You are the prez of Amtrak and, for the next 5 years, Congress has found an extra $2B for you to spend on expansion. (total of $10B over 5 years)
Keeping in mind, you'll have to "bank" some of the capital in order to cover on-going operating expenses.
Here are the typical costs for doing a new, 350 mile corridor on existing ROW in a rather "average" part of the eastern USA. How much of which would you choose to build? Why?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Well, the 2-train 79 MPH service wins hands down. The operating expenses and ridership all seem proportional, but the boost to 90 MPH and then the boost to 110 MPH, hoo boy does that suck up all of the capital.
Apart from the glamor of the 110 MPH train, here are the things going for the 79 MPH. It takes so much less capital improvement that I can take my pot of money and spread it around, serving more routes, communities and more people and getting a bigger political base to support future expenditures. The second thing is that the real business may be in closer city pairs within that 350 mile corridor, so the shaving of a few minutes for a 50-90 mile trip may be of minor consequence. The higher speeds of 90 or 110 MPH may give bragging rights, but depending on whether I have Acela-style HP/ton and what the terminal speed limits and other slow zones, that higher peak speed may only confer bragging rights and not much in the way of quicker trip times. Finally, (you knew this was coming), the 90 or 110 MPH may pay a big fuel consumption penalty unless you have a highly streamlined train, and in the era of 4 dollar gasoline, bragging rights on fuel usage may be an important public policy issue to pin down continued funding for operation of the trains.
But here is the thing. You compare 2-train 79 MPH against 4 and 6-train 90 and 110 MPH, and I don't have a clear picture of what is restricting 79 MPH ops to 2-trains per day. Would increasing the number of trains per day require a much higher capital budget for more sidings, crossovers, or double tracking on account of the freight train traffic? Is 2 trains at 79 MPH what the freight railroad would consider without major upgrades to the line, and that either higher frequency or higher speed starts to cost the big bucks?
Given a choice of things my priorities are 1) getting the frequency up because more trains per day allows for flexibility that is at the heart of mode choices, 2) solve the freight-train interference problem by spending enough on crossovers, sidings, double tracking, or whatever could be negotiated with the freight railroad to keep Mussolini-style time keeping (the one redeeming quality to the Italian dictator is supposedly that he made the trains run on time), 3) look to the slow zones rather than the peak speed as the real source of improvements in schedules -- slow zones really kill whatever improvement you get from faster running, 4) only after considering all of the above to consider beyond-79 MPH running.
A lot of the non-NEC corridor situation is 79 MPH operation with iffy schedule keeping. The California folks sunk a lot of capital into their 79 MPH operation to have a good relation with host railroads with regard to schedule keeping, and the Surfliner is no barn burner with 40 MPH average speed, while the Illinois people took the cheap route of dumping their new service on the freight railroad and the NARP approach that it is the freight railroads fault that the trains don't run on time and think of how much popular the service would be if it weren't for those freight railroad meanies.
Frequency and adherence to schedule -- forget about speed, I wonder if many of the non-NEC corridors have a workable operation on those basics?
So I might go with the 79 MPH but with higher frequency and with whatever level of capital spending made peace with the host railroad so I could stick to schedule. Where does that place me on that chart?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic wrote: Well, the 2-train 79 MPH service wins hands down. The operating expenses and ridership all seem proportional, but the boost to 90 MPH and then the boost to 110 MPH, hoo boy does that suck up all of the capital.Apart from the glamor of the 110 MPH train, here are the things going for the 79 MPH. It takes so much less capital improvement that I can take my pot of money and spread it around, serving more routes, communities and more people and getting a bigger political base to support future expenditures. The second thing is that the real business may be in closer city pairs within that 350 mile corridor, so the shaving of a few minutes for a 50-90 mile trip may be of minor consequence. The higher speeds of 90 or 110 MPH may give bragging rights, but depending on whether I have Acela-style HP/ton and what the terminal speed limits and other slow zones, that higher peak speed may only confer bragging rights and not much in the way of quicker trip times. Finally, (you knew this was coming), the 90 or 110 MPH may pay a big fuel consumption penalty unless you have a highly streamlined train, and in the era of 4 dollar gasoline, bragging rights on fuel usage may be an important public policy issue to pin down continued funding for operation of the trains.But here is the thing. You compare 2-train 79 MPH against 4 and 6-train 90 and 110 MPH, and I don't have a clear picture of what is restricting 79 MPH ops to 2-trains per day. Would increasing the number of trains per day require a much higher capital budget for more sidings, crossovers, or double tracking on account of the freight train traffic? Is 2 trains at 79 MPH what the freight railroad would consider without major upgrades to the line, and that either higher frequency or higher speed starts to cost the big bucks?Given a choice of things my priorities are 1) getting the frequency up because more trains per day allows for flexibility that is at the heart of mode choices, 2) solve the freight-train interference problem by spending enough on crossovers, sidings, double tracking, or whatever could be negotiated with the freight railroad to keep Mussolini-style time keeping (the one redeeming quality to the Italian dictator is supposedly that he made the trains run on time), 3) look to the slow zones rather than the peak speed as the real source of improvements in schedules -- slow zones really kill whatever improvement you get from faster running, 4) only after considering all of the above to consider beyond-79 MPH running.A lot of the non-NEC corridor situation is 79 MPH operation with iffy schedule keeping. The California folks sunk a lot of capital into their 79 MPH operation to have a good relation with host railroads with regard to schedule keeping, and the Surfliner is no barn burner with 40 MPH average speed, while the Illinois people took the cheap route of dumping their new service on the freight railroad and the NARP approach that it is the freight railroads fault that the trains don't run on time and think of how much popular the service would be if it weren't for those freight railroad meanies.Frequency and adherence to schedule -- forget about speed, I wonder if many of the non-NEC corridors have a workable operation on those basics?So I might go with the 79 MPH but with higher frequency and with whatever level of capital spending made peace with the host railroad so I could stick to schedule. Where does that place me on that chart?
