its abilities and not up to the expectations of the masses.
I agree with henry6. IMHO it might be misplaced patriotism if federal disbursements to HSR insist that such a train be domestically designed and engineered (I am not talking about where they would be built), and that every HST route run hundreds or miles with few or no stops.
Once again, I think it's a mug's game to insist on the ability to jump in speed on from, say, fresh HST on or closely parallel to the old SP lines through the Imperial Valley or closer to the coast. We probably would need new track, new route, and lots of eminent domain no matter what. Don't expect the ability to jump up to cruising speed anytime soon. The French TGV can cruise at above 350 kph (roughly 210 mph) speeds and as we know, has demonstrated the ability to cruise even faster. But if you care to dig up the videos someone posted a monhth or two about the TGV, you'll notice that ony in one segment does the TGV get to strut its stuff and run at the flat-out cruising rate. A lot of the route, the train operates more or less at "rapide" speed, which is impressive in its own way but not world-class.
Doesn't anyone remember that when the Interstate Highways were being built ca. 1960 - 1975, when the superhighway sections were in segments, that most states tried to get a good flow of traffic from the old federal highways where no Interstate was (yet) available and of course, route back to I-whatever whenever possible? - a.s.
I think that the 8 billion dollars in the cited bill is no more than smoke and mirror politics. It wouldn't even fund the Federally-mandated environmental impact studies on potential rights-of-way for a nationwide system. If concentrated in one area, it might be possible to extend the BosWash corridor toward either New Orleans or Florida, but probably wouldn't be enough to get all the way to either end point.
As a seed, it might grow. Just don't expect it to produce a useful result without a lot more fertilizer ($$$$.)
Chuck
That's what it looks a real high speed rail system. It is the same system which as you need like interstate high speed rail system. Whatever is for the Southeast Corridor,The Florida Corridor,The Northeast Corridor,The California Corridor,etc,etc. And it also applies to Canada and Mexico.
An high speed rail like everybody else. An high speed rail to the European and Japanese style.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANB-yZIJP6o&feature=related
I would be shocked if the bulk of the $8B didn't go to incremental improvments for 90-110 mph service along existing frt RR ROW. The Midwest Initiative, Ohio Hub and VA/NC SEHSR projects fit this descripition. Politics may decree the money be spread around a wider geography - FL and CA in particular.
If we do these, and they work well, then the ground will be laid for further imporvement, realignments, new ROW, etc. in the future.
$8B is a great chance at making a good start. We better leaverage it hard and we better not blow it.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
You know, I could see a high speed rail line across places like NM, AZ, NV, etc. where there would be long...say 50 to 100 miles or more between station stops. But how effective, effecient, and economical would be a 210 mph railroad when stopping every 10 to 40 miles? Not sure the $$ are with it. Nor the fuel economy, either. Talk High Speed, but define High Speed and tell the people what the real expectations of its application will be. Not just political drival or Hollywood Hype, but real wheel to the rail, dollar to the bottom line truths and expectations. Perhaps $10 million to improve route to 100 or 125 mph standards will do as well or more than $100 million on a 210 mph right of way.
220 mile an hour trains for California doesn't make any sense when the route they have selected between San Francisco and Los Angles will take an estimated 2hours 40 minutes. This does not beat the planes that presently fly between the two points.
Would it not make more sense to put in a 350 mph Maglev system. The argument they make for a conventional type train makes no sense either as nothing else is going to be running on the track anyway. With Maglev at 350 mph speeds the planes certainly could not compete. And Maglev would take no more space than conventional HSR , in fact probably less at it operates on elevated guideway. It certainly would create more jobs than the proposed HSR system would and could probably be built in far less time than the proposed HSR system.
Al - in - Stockton
passengerfanIt certainly would create more jobs than the proposed HSR system would and could probably be built in far less time than the proposed HSR system.
I would think a powered, elevated track would take longer to engineer and build than a passive track plopped down after pushing dirt around for a while. So how "far less time"?
Bonjour, Slytrain:
This latest storm that came up the Atlantic coast 03/02/09, what a mess! Just in Boston, MA, there were 900 canceled flights! This does not count the inbounds that had to be diverted. Thank goodness this wasn't Easter weekend! A show of hands please! With regards to this past storm, how many think of global climate change as the cause? A typical late winter storm? Either way, can we in the USA and Canada afford to continue to have commerce and lives put in jeopardy because its snowing?
