Today's BLE (www.ble.org/) news lineup has a story, "DOT, railroads discuss high speed rail," that should be of interest to Forum readers.
It tells of a huddle Wednesday between Sec. of Transportation Ray LaHood and some Class 1 reps. In it, Mr. LaHood acknowledged, "We need our friends in the Class 1 freight rail business to partner with us. We think that will happen."
The graph that grabbed my attention was this one:
"LaHood said more meetings are planned. One of the topics being discussed is whether the government will pay railroads for their right-of-way, he told reporters."
I realize that we have to make our usual allowance for the possibility of dense/careless reporting on transportation matters. But the thought that EITHER a reporter or the secretary of transportation should regard compensation to the host railroads as a question of WHETHER rather than HOW MUCH makes the blood run cold.
Whether those Americans who supposedly want a national high speed rail system understand the constraints and costs associated with it is debatable. I would like to see how the Secretary, as well as others, determined that Americans want a high speed rail system. NARP has made the same statement, i.e. Americans want high speed rail. Two years ago I asked them for a copy of the methodology that they used to gather these views. I am still waiting.
The $8 billion authorized for high speed and moderate speed rail is a drop in the bucket. It is not even a meaningful start to the estimated costs required to build out the high speed corridors identified by the DOT. Moreover, most of the cost estimates for these rail projects fail to take into account the long term financial costs. Usually they underestimate the build out costs. Few of these projects come in on time and within budget.
I would love to see high speed rail in the Texas Triangle, as well as some of the other identified corridors, but I have yet to see a realistic proposal to pay for it. My question is simple. How is a nation that is $13 trillion in debt, facing $50 trillion of unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Military Retirement, Federal Retirement, etc. going to pay the bill? Most economists and financial experts that I read (both sides of the political spectrum) are very concerned about the country's burgeoning debt.
dakotafred "LaHood said more meetings are planned. One of the topics being discussed is whether the government will pay railroads for their right-of-way, he told reporters."
This is exactly the attitude that I pick up in the FRA mission statement that includes HSR. Whether the government will pay the railroads is one aspect of the issue. Whether the government will allow the railroads to deny the use of the corridors, even if they are offered payment, is another aspect of the issue.
Bucyrus dakotafred "LaHood said more meetings are planned. One of the topics being discussed is whether the government will pay railroads for their right-of-way, he told reporters." This is exactly the attitude that I pick up in the FRA mission statement that includes HSR. Whether the government will pay the railroads is one aspect of the issue. Whether the government will allow the railroads to deny the use of the corridors, even if they are offered payment, is another aspect of the issue.
Bingo, Bucyrus.
I must have been tired last night, because I read right through the damning final paragraph of the referenced story, which follows the "whether-the-rails-get-paid" question:
"The Obama administration has made 'some pretty significant investment in Class 1's' through its DOT grant programs, LaHood said."
If LaHood means by this that HSR may already have been bought and paid for -- through grants for expansion of freight capacity, among others -- the railroads had better be shaking in their boots. And, as I said on another thread, be prepared to go to court to fight pre-emption of their property.
Speaking as a rail traveler now only, I could care less how fast I am going aboard any Amtrak train. I am always aboard for the "journey" not the "destination." Was on the Southwest Chief mid-continent last December when, due to a semi-truck overturned on a grade crossing, we were marooned in place for hours and hours in a serious snowstorm (which storm you all may remember locked up the entire mid-west). We all hunkered down, told stories, had great conversation in the Dining Car, met delightful people (some), read books, etc.
I think I understand the aspects of HSR of which you all are hearing, reading, speculating, and posting. But, it seems to me (probably less knowledgable than you all) that it sure would be a better use of the $8B (insufficient as it is for true HSR) to double-track, eliminate grade crossings, improve terminals, expand Amtrak routes, etc. But, then, I am probably preaching to the choir here!
nyc#25I wish there was as much concern about how much money is coming out of the GENERAL FUND for the highways. If the gas tax and user fees were raised enough so that highway users paid for their use of highways then the cost of HSR would seem more reasonable.
Just because one form of transportation is publicly financed to some degree, it does not follow that all forms of transportation be funded to the same degree. To make it fair, you have to factor in how much the public uses each form of transportation.
travelingengineerBut, it seems to me (probably less knowledgable than you all) that it sure would be a better use of the $8B (insufficient as it is for true HSR) to double-track, eliminate grade crossings, improve terminals, expand Amtrak routes, etc.
Which, ironically, is something that has to happen for High Speed to happen nyway. You can only go as fast as a P42 can shove the dump truck they hit three miles back... or something like that....
travelingengineerBut, then, I am probably preaching to the choir here!
Preach away My Brother, Preach!
I'm going to try to avoid politicing here, but there's lot more than the American Public who hasn't the grasp of how hard it is to get HSR going, or just how much faster molasses in winter can be than the speed of politicing.
I kinda find it ironic, that this country evolved thanks to making things faster. Think about what happened to Rome, if we hadn't mastered the mail train over a guy on horseback, the telegraph over the letter with the guy on horseback, everythign would have likely split due to sheer distance. We had enough problems getting the delegates from the colonies, could you imagine having to to the politics by letter to California? Won't happen. Battle of New Orleans? Miscommunications and breakdowns in communications like that repeated create major problems. The train was what really fed that created the spark to make the automobile, the tools to build the faster airplane, now we're looking at it as both a way to continue our growth on speed (by speed, a train will never beat a plane across the country, but it can do it more effeciently, and possibly more safely. Speed is relative), and the fact that right now, it's slowing the country down.
-Morgan
Speculation is rampant; reading between the lines is pretty inconclusive. One notion to keep in mind: eminent domain, where compensation is given. There are many lightly used/nearly abandoned lines as a result of mergers that could be used as ROW for some sort of passenger service.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Flashwave:
Train critics always point out how much longer it would take a train to run coast to coast.
That is a very small market.
Try this test. You and I will shake hands in the Air & Space Museum in DC and set off at the same time, without advance reservations, to head to a private residence somewhere in Trenton, NJ.
I'll take the Metro to Union Station and the Northeast Regional to Trenton and a cab to the residence.
You take the Metro to either airport and whatever flight and commercial ground transportation system you choose.
Let's see who gets there first. Then let's compare cost.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
There is more and one choir. They are as follows:
1) Train fans who want more trains.
2) The select group of people who could use HSR transportation to their travel advantage.
3) Fiscal conservatives who believe we are well on our way to bankrupting the country, and that HSR is just one more dimension to the binge of expanding the government by spending public money on something we don’t really need.
4) The faction, including the FRA, which believes HSR will serve our need to reduce CO2 emissions to stop climate change and become an oil-free society for security reasons.
5) The faction that understands that rail produces less CO2 than airplanes and motor vehicles, but when you boost the speed of rail up to the levels of true HSR, it produces more CO2 than airplanes and motor vehicles. Hence they want more passenger rail, but not HSR.
6) The faction that sees U.S. HSR as a way to make our friends in Europe stop thinking we are uncivilized.
You have tipped us off to which faction you subscribe by explaining what each faction "believes" while one faction "understands".
I have only one issue. HSR only produces more CO2 as long as we continue to produce electricity with combustion. We should be working to change that as well.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.