The study actually worked out a speed/frequency matrix
There is diminishing returns w.r.t. increased frequency, but there is leverage of assets. I guess the balance of the two rests in the specific details. i.e. can you add an extra RT with existing equipment or do you need another set?
In this case, the 2 RT uses 3 train sets, the 4 RT - five and the 6 RT - seven.
Track capacity improvements also increased as the number of RTs increased. At 79 mph, the track & signal cost is $56M, at 90, $180M and at 110, $277M.
The 79 mph max was just sprucing up the existing route. Adding back some double track in spots and upgrading road Xings. 90 mph includes 28 miles of curve easment. 110 includes 75 more miles of curve easment. All scenarios involve tilt equipment. 79 mph gets you 60 mph avg. 90 mph gets you 70 mph avg. 110 max gets you 72 mph.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: Well, the 2-train 79 MPH service wins hands down. The operating expenses and ridership all seem proportional, but the boost to 90 MPH and then the boost to 110 MPH, hoo boy does that suck up all of the capital.
Paul, it is unfortunate that you are not the Governor of Ohio or Texas. I'd like to see a basic Heartland Flyer type train put in place between Cleveland and Cincinnati, as well as Houston and DFW. Run them for a couple of years to see if passengers show up, and then increase spending if they do.
79 mph gets you 60 mph avg. 90 mph gets you 70 mph avg. 110 max gets you 72 mph.
I took Econ 101 and Econ 102 at Northwestern University, and if there was only one thing I remember 30 years later, it is the law of diminishing marginal returns.
That 79 MPG gets you 60 MPH average is really good -- I think the Hiawatha is exceptional in being able to do that. The 90 MPH at 70 MPH avg seems fair, if it didn't cost so much, but the 110 MPH to get 72 MPH avg is purely a question of bragging rights.
60 MPH average is a "Hiawatha" that takes 1 Hr 16 Min, 70 MPH is 1 Hr 14 Min, 72 MPH is 1 Hr 12 min. I try to tell people that the Hiawatha length of 80-100 miles is the "sweet spot" of corridor rail, and here those big bucks would save 4 minutes.
The other thing, what is the Hiawatha right now, 1 Hr 35 Min? I ran some simulations of 110 MPH operation, assuming the same terminal slow zones and reasonable HP/ton, and I came up with 1 Hr 15 Min -- the Wis DOT guy said their study said 1 Hr 10 Min. We got people here who want to make "Chicago Milwaukee in 1 Hr, Chicago Madison in 2 Hrs" a talking point, but if they want to be accurate, it is more like "Chicago Milwaukee in 1:15, Chicago Madison in 2:30", which is not the same thing.
I still would push for the 4 trains/day if I could -- it is more efficient with the equipment as it needs 4 train sets plus one spare instead of 2 train sets plus one spare.
I'd start with 90 mph -- low option -- and advertise like crazy.
Would love to see HST's on Chgo - Detroit or Chgo - St. Louis. Twin Cities may be a bit too far away but would certainly be a beautiful trip.
Penny wise and pound foolish.
How effective do you think the Interstate Highway System would be if they had just widened the existing roads?
Under President Eisenhower, they took a clean piece of paper and planned new routes. They eliminated low overpasses, steep hills, intersections, and sharp curves. The Feds paid for 90% of the construction and the states agreed to maintain them once they were built.
I think it's sad that we in this country are deciding whether or not we can afford to save 15 minutes on a three hour trip by going from 79 to 110 MPH, while the rest of the world's trains are upgrading to 250.
If we ever figure out that oil is a finite resource and find other ways to generate electricity, trains won't need to use any fossil fuel at all. None of the other transportation media, passenger or freight, have the ability to run total electric.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
It is so easy to be glib saying "penny wise and pound foolish" when you are spending someone elses tax dollars. Only you aren't spending someone elses tax dollars because that someone else isn't parting with the money.
Don Oltmann's question was, you are going to get 10 billion dollars over the next 5 years, how will you spend it? Will you spend it on a limited amount of medium speed trains (110 MPH) or spread it around on a larger amount of conventional speed trains (79 MPH). The question is not a strawman argument -- if that legislation ever gets out of committee in the House, some Amtrak president will be faced with that question. Forget being mad at President Bush because with 70-30 margin in the Senate, the bill is veto proof if it ever comes up for a vote.
The analogy of plunging head first into a high-speed rail network with the Interstate Highways is completely weak. Our local advocacy group has this poster we put up every year at the annual model railroad show, "Let's Build Interstate II." No, such a high-speed rail network would be nothing like an "Interstate II" because there is nothing like the network of local roads, state and Federal highways to feed into it.