If the USA had an interstate railway system in place, all the commuter railroads from MBTA to VRE and beyond could have been carrying people between the major cities on the Atlantic; not to mention the cargo that gets delayed when the highways are in such bad shape.
With regards to Slytrain's post, the idea of a high speed rail link that at least connects Ottawa, to Washington D.C., to Mexico City has to be in consideration. This rail link will be fed by rail connections that end in the three capitals. Unless, or course, the idea of having rail links for each time zone, linking the three countries makes more sense.
We all have to realize that the days of cheap fuel are over. Flying from Montreal to New York, or Ottawa to Boston, the writing is on the wall! But the existing railroads should not take advantage of this situation. And, having a interstate railway system that is shared between USA, Canada, and Mexico prevents any one railroad company from controlling the market! Let the tracks be open to all railroad companies, and let the market decide! Maybe train travel can become competative to flying in North America, as long as governments are willing to fund train travel as much as governments have funded air travel, and highway travel.
I, personally, see more train travel in the future. Why? (1) the price of fuel has gone up, what with local,state, and federal taxes per gallon/liter going up, and (2) tomorrows cars will be smaller and less comfortable to travel in for more than 3 hours. People want to go skiing in the winter, down to a warm water beach in the summer. Driving more than 150 miles (240 kilometers) is a thing of the past! We need to get used to taking long trips by train. We also need to have the passenger railroads [and commuter railroads] that exist right now begin offering these travel services so that people can start getting used to taking, for example; a beach train, a ski train, a christmas shopping train, a sports event train, a train to a local or federal state park, an election rally train, an outlet shopping train, a Disney train, etc..
Don't think the trains of the future (5 years from now) have to be as uncomfortable as todays trains are. I see bi-level trains moving people from Boston, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Chicago, New York to places like Jacksonville, Savanna, Orlando, Tampa, Mobile, New Orleans. I also see these trains averaging at least 75 mph (120 k/mh). I see myself in about 8-10 years in the upper deck of a Disney bound train in a 3 seat per isle setup, with my seat as comfortable as a barcalounger or lazyboy recliner, with plenty of leg/head room, watching a movie with head phones. If I want to get something to eat, I hit my "call" button, and an attendant comes over to take my order. C'mon people! Railroad travel can be this good, if not better. We just have to start demanding our governments to change! They do work for us, remember?
P.A.Talbot Bonjour, Slytrain: This latest storm that came up the Atlantic coast 03/02/09, what a mess! Just in Boston, MA, there were 900 canceled flights! This does not count the inbounds that had to be diverted. Thank goodness this wasn't Easter weekend! A show of hands please! With regards to this past storm, how many think of global climate change as the cause? A typical late winter storm? Either way, can we in the USA and Canada afford to continue to have commerce and lives put in jeopardy because its snowing? If the USA had an interstate railway system in place, all the commuter railroads from MBTA to VRE and beyond could have been carrying people between the major cities on the Atlantic; not to mention the cargo that gets delayed when the highways are in such bad shape. With regards to Slytrain's post, the idea of a high speed rail link that at least connects Ottawa, to Washington D.C., to Mexico City has to be in consideration. This rail link will be fed by rail connections that end in the three capitals. Unless, or course, the idea of having rail links for each time zone, linking the three countries makes more sense. We all have to realize that the days of cheap fuel are over. Flying from Montreal to New York, or Ottawa to Boston, the writing is on the wall! But the existing railroads should not take advantage of this situation. And, having a interstate railway system that is shared between USA, Canada, and Mexico prevents any one railroad company from controlling the market! Let the tracks be open to all railroad companies, and let the market decide! Maybe train travel can become competative to flying in North America, as long as governments are willing to fund train travel as much as governments have funded air travel, and highway travel. I, personally, see more train travel in the future. Why? (1) the price of fuel has gone up, what with local,state, and federal taxes per gallon/liter going up, and (2) tomorrows cars will be smaller and less comfortable to travel in for more than 3 hours. People want to go skiing in the winter, down to a warm water beach in the summer. Driving more than 150 miles (240 kilometers) is a thing of the past! We need to get used to taking long trips by train. We also need to have the passenger railroads [and commuter railroads] that exist right now begin offering these travel services so that people can start getting used to taking, for example; a beach train, a ski train, a christmas shopping train, a sports event train, a train to a local or federal state park, an election rally train, an outlet shopping train, a Disney train, etc.. Don't think the trains of the future (5 years from now) have to be as uncomfortable as todays trains are. I see bi-level trains moving people from Boston, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Chicago, New York to places like Jacksonville, Savanna, Orlando, Tampa, Mobile, New Orleans. I also see these trains averaging at least 75 mph (120 k/mh). I see myself in about 8-10 years in the upper deck of a Disney bound train in a 3 seat per isle setup, with my seat as comfortable as a barcalounger or lazyboy recliner, with plenty of leg/head room, watching a movie with head phones. If I want to get something to eat, I hit my "call" button, and an attendant comes over to take my order. C'mon people! Railroad travel can be this good, if not better. We just have to start demanding our governments to change! They do work for us, remember?