The Interstate Highway was a smash hit because of the high rates of auto ownership and the network of roads feeding it. What is going to feed Interstate Highway II? The system of mass parking ramps, rental cars, and taxi concessions feeding the air transportation system? A Federally-subsidized bus network? Commuter and light rail? Where should the high-speed rail go that there is this supporting infrastructure or likelihood of getting that infrastructure?
I guess the answer is that if "we" get 10 billion dollars for major capital projects anytime soon, we are going to sit around in a snit that we didn't get the committment to the 350 billion of the Vision report. And if we get the 350 billion of Vision, we will be in a pout because there is only one HSR in the plan somewhere in California, and the rest is a mix of 110 MPH and a whole lot of 79 MPH.
Phoebe Vet wrote: Penny wise and pound foolish.How effective do you think the Interstate Highway System would be if they had just widened the existing roads?Under President Eisenhower, they took a clean piece of paper and planned new routes. They eliminated low overpasses, steep hills, intersections, and sharp curves. The Feds paid for 90% of the construction and the states agreed to maintain them once they were built.I think it's sad that we in this country are deciding whether or not we can afford to save 15 minutes on a three hour trip by going from 79 to 110 MPH, while the rest of the world's trains are upgrading to 250.If we ever figure out that oil is a finite resource and find other ways to generate electricity, trains won't need to use any fossil fuel at all. None of the other transportation media, passenger or freight, have the ability to run total electric.
The Interstate Highway Act(s) Congress passed in 1956 and following are just as you say, but originally, the Eisenhower Administration had envisioned something different: a sytem of interstate toll roads from city's edge to city's edge.
Actually, the original Chicago Skyway (1953 IIRC) was like that: it ended at Stony Island Boulevard, a true boulevard that hooks onto a drive thru Grant Park and then South Lake Shore Drive downtown. It wasn't until later that it fed onto the Dan Ryan (not until 1962 or later because the Dan Ryan wasn't opened until 1962).
I wonder how much different American life would be if we hadn't "enabled" so many metro areas with ring superhighways and spurs running downtown that seemed always to take the apartments of the poor. Perhaps we would be living in a more balanced system of transportation with fewer suburbanites and more traditional reliance on public transit. Also, trains would still have the virtue of running from city center to city center, assuming that remained a virtue.
A lot of assumptions are being made, but IMHO America would have happier cities if we lived more like the Canadians, with fewer suburbs but much more public and intercity transit.
Paul:
Nothing glib about it. If you put a 20 mile per hour bandaid on the system you might as well set the ten billion dollar pile of money on fire & roast hot dogs over it.
It's like buying one very expensive TV ad and the saying "See? It didn't help my business a bit." If you are not going to invest in an ad campaign, then save your money. One comercial will do nothing.
The "No feeder network" argument is a straw man. There is no feeder network for air travel and it manages to attract people just fine. With train stations in city centers, the urban transit systems that are already in place will feed it. When large numbers of passengers are arriving by train, car rental companies will demand room for a counter. Cab companies will start hanging out at the front door. Starbucks will want to rent counter space.
Speed and frequency are the two issues that kill passenger rail. Passenger rail from Charlotte to Atlanta is available once a day, at 2:00 AM and the trip takes longer than it does to drive it. Do you think taking 15 minutes off the trip by making the train 10 MPH or even 30 MPH faster will bring many new passengers? USAirways has 19 flights a day from Charlotte to Atlanta. I believe the passengers are there if rail was faster more convenient.
I stand by my statement. Upgrading from 79 mph to 90 or 110 is money down the rat hole. A better plan would be to pick one high density corridor and do it right. Call it a proof of concept investment. Acela has proven that a fast frequent train has a market. Lets expand it and get it up to it's design speed.
OK, you are right and I am wrong. You would take the 10 billion dollars, and I take it we are both in agreement that there is some probability of getting that 10 billion dollars even if it isn't everything we want. You plan is to take the 10 billion and do one corridor in one place of the country right with a proper HSR, perhaps in the Midwest with flatlands and low curvature existing rail corridors so we can do it within 10 billion; my plan is to replicate the California type service in maybe 5 other corridors.
The reason you are right and I am wrong is that your plan would provide travel times that beat driving, even when you take into account the drive to the train station, the rent-a-car at the other end, while my plan won't get the projected ridership because driving will be always faster, even if I pick corridors suffering from chronically congested driving such as California's I-5.
So now that we are in agreement on that general set of principles, what is our stand on the Three Rivers, the Sunset, the Starlight, for that matters, the entire LD part of Amtrak? Canada pretty much made the decision to go with the one LD train as a "national heritage" and concentrate on their Montreal-Toronto corridor. Are you OK with that, or is there some reason to keep the Sunset around?
Right or wrong?
I didn't intend this to be a competition.
My point was that the cheapest way is not always the best way. It serves no purpose when you invest in minor improvements to an obsolete system. To borrow yet another metaphor, it does no good to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
There actually is a plan afoot to expand high speed rail on the east coast.
http://www.sehsr.org/
I am for it, because it will improve service along a route that I use. But I believe they are doing it wrong. Using existing rights of way greatly reduces the cost, but it also greatly reduces the value. If the Interstate Highway system had been built on all existing rights of way, the roads would not be much more useful than the old roads. Just able to accommodate more cars. Sharp curves, steep hills, and intersections decrease safety and reduce speeds.
The same is true of high speed rail. Incidentally, I don't believe that 90 or 110 mph can be called high speed rail with a straight face. Much of the rail infrastructure in America today follows rivers and other terrain. That made it cheaper to build, but greatly restricts speeds. There are routes in the northeast where trains need pusher engines to help them over hills, or even have to double the hills, making two trips up the hill. That needs to be addressed for both passenger and freight.
It is long past time to invest in rights of way that are up to modern standards. Some of them might even be able to follow the Interstate routes, for at least part of the trip. Particularly in the flat area of the great plains.
If the first infusion of money is used to build one true high speed service in a corridor that has a lot of riders available, then I believe it can be used to demonstrate why we need a 30 year plan to do it nation wide.
The question is not one of having a competition. Economics is the question of making choices. There is always a fixed amount of money to do anything, no matter how worthwhile, and Don Oltmann's question is that if you were Amtrak President and were given 10 billion in capital money to advance the cause of passenger trains, how would you spend it?
The way Don posed the choices, some kind of tilt rolling stock would be used, be it Bombardier or Talgo or some new thing from Siemens Semmering-Pauker-Graz, so the curves are not that big of an issue. Two big issues affecting speed are access to terminal areas -- the Hiawatha train between Glenview and Sturdevant runs pretty much 79 MPH flat out combined with a minimum station dwell and whatever acceleration and deceleration you get can get with the HP/ton and the brakes they have. The other is grade crossings.
The Hiawatha runs a substantially slower speed from Chicago Union Station to Glenview and at Sturdevant to Milwaukee. If your 250 MPH HSR (actually, it is more like 150 -- 250 is in special tests) has the same slow zones in the terminal area, we are back to asking the same question as to whether shaving 15 minutes off a trip is worth the money.
As to the spending money sprucing up a rat hole concept, the two high-profile projects recently undertaken are the California trains and the NEC Acela and related fixed plant improvements. The California trains are one of pouring money down the 79 MPH rathole, and as far as I can tell, there is a good feeling among the public about those trains and the level of service they provide.
The Acela trains, I guess those are the 120 MPH rathole because they are not true high speed apart from a short section north of New Haven. A big chunk of change was spent on extending the electrification north of New Haven, the thing that is supposed to save us from peak oil. Big dollars were also spent on custom rolling stock, basically shaving that proverbial 15 minutes off a 3:15 trip to DC. There is a good deal of feel good about the Acela rolling stock from the standpoint of business class amenities and tables and power plugs for laptops, something their jet competitors lack but are important to many travelers. There is not much good feeling about Acela brakes, the Acela tilt system, or the large amount of money spent on that project that has starved the rest of Amtrak for capital improvements.
The outcome of the Acela is not a happy one: while the people along the NEC are happy with the service, the amount of money spent in relation to the level of improvement of what came before is a memory we will have to overcome to get anything like it anywhere else. I feel the vibe about California as something people want to duplicate while I don't get that vibe about Acela.
As to being penny wise and pound foolish and pouring money down ratholes, from time to time I have served on my church council where I have actual input into these things. If one takes the tack of not being penny wise and pound foolish and "spending the proper amount of money to do the job right," there is no end to what money one can spend on capital projects. And isn't it sad that we are pinching pennies on a contract to tuck-point the steeple when those Lutherans up the block are building a whole new Sanctuary? You know, those Lutherans in that parish tithe, and they have enough money for such projects, but if our pastor were to bring up the subject of the weekly offering in our congregation, forget about it. With all the wealthy people in our church, it is a true shame that we can't have a new Sanctuary like those Lutherans.
The route from which he lifted those numbers already has 79 mph trains.
The ICE & the TGV run 300 K, which is about 180 MPH.
Those speeds cannot be matched on existing right of way. Even Acela has to slow down on much of it's route. It would require the clean piece of paper approach.
I don't expect Amtrak will ever step up to the 21st century, but you asked what I would do if I was the decision maker. I would choose one 21st century route over a system wide Band-Aid. I believe successful operation of the one modern route would cause people to demand similar treatment on their favorite route.
Phoebe Vet wrote: There actually is a plan afoot to expand high speed rail on the east coast.http://www.sehsr.org/I am for it, because it will improve service along a route that I use. But I believe they are doing it wrong.
I am for it, because it will improve service along a route that I use. But I believe they are doing it wrong.
The proposed track alignments don't exactly follow the existing tracks and the 110mph diesel trains will average 85-87 mph according to the website. Looks like a pretty effective upgrade to me.
http://www.sehsr.org/webmaps/level3/093.htm
And on the original thread, I'd go for the 6 train 90mph service - the emphasis being on a usable train service operating at a reasonable speed that will attract business and other users.
My vote's for anything that will keep the trains from sitting still, or running at 10, 20 and 30 miles per hour for as long as they do now.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
oltmannd wrote:You are the prez of Amtrak and, for the next 5 years, Congress has found an extra $2B for you to spend on expansion. (total of $10B over 5 years)Keeping in mind, you'll have to "bank" some of the capital in order to cover on-going operating expenses.Here are the typical costs for doing a new, 350 mile corridor on existing ROW in a rather "average" part of the eastern USA. How much of which would you choose to build? Why? 79 MPH90 MPH90 MPH110 MPH 2 TRAINS4 TRAINS6 TRAINS6 TRAINSRIDERS/yr378,000721,000902,000930,000REVENUE ($M)14263334OPERATING need/yr ($M)5122423CAPITAL ($M)171113913562091
Option 4 is a game-changer. Uses up all the capital, but there's something pretty impressive to show for it. Penny-parceling the money here and there is less likely to change public perceptions.