A few questions: How do you propose to pay for all of this? How do you propose to persuade the public to get out of their automobiles? After all, the public wants their Hummer (or similar SUV) to get 40 mpg. How do you propose to meet the staffing requirements of these trains without driving fares to the heavens?
Lets face it...that is one hell of an ambitious project (the one P.A. Talbot describes above). One that none of us alive today, no matter what age, will ever see totally completed. Doable only piecemeal over almost a hundred years with most marketable sections completed in some kind of priority order. Staffing, unions, etc. have no place in the discussion at this time. What is needed is a concrete concept and plan of what the project is, will do, how it will do it, and how it will get done. Following that there should be about 25 or 30 years of discussion and debate, then engineering and environmental studies over another 10 or so years, then new technology will have been invented and the whole thing obsolete anyway!
passengerfan 220 mile an hour trains for California doesn't make any sense when the route they have selected between San Francisco and Los Angles will take an estimated 2hours 40 minutes. This does not beat the planes that presently fly between the two points. Would it not make more sense to put in a 350 mph Maglev system. The argument they make for a conventional type train makes no sense either as nothing else is going to be running on the track anyway. With Maglev at 350 mph speeds the planes certainly could not compete. And Maglev would take no more space than conventional HSR , in fact probably less at it operates on elevated guideway. It certainly would create more jobs than the proposed HSR system would and could probably be built in far less time than the proposed HSR system. Al - in - Stockton
Al: I'll take that question on. I do have my doubts that 2:40 will be attained but since you ask. I've been in the airline business for a long time. First LAX - The 10 mile population density around there does not support the SFO traffic. Most passengers that I've hauled come from much farther (granted unscientific survey). So I'll take a 1-1/4 hour average travel time. Travel time to a local RR station will probably be 1/2 hr then a 1/2 hr ride to HSR station. 1/4 hr wait time so its a wash. There is no way to know how long it takes to get into any LAX terminal. If the parking is full then going to remote parking takes longer. I've taken 15 minutes (RR comparable) and I've taken 1-1/2 hours to get in terminal. Lax tTicket counter waits count on at least 1/2 hr and in bad weather times a 1 hr wait can occurr. Most asirline counters require 30 - 45 minutes before departure check in (domestic). 10 minutes usually all the time at AMTRAK. If quick ticketing no wait for either. Security waits 5 - 30 minutes and I always plan on 30 minutes. LAX walks to gates 10 - 20 minutes rail 5 minutes. If not at gate 10 minutes before departure can loose seat and I've seen late passengers replaced.
Arriving or departing at San Jose enables worse case 1/2 - 1 hr connections to/ from CALTRAIN and all its stations. CALTRAIN SFO airport allows connections to all the long haul flights especially the Far East with a cross platform connection of 50 feet to inbound BART and connection to the airport. Downtown San Franscisco - a very concentrated area of both homes and business and good public transportation. The only advantage at SFO is the same BART connection. All in all I cannot complete airline trip in this 2:40 time frame. Also anyone in the San Joaquin valley cannot beat the probable 1 --3/4 times to SFO or LAX.
MAG LEV - Too expensive and has not been proved on any long distance runs. The Electrical requirements may be much more because I"ve not seen what is needed in respect to power supply. The number of substations required are in inverse proportion to the voltage the magnets require. I suspect that the amount of electrical equipment will be very high. Overhead 25Kv does not require substations but every 25 - 40 miles with auto transformers in between (a very mini substation). BUT the main problem is in the case of a major long term power failure the trains are stuck in a MAG LEV situation. At least with conventional HSR a diesel locomotive can be dispatched and rescue train(s). I'm thinking of an earthquake shutting down power plants. This may indicate the need for standby diesel electric generators to supply power to either type of system.
I am sick and tired of hearing the phrase "how are we going to pay for it?". This is not constructive criticism! It is getting so that even recently deceased road kill can ask "how are we going to pay for it?" Where were all the deceased road kill asking how to pay for the useless war in Iraq? How about the over 4000 young Americans, our future, who died there? Where were all you "how are we going to pay for this" then?!?!
(1) The president of the US Chamber of Commerce, in a June 2008 speech, made the statement that the transportation infrastructure of the USA "is broken, and we are going to have to fix it. And, we are going to have to pay for it."
(2) We need to create jobs, here in America, for Americans! Spending tax money, even tomorrow's, is better than doing nothing. This idea of cutting taxes is only going to help the rich, who are crying in their milk over their stark market losses.
(3) The days of cheap oil are over!!! Crying for your Hummer, or big V-8 or V-10 pickup/car does not change the fact that affordable flying, and driving are comming to a rapid end. We cannot continue to put tax $$'s into an interstate highway system that will only be used by commerical trucking companies. Let the trucking companies pay to support the interstate highway system. Has anyone heard that (03/03/2009) trucking companies want to get rid of restrictions so that double 53' tractor trailers will be able to use all interstate highways, and US Highways?
(4) An Interstate Railway System would provide multiple interstate, interregional rail links for the purpose of transporting raw materials, finished goods, and people; as well as, new work environments, shopping, recreation, and travel opportunities. In addition, (IRSA) an Interstate Railway System will allow for smaller independent railroad operators to {a} pick up transportation services that current large providers are reluctant to provide, and {b} create the new services that will be needed as more Americans stop driving, and start looking for other transportation to get where they want to go.
(5) Don't forget; the Fed Gov and many of the states want to raise the retail tax on a gallon of auto fuel to collect taxes to fund the interstate highway rebuilding. Why? Not only is the interstate highway system falling apart, but there are so many Americans since March 2008 who stopped buying gas {either because they lost their jobs, or they couldn't afford $4+ at the pump}. So following this logic closely, if the demand at the pump has gone down, and the governments raise the taxes at the pump more, even less taxes will be collected to fix the interstate highway system. Driving will get more expensive! People still need/want to travel!
P.A.Talbot I am sick and tired of hearing the phrase "how are we going to pay for it?". This is not constructive criticism! It is getting so that even recently deceased road kill can ask "how are we going to pay for it?" Where were all the deceased road kill asking how to pay for the useless war in Iraq? How about the over 4000 young Americans, our future, who died there? Where were all you "how are we going to pay for this" then?!?! (1) The president of the US Chamber of Commerce, in a June 2008 speech, made the statement that the transportation infrastructure of the USA "is broken, and we are going to have to fix it. And, we are going to have to pay for it." (2) We need to create jobs, here in America, for Americans! Spending tax money, even tomorrow's, is better than doing nothing. This idea of cutting taxes is only going to help the rich, who are crying in their milk over their stark market losses. (3) The days of cheap oil are over!!! Crying for your Hummer, or big V-8 or V-10 pickup/car does not change the fact that affordable flying, and driving are comming to a rapid end. We cannot continue to put tax $$'s into an interstate highway system that will only be used by commerical trucking companies. Let the trucking companies pay to support the interstate highway system. Has anyone heard that (03/03/2009) trucking companies want to get rid of restrictions so that double 53' tractor trailers will be able to use all interstate highways, and US Highways? (4) An Interstate Railway System would provide multiple interstate, interregional rail links for the purpose of transporting raw materials, finished goods, and people; as well as, new work environments, shopping, recreation, and travel opportunities. In addition, (IRSA) an Interstate Railway System will allow for smaller independent railroad operators to {a} pick up transportation services that current large providers are reluctant to provide, and {b} create the new services that will be needed as more Americans stop driving, and start looking for other transportation to get where they want to go. (5) Don't forget; the Fed Gov and many of the states want to raise the retail tax on a gallon of auto fuel to collect taxes to fund the interstate highway rebuilding. Why? Not only is the interstate highway system falling apart, but there are so many Americans since March 2008 who stopped buying gas {either because they lost their jobs, or they couldn't afford $4+ at the pump}. So following this logic closely, if the demand at the pump has gone down, and the governments raise the taxes at the pump more, even less taxes will be collected to fix the interstate highway system. Driving will get more expensive! People still need/want to travel!