RWM
The points about Acela are very well taken. There are only 2 sections of track on its entire route where it can use its full speed. Most days, I get to se Ac-SLOW-a cruise by behind my office building at about 40mph (it's not going much faster than the cars on the street).
Most of the time gained by the Acelas is due to skipping stations, not the speed of the train. That strikes me as counter-productive. Consider: I live 15 minutes from the Old Saybrook, CT station, where I have free parking and easy access from interstates, major state roads, and local streets. But Acelas don't stop there. To take Acela, I have to drive to New London, which, while about the same mileage, has no parking (a $20 / day garage is available down the street) and is located in the center of downtown and difficult to get to (and so takes 10 minutes longer). And only three trains a day stop there (two Northbound, 1 southbound). To really have Acela service, I'd have to drive to New Haven (1 hour) or Providence (90 minutes).
Far better to take the Regionals (the non-Acela NE Corridor version), which stop at all the stations. Personally, I think the reason Amtrak does so well in the NE corridor has nothing to do with Acela and everything to do with the fact that there are about 50 trains a day (counting both Acela and Regional). I would NEVER drive to Pennsylvania to visit my family if the Pennsylvanian service had more than one daily train.
So I agree with those who say "Add more slower trains." This is what separates European and Japanese rail systems from ours. They actually have OPTIONS when taking the train.
Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford
So for $6 million a mile the study says you can get 110 mph but only put 6 trains a day down the line? I would say the assumption that the existing corridor ROW will be used for such a small amount of trains is limiting the cost benefit ratio at the higher speeds. For just triple that kind of money you are close to building a fully separate track across the midwest topography on any alignment you choose with a capacity of 100+ trains a day.
Of course the intercity passenger demand isn't there but single level trailer freight could fill 20+ trains a day if the line-haul rail product was dependable as most interstates are running 8000 trucks a day.
As to spending somebody else's money the interstate system already did that. The users of the interstate in no way come close to repaying the original capital costs to the Federal government. On the Federal side the cash flow from "users" didn't even get into the black until the 90's and that was only due to the lower capital spending as they system started to be built out. Would the interstates be as popular if the per mile tax was say $0.18/mile?
So why slap a cost/benefit analysis on passenger rail when no "user only" analysis was applied in the Clay Commission report. Instead the Clay Commission report made the numbers work by taxing all roads and directing those funds only to capital construction on the limited access highways and interstates.
The way to change the public perception is to build a really fast mixed use corridor and then let them choose. Flordia's populace voted for this but then the number crunchers came in and said it wouldn't pay for itself. A real analysis of alternatives needs to look at how well the main competition did in paying for itself.
Short of that for the money proposed the best alternative would be this:
Build a completly new track along the existing right of way with sidings every 10 miles designed so there are no facing points. The maximum passenger speed would be 110mph with no heavy freight and single level intermodal trains at 75mph. $3-4 million a mile should easily cover this. Have the cities pay for any new stations with a dedicated local tax and local control. Require that Federal money must be matched by funding the grade crossing improvements from the state fuel tax so the Federal money is strecthed further. Finally, design the corridors to be used by light single level intermodal at night and off-peak during the day to help pay off the capital costs.
Approximately 92 per cent of the U. S. population over 18 years of age is a licensed motorist. That works out to more than an estimated 204 million motorists. Most of them pay directly or indirectly federal income taxes. In addition, all of them pay the fuel taxes and fees associated with operating a motor vehicle.
All roadways in the United States, including the interstate highway system, have required an infusion of intergovernmental transfers, which is a fancy way of saying that they have gotten and continue to get general fund monies to cover the difference between what the user fees cover and the cost of building and maintaining the roadways.
For the federal highways the transfer comes from the general fund. This is also true for most state roadways. For county roads in Texas, at least, the transfer funds come from bond issues, which are paid for with property taxes. For city streets in Texas, 92 per cent of the cost is borne by property owners, most of whom drive a vehicle. Practically everyone pays county and local property taxes, either directly or through their rental arrangement.
The users of the highway system have paid for it. And they are continuing to pay for it. They pay directly through user and fuel taxes or they pay through general taxes.
Rich people, as well as businesses that cater to the upper classes, pay a higher percentage of the income tax burden than people down the economic ladder. To the extent that their federal and state income taxes are transferred to the highway trust funds, they are subsidizing people who pay a lesser share of general taxes.
To argue that the interstate highway system was paid for by people who don't use it, for the most part, is not supported by the facts.
The difference between the subsidies received by the highway trust funds, as well as the aviation trust fund, and Amtrak, or the nation's commuter railroads, is the size of the user group. A very high percentage of the population uses and pays the subsidy for the highways. The same is true for the airlines. But in the case of Amtrak, or the commuter railroads, which have a relatively small user group, a significant portion of the subsidy is transferred to non-users.
The figures you quote attributing most of the population to being users of automobiles certainly were not true in the 1930s, 1950s, or 1970s so how could that theory apply then when the roads were being built?
By the same arguement we should pay whatever it takes now from the general fund to put sidewalks in where they dont exist as 99%+ of the people walk or use wheelchairs. Further, since nearly everyone crosses railroad crossings at grade the separation should be done now fully on the public dime.
Clearly some comparison of alternatives needs to be made to determine what is an appropriate level of capital expenditure. I am simply proposing lets use the historical spending levels on the interstates as a guide as to what can be spent on HSR.
The answer of improving to 79 MPH appears very attractive. However there should be no work that would have to be undone if the location can later be upgraded to 110 - 125 MPH. Now the question becomes how to allocate the funds you have to spend.
These results can be easily changed if more service over any route is started or contemplated. Updates are easily calculated. Curve straightening has an added benefit of slightly reducing total distance traveled. The removal of slow zones is a very high priority however some locations (bridges) can be very expensive. See item 4. This formula would be usable under each of round trip scenarios given in this blog. Equipment balancing and parking of unneeded cars needs to be considered for the off peak times. The assumption of faster than car over a distance needs to be examined very closely. It may only be valid in certain markets. The ability of North Carolina DOT to attract additional passengers with their incremental approach Charlotte - Selma now is acheiving 48.3 MPH average a 35 one when they started. This example needs very close study.
I am simply proposing lets use the historical spending levels on the interstates as a guide as to what can be spent on HSR.
I disagree that historic spending levels on Interstate Highways is any guide to what could be spent on HSR. It is this poster our group puts up at the model railroad show "Let's Build Interstate-II" as if the politics of HSR would have any relation to highway building.
For one thing, the choice is, "Do you want to get into your car, drive it someplace and most likely have to pay for parking, take a smooth, comfortable fast train part way to your destination, and then find some way to get the rest of the way, be it walk, cab, bus, rental car, or perhaps a second car that you park, and pay parking on, at that remote location if you take that trip a lot." Or, "Do you want to get into your car, drive on local roads and highways until you get to an Interstate, have to continue to drive, but do so on a safe, grade-separated, median-separated high-speed highway, drive off the Interstate, and get to your destination on local roads at the other end."
I am not saying you won't find a market for HSR or find enough political support for this other alternative. But the tone I find in both the virtual and bricks-and-morter advocacy community is one of anger and frustration, that specific politicians beholden to "special interests" are frustrating this choice, and when we play out that argument, the anger turns on the public at large that people don't know how to act in what we perceive to be their best interest, as manifest by the "shame" argument that we are behind our trading partners in having HSR. The minute someone drags out the shame argument, Party A is being angry at Party B for not acting in the way Party A would like. This kind of angry parent approach may work in some circles, but in my opinion it is setting the cause of actually getting voters to approve projects for trains back by many years.
As to the relative cost-effectiveness of new Interstate contruction, HSR, or these lower-cost medium-speed rail alternatives that have people in such a lather as being a halfway measure, the reality is perhaps that all of our transportation corridors are a national legacy and that any new transportation capacity will have to be made using the existing corridors.
People aren't falling over themselves to build HSR, Interstate-II, but people aren't all that excited to continue building Interstate-I to keep up with growth. While I don't see much enthusiasm for directing gas tax money towards HSR, I admit there is little enthusiasm for the increases in the gas tax needed to build more roads. Road building is difficult and expensive, beset with NIMBYism, the days of a Robert Moses simply laying concrete are gone, gone, gone. But the same NIMBYism, government bidding restrictions, and reluctance to be taxed that impeded new roads are also impeding HSR.
That is where Don Oltmann's Choice comes into play. You are not going to get a new Interstate, you are dreaming if you think you can get HSR, but you might be able to generate passenger miles at a lower cost than either highways or HSR by utilizing existing rail ones and upgrading them according to the 79 MPH, 90 MPH, or 110 MPH plans that many here deride has being halfway measures. We may even be able to sell the concept and the use of the facility to motorists if we weren't mad at them so much of the time.
But in responsing to Don Oltmann's Choice (should I call it Lautenberg's Choice?), I haven't seen many serious replies either. One reply is to be mad that this choice is even on the table and that we aren't going with HSR; another reply is simply "Oh, I'd spend money on the more expensive alternative because faster sounds better."
The only serious reply was to select a smaller amount of the 110 MPH service instead of the 79 MPH service in more places because only the 110 MPH service would divert people from cars. Fine, that is a reasonable choice, spend the money on the 110 MPH service to see if it draws people from cars -- count this is a demonstration project rather than a major national implementation. Are we willing to run that experiment and accept the outcome, or are we going to mad at people for not acting in accord with our expectation if the ridership doesn't materialize?
Hmmmm, nobody is mad. I would however argue that the interstates would not be nearly as popular if the public were paying the full cost. Can you imagine asking a single business person in a car to pay a $60 toll + $35 in gas to drive 6 hours into the night after work when they could at least get to the station near where they wanted to go for just $60 while finishing emails along the way?
I just don't see much gain from spending all the money for FRA "accelerail". New build lines that are fully grade separated need to be created. They can be intermingled with existing lines or interstates.
The level of HSR capital spending is similar on a per mile basis to the original interstate construction and any marginal expansion such as 4 lanes to 6 lanes. Why not do it. If one line was built it would be the end of talk of expanding interstates as a economic "must do" by the DOTs.