Google "David Lawyer" and check out his Web page on passenger trains, transportation energy efficiency, and his explanation of why automobiles have resulted in greatly increased oil consumption. It is not because automobiles are less energy efficient than trains; historically they have represented an improvement in energy efficiency. The reason we use so much oil is that we travel so much more -- back in the day people just did not get out much. Because autos are so convenient, we use them so much.
I have never, ever, on these pages asked "How are we going to pay for it?" As you have noted, the money is found to pay for all manner of things, whether it is an overseas war, a massive bank bailout, or an economic stimulus. The question is, how are you going to persuade the broader non-railfan non-passenger rail advocate person out there to support a major shift to trains apart from being angry at people for not seeing things that way.
I have questioned the cost effectiveness of trains because I believe this is a major impediment to getting broader support for the cause. Note, I have never said "don't subsidize trains"; I have always said, "if you subsidize trains, we need to get much better return than what we are getting and what some people expect to get by spending more money on them." The Vision Report recommends spending half a trillion dollars to shift 1 percent of passenger miles to intercity trains. Leaving aside the cost in lost lives and broken bodies, if the objection to the Iraq war is the cost in treasure, passenger rail is at the Iraq war level of ineffectiveness in getting us energy independence.
As to the driving is getting more expensive argument, the attraction of driving has never been low cost but has always been its flexibility and convenience. Gas is much more expensive in Europe but autos are by far the dominent mode in passenger miles there as well.
At the height of the high gas prices, the WisARP newsletter was trumpeting about how auto miles declined by about 5 percent, with the implication that rail needs to fill the breech of this great unmet need to go places. No, there will not be a 50-fold increase in Amtrak travel to compensate for a minor decrease in how much people use their cars. A lot of travel is discretionary, and even when you have to go to work, there are options such as sharing rides in cars. The implication of more expensive driving is that people will simply forgo some trips.
You see, were we to return to the glory days when rail was the main mode, this will come about by a drastic reduction in the amount we travel, not by a one-for-one substitution of rail trips for auto trips. This may mean giving up exurban and suburban housing. For me it could mean giving up making frequent visits to a parent 4 hours drive away who resides in a nursing home -- this trip is not on anyone's dream rail network. It also may giving up having two-wage earners in the house -- the flexibility and affordable cost of driving means one wage earner may work close to the house, but the other wage earner may have an insane commute because finding jobs for both spouses or domestic partners close to where the house is may be very hard.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
The question is not "how are we going to pay for...?" but rather "what do we have to do to meet the challenges (in this case all transportation challenges) of the 21st Century?". After we decide what is going to be done, then financing can be discussed. To do nothing, not even discussing the problems, will lead to bigger problems and not be the world power we have been: hiding our heads in the sand because the financial question is not answered first means our butts will be exposed and thus get kicked so bad we'll never know who or what kicked us (clue: ourselves!).
As far as the statement that we have a transportation police and those who raise the question are sore losers for not being included: WRONG! All those involved in all aspects and fields of transportation are saying the same thing: we need a cohisive, comprehensive, fully allocated, totally understood, intergrated, intermodal, uniform approach to moving people and frieght across town and across country. It is not one group agains the other as has been in the past, but all groups working together to apply the best of each mode to each need in the best way possible for economy, efficiency, and in an enviromentally safe manner.
As far as the statement that we have a transportation police and those who raise the question are sore losers for not being included: WRONG!
There are folks around here who tell me that they are older than me, but I have been around advocacy groups since the time I was age 11 and used my lawn cutting money to pay NARP dues. Rail advocacy has been for the past 40 years in the position of the outside looking in, and even if a comprehensive, centrally planned, intermodal transportation policy were adopted, there is some question as to whether passenger train advocates would like it when we get it. There is this assumption that there is an inherent and self-evident goodness to trains that when the powers that be get around to the central plan, there will be a more significant role for trains, but I have been at this long enough that I am not convinced this would be the case, or at least not without improvement in how Amtrak is operated to help make that case.
Now tell me. The Iraq war was supposed to be about weapons that were never found or about freedoms that people haven't yet received -- the powers that be told us it was not about oil, but maybe, perhaps just maybe, it was about oil. The cost (to the US Treasury) of that war depends on who is doing the figuring, but we spent at least an even trillion dollars. Over time, the expectation is that Iraq could add an additional 5 million barrels per day (MBPD) to world oil production.