Minor details:
Why does a 90 mph or 110 mph plan have to ease most curves rather than just running faster between restrictions? I am not against easing curves; but the opportunity, benefit, cost, and priority need to be weighed on a case-by-case basis. For the sake of perspective, assuming a mile for each curve, there would be one restrictive 80 mph curve every 12.5 miles on average for the 90 mph scenario, and one 80-90 mph curve restriction every 3.4 miles for the 110 mph scenario in the example.
The most significant improvement is the tilt-train equipment that allows 79 mph over the existing alignment. Without tilt trains, speeds would be limited to around 60 mph for most of the route and the trip would take around 7 hours. As long as an investment is being made in new equipment, the premium for tilt equipment is well spent.
Much of what was said about spreading the investment with pairs of daily round trips and 79 mph service I agree with. Making service available to more people makes it more relevant, a circumstance that belies the argument for general public support only for highways and airports that Samantha seems to want to deny rail service.
In this case, I would say the more practical solution would be the 90 mph level of service without curve reduction and 6-train scenario. Reasonable opportunities need to be taken when possible to meet travel demand.
More acceptable fuel consumption is incurred for speed recovery for this alternative. Significantly more distance and time would be covered at a reduced throttle setting, and significant savings in time can be achieved at the maximum speed. In the 110mph scenario, very little time and distance would be covered at the maximum so that the average speed would be only half the speed change.
Furthermore, 8.2 miles of 110 mph running saves a minute over 90 mph running; but 110 mph barely is achieved, let alone save a minute. 11.1 miles of 90 mph running saves a minute over 79 mph running; and this is less than the average distance between restrictions.
The Chicago-St. Louis corridor has occassional 1-degree curves that can be negotiated at 110 with tilt equipment instead of 80 mph with conventional trains. While easement to 40-minute curves would permit 140 mph, the issues rise of restrictions for diverging movements at passing sidings and for elimination of public and private crossings over a significant distance, 8.6 miles to save a minute, and another 5-7 miles to change speed between 140 and 110.
Incidentally, since the 90 mph service with curve reduction in the example averages 70 mph, the train trip would take 5 hours. Since the 350 miles would be covered in 3-hrs 53-min at 90 mph, an additional 67 min is consumed in other restrictions, allowances, and stops. At 110 mph, the trip should take roughly 4-hr 18-min, an 81.4 mph average, not 72 mph.
The requirement for cab signaling to increase speed to just 90 mph seems to be an effective improvent. An upgrade to cab signals may account for about $53M of the $180M for 90 mph improvements. Raising speed to 90 mph saves 50 minutes for an 11% increase in ridership with an additional $4.5M/year and $4.98/passenger (6 trains) in capital costs annualized over 40 years. (Coincidentally, back in 1974, British Rail said a one mph increase in average speed was good for a one percent increase in ridership.)
My chief advocacy for cab signals is not for the speed; but for safety, particularly on single-track lines. The additional trains and ridership makes this safety enhancement affordable.
Some discussion has focused on the relation between speed and intermediate ridership. Small cities and towns have been found (regression analysis from empirical data) to generate a disproportionate amount of intercity travel compared to larger cities. Assumptions were made, quite logically, that the cumulative reduction in travel time between end points meant little to the intermediate station. While smaller and overshadowed by the population factor, the time relationship still exists. The overall effect depends on the characteristics of the corridor - principally the number, distances between stations, and the populations of end-point and intermediate station cities or towns (for State of Illinois, Carl Englund, c1970).
Another nasty time-eater is the station stop dwell time and the attendant alighting and boarding practices. For every unnecesary minute of dwell time, it takes 4.7 miles of 110 mph running, or 11.1 miles at 90 mph to recover over running at 79 mph. Using all doors with distributed seat assignments would speed the process. Current practices including security need to be modified to achieve the most time-effective boarding.
Getting back to Interstate Too, the US is building on nothing. Europe and Japan had extensive intercity rail passenger services. The Shinkansen was built because 165 mph service which was not possible on the existing alignment would generate a substantial amount of travel; and the volume of traffic, 350 trains/day on the existing 4-track line, needed more capacity that faster trains actually would diminish. Similarly, the TGV was built because the existing 2-track line was carrying 200 trains/day; and the cost for additional tracks was close to that for a whole new high speed line.
The more appropriate high-speed model for the Midwest is the TGV-West trunk line out of Paris that branches to many cities in Western France. A similar opportunity exists out of Chicago to the east with branches on existing lines to Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland and extended to Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Columbus, and Cincinnati. The former PFW&C goes virtually straight across Indiana into Ohio. Needing relatively few curve easements, speeds up to 200 mph may be achieved over much of the route. The more significant costs will be for intermittent grade separation structures; and most highway crossings already are grade-separated along this once-busy line. The cost of crossing elimination is more effective with the benefits to the combined services.
Just as important as engineering improvements for a Chicago-East trunk is the off-the-shelf 200 mph TALGO for use on non-electrified lines. The question becomes whether a higher priority exists for independence from oil with electrification or a high speed alternative with minimal impact on the freight network. That's a whole discussion of its own.
The reality is that this country has competing priorities including a costly war on terrorism, health care, and education. This conflict is exacerbated by impacts on the public of the rising price for gas, the devaluation of the dollar from the imbalance in international trade, loss of manufacturing jobs, and immigration. Money probably will be too tight for anything as grandiose as a new high speed NEC or New York - Chicago Corridor.
HarveyK400 wrote: Making service available to more people makes it more relevant, a circumstance that belies the argument for general public support only for highways and airports that Samantha seems to want to deny rail service.