The Vision Report talks about replacing 1 percent of auto miles with intercity trains, spending about a half trillion dollars. US oil consumption is about 20 MBPD, autos use 40 percent of the oil, the proposed trains would use 1/3 the fuel of autos. The fuel saving you get with the half trillion dollar investment is 1/20'th of a MBPD.
By the calculus of unnecessary war, the Iraq adventure spent 200 billion per MBPD. The Vision Report, widely praised in the advocacy community, costs 10,000 billion per MBPD. So if you subscribe to the Vision Report, intercity rail is a 50-fold bigger boondoggle than the Iraq war.
I hate war. My late mom was a civilian refugee from WW-II. I don't want to see my nephews have to go away and fight a war. I don't think that spending a trillion dollars, 4000 American lives, and gosh knows how many Iraqi lives is a good trade for 5 MBPD oil production capacity. It is because I hate war that I am really bothered by a lot of things that people in the train advocacy community are saying. Because if it would take 50 trillion dollars to get the equivalent of 5 MBPD oil savings using such measures as trains, this is the reason we are at war overseas.
I am firmly of the opinion that a solid program of energy conservation, energy efficiency, and development of the full spectrum of domestic energy resources could make it more cost effective to do all of those things than to wage overseas wars. I am not saying that war is a moral economic policy, but if war becomes less cost effective, we may get less of it. But the sort of spending many in the advocacy community want makes this kind of war 50-times more cost effective and hence more likely.
If you hate war, it does indeed matter whether trains are cost effective or not. Make a reasoned argument of where I am wrong in this analysis, but let us discuss this on the level of reasoned argument.
Paul MilenkovicRail advocacy has been for the past 40 years in the position of the outside looking in, and even if a comprehensive, centrally planned, intermodal transportation policy were adopted, there is some question as to whether passenger train advocates would like it when we get it. There is this assumption that there is an inherent and self-evident goodness to trains that when the powers that be get around to the central plan, there will be a more significant role for trains, but I have been at this long enough that I am not convinced this would be the case, or at least not without improvement in how Amtrak is operated to help make that case.
Excellent point. Trains will likely be used to add capacity and fill gaps in the existing air/auto network. The more cost effective they are, the more locations they'll be a good fit. If you like trains, it's in your best interest to make sure the money gets spent as wisely as possible. We'll get more trains that way!
Paul Milenkovic The Vision Report talks about replacing 1 percent of auto miles with intercity trains, spending about a half trillion dollars. US oil consumption is about 20 MBPD, autos use 40 percent of the oil, the proposed trains would use 1/3 the fuel of autos. The fuel saving you get with the half trillion dollar investment is 1/20'th of a MBPD. By the calculus of unnecessary war, the Iraq adventure spent 200 billion per MBPD. The Vision Report, widely praised in the advocacy community, costs 10,000 billion per MBPD. So if you subscribe to the Vision Report, intercity rail is a 50-fold bigger boondoggle than the Iraq war.
A very interesting calculation! (I wonder what the final tally for the war will be, once the Army and Marines finish replacing all the stuff they wore out....)
I really dont' care for the agruement that if one has money for XYZ, then they automatically have money for ABC (and DEF and PDQ, etc). Sounds too much like my teenagers! If one has money to remodel their bathroom, it does not mean they also have money for a new HDTV, or a vacation to Bermuda. It means they proiritized their spending toward the bathroom, maybe at the expense of the TV and the vacation.
This sudden rail advocacy over the last 40 years coming up with this concept of a transportation policy is a false assumption. There have been those since the 50's and before calling for a "rationalized" transportation system; this was long before NARP! It is not a biased based call but a call to really look at all there is in transportation, all the needs, and how to make the best application of the most modern, effecient, and environmentally safe transportation to any given situation
Oaltman, Paul: Although Europe is only a fair to good example because of different population densitys we may be able to draw some conclusions. I'll use France as a starting point. Almost all of their electrical power consumption comes from nuclear or other(non petroleum based) sources. The rail system has almost completely replaced the consumption of petroleum that would have used other oil based. The ability to get around all of Europe using public transportation (I include all methods) is orders of magnitude better now than 1950. That is additional oil savings. Much of the integration of transportation modes has never occurred in this country and only now is improving in Europe.
As RWM has stated it is very hard to allocate traffic so it moves quickly. In that respect it reminds me of the network theory that AT&T developed for telepphone traffic. However there is little or no delay in switching centers (RR yards) to slow traffic down. The only delays noticed is when your conversation gets a two sattelite relay and then you can tell the delay. I'll bet though that the operators of mainframe computers connected together over any distance want the shortest fiber optic route possible and may have pentaly clauses for reroutes that slow down information transfer. Network theory shows that there are unintended consequenses of all traffic and we may well see alot of traffic not touch rail even though it will parallel or touch rail at transfer points.
One point you made about air/auto is true. Rail air interface is very spotty in this country. Partial list SFO, PHL, South Bend (not exactly a hot bed of air traffic) maybe Providence in the future. There are many local subway/light rail airports but not enough (been on almost all of them). I would add auto/train and have often wondered how other Auto-Train routes would do. AMTRAK has never stated an estimate of the amount of fuel saved on one of their auto train trips. It may be none. How many automobiles does a sold out train carry. Of course there is not any spare equpment but if and when there is maybe another trip Lorton - Sanford could be marketed or the train split between passenger cars and auto carriers when bookings high. (I know: more CSX trackage needed).
Absolutely there is only so much money. However RR infrastructure has a much longer life. (many 1800's ROWs still in use). ROI can streach longer although many will argue any ROI longer than 20 yrs is not meaningful.
blue streak 1 Absolutely there is only so much money. .
Absolutely there is only so much money. .
And that is why we must plan. Plan for the best possible use of the money in the transprtation sector. That means best use of each technology and system interlinked, the the vernacular, to give the best bang for the buck . Intermodal? Rationalized? Bi-modal? Bi-use? I don't care what you call it, just plan and call it right, more right than we have inthe past!
henry6 And that is why we must plan. Plan for the best possible use of the money in the transprtation sector. That means best use of each technology and system interlinked, the the vernacular, to give the best bang for the buck . Intermodal? Rationalized? Bi-modal? Bi-use? I don't care what you call it, just plan and call it right, more right than we have inthe past!
There is a plan, at least the Vision Report proposed a plan. If someone submits a plan, can we discuss the merits, of say, whether the energy savings of spending 500 billion dollars on passenger rail is a cost-effective trade over spending it on hybrid autos? Or overseas military campaigns to secure oil supplies? Or if someone submits a plan, do we need to be in awe of it and any criticism constitutes obstruction? Is this plan any more right or have any clearer a vision than any past plans? Is it a better plan simply because there is more passenger rail in it? Because its supporters are more enthusiastic for it? That more exclamation marks are used in writing in support of it?
Others can speak for themselves, but I have never claimed "there is no money for it" with respect to anything rail. If the people, the voters, and their elective representatives want something badly enough, money will be found, and I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories that the will of the people is thwarted by representatives who are in the thrall of nefarious interests.
I do, however, constantly and perhaps chronically, question whether some of the present or proposed spending on trains is cost effective, especially with regard to such questions as fuel saving and congestion relief.
For example WisDOT has a plan to spend 400 million upgrading the tracks between Watertown and Madison, Wisconsin, as part of a plan to provide passenger train service from Madison through to Chicago. Suppose someone came along and said that for 400 million dollars, one could subsidize a great deal of intercity bus service for a long period of time. Intercity buses on average have a much higher fuel economy than Amtrak on average, and apart from current toll road construction, road congestion does not get to be a problem until you get much closer to Chicago. How about having frequent bus service from multiple locations in Madison with multiple locations in suburban Chicago, connecting with Metra? If leg room is a problem for 90 minute bus rides, part of the plan could be to get double-deck express intercity buses as they have in many parts of the world. Would this constitute a proper plan or does it not have enough intercity trains in it?
The statement that the automobile is the main passenger transportation mode in Europe is not completely correct. It is in Great Britian, despite a well developed intercity and commuter rail network.. It certainly is not in Switzerland, where rail is by far the dominant mode, both intercity and commuter. Other countries vary, Sweden more towards auto. Germany more towards rail, for example.
We may be talking apples and oranges, but:
"Car ownership is increasing: in 2006 for every 1000 people there were 516 passenger cars, well above the European average. (This compares with over 800 in the US.) Figures issued in 2006 showed that private cars account for two thirds of passenger kilometers."
http://www.swissworld.org/en/economy/transport/mobility/
Well,I really don't know aware of that. But one thing is for sure is that Europe has a high speed rail network for passengers more developed than North America USA,Canada and Mexico included. Despite the Swiss and Sweden countries that goes to highway system.
Raily Yours.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.