Making service available to more people makes it more relevant, a circumstance that belies the argument for general public support only for highways and airports that Samantha seems to want to deny rail service.
The true justification for intercity rail is market demand. That is to say, enough people are willing to use and pay for the service to justify the investment.
Demand might be said to consist of push and pull. Push comes from people seeking other options, i.e. intercity trains as opposed to driving, flying, etc. Pull demand comes from creating an option and drawing people to it, i.e. people don't think about taking a train until they see that it is a good option. This is what Amtrak's National Train Day was all about - creating demand.
There is overlap between push demand and pull demand. People may be frustrated with their options, but they don't see clearly an alternative. Pull demand, if the designers read the tea leaves correctly, can clarify the desires of the market place. In a competitive market, if the pull demand is not structured to respond to the push demand, the enterprise fails.
In Texas, which is my home state, and the place that I am most familiar, there is very little push demand for intercity rail. Most of it is for better highways and air service. In the major cities, i.e. Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio, there is some push demand for commuter rail, although pull demand, which has been created by transport and city planners, many of whom would not be caught dead commuting on public transport, is a bigger factor.
Investing in intercity rail is justified only in those situations where the cost of additional investment in highways and airways would be prohibitive. We're a long way from this scenario in Texas.
I have argued, however, that where there is justification for expanding existing passenger rail or creating new passenger rail service, it must be frequent, quick, dependable, safe, and economically competitive. On several occasions I have referred to the Southwest Airlines model as one that should be followed. Southwest goes into a new city with low fares and frequent service. It never tries to penetrate a market with just one or two flights a day.
Samantha, I've only visited Texas once, but what I heard and read before and after was a lot of push for better rail service. This may come as a surprise: not everyone can or wants to drive. Now Texas and the rest of the country needs more efficient rail service; and it's not there because people such as yourself deny or minimalize any push. Concurrently, the auto and airline industries have exerted inordinate pull glamorizing driving and flying to prioritize road and airport investments in place of a more balance transportation policy. While frequent service is desirable and understandable for the major markets served/cherry-picked by Southwest, intercity rail is another game entirely, linking small markets to a major market at one or both ends. Few major city pair have frequent rail service such as the NEC, Los Angeles-San Diego, and Chicago-Milwaukee. Most of the small markets have little or no scheduled air service (and often no bus) despite the local demand/push, even with subsidies (investment of public funds) to maintain the infrastructure. Small markets not only add up; but they generate an inordinate proportion of intercity travel relative to their population. If lucky enough to still have an active rail line, these small markets can be served at least on a limited basis with one or two daily round trip trains to a larger city. Another fallacy is the idea that trains are the last resort when there is no more room to add lanes. Putting a few trains on a track costs far less than building another lane in each direction. The contention that pull for rail comes from planners that wouldn't be caught dead on transit is a scurrilous attack intended to discredit their expertise and belittle their recommendations. We may disagree with one another; but you belittle our expertise, discussion, and advocacy of serious transportation issues.
HarveyK400 wrote: I've only visited Texas once, but what I heard and read before and after was a lot of push for better rail service.
I've only visited Texas once, but what I heard and read before and after was a lot of push for better rail service.
Texas is as large as France and has about 22 million residents. So unless you read a lot or met a lot of people while you were here once, you probably did not get a very good understanding of Texas, or its geography, people, politics, social structure, housing patterns, economy, transport systems, etc.
The people in the Lone Star state made it clear after WW II that they wanted highways and airways. They abandoned the trains in droves and never looked back. They were not dragged into it. Texans have a habit of thinking for themselves.
With the exception of several remote spots in southwest Texas, every community in the state is within a 1.5 to 2 hour drive of an airport with frequent daily air service. For those people who cannot or will not drive, most locations are served by reasonable intercity bus service.
Pitching train service to the small communities that are not served by an intercity bus line or for the few people who cannot drive or fly would not work. The market is insufficient to justify the cost. And the Texas Legislature is not about to turn loose of the money necessary to build a passenger rail system that would serve at best a very small percentage of the population.
Expanding the highway and airway system in Texas could very well cost more than upgrading a rail line for passenger train service. But as long as the state can afford to build the additional highway and airway capacity, that is what the people will tell their elected representatives to do.
Noting that few transport planners, as well as public transit officials, do not use transit is a fact. There is nothing scurrilous about it.
I worked extensively on the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) referendum, which opened the way to build the light rail line in Dallas. And I rode DART to work for more than 32 years. I have stayed in close touch with the goings on at DART, including attending many of the Board meetings.
Most of the DART Board members and DART executives do not use public transit on a regular basis. This is also true of the Capital Metro system in Austin, which is where I live now. And it is probably true of the transit officials in the other cities in the state with public transit. People who earn more than $100,000 per year, at least in this state, drive to and from work. They do not use public transit. And for a variety of social reasons and operating constraints they never will.
The DART light rail line has been successful if you don't consider the steep subsidy received by each passenger or that the ridership was inflated in part by feeding passengers to it by redirecting buses to the train stations as opposed to going downtown. In fact, until the latest run-up in gas prices, DART as a whole was losing passengers, although the number of riders on the light rail line increased significantly.
Part of the DART initiative was to build HOV lanes in the Metroplex. Interestingly, the number of people carried by the HOV lanes is more than two times the number of people carried on the light rail lines.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.