See link from today's Railway Track and Structures:
http://www.rtands.com/newsflash/fra-high-speed-rail-effort-draws-fire.html
John Timm
What a surprise; a Republican is trying to disrupt yet another piece of legislation or it's implementation.
I know that is a political statement, but it is what it is.
I will not pursue it any further.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
It's election year and we are definitely well into the political silly season. Looks like another politico hopping on the anti-government express to NOwhere.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I can see all kinds of oppositions/conflicts/political kung fu fighting coming out of this thing
No way am I touching this anymore than what I said---
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Phoebe Vet What a surprise; a Republican is trying to disrupt yet another piece of legislation or it's implementation. I know that is a political statement, but it is what it is. I will not pursue it any further.
Good, that means I can get the last word on this.
It is indeed unsurprising that a Republican is objecting to the 8 billion for passenger rail expansion. There are some exceptions, but Republicans are not that keen on trains and especially passenger trains. This is something I have experienced first hand going back 40 years.
The other thing is that some Democrats support passenger trains and HSR, but it is by far the minority of Democrats (the Amtrak frequent-rider Vice President?) -- for most it is not that big of a priority. I also have personal experience with that scheduling media events in support of passenger rail.
To get passenger rail off "dead center" as it has been since the inception of Amtrak nearly 40 years ago, the passenger train advocacy community needs to build a broader coalition than simply the minority of Democrats aligned with our view of things.
I guess it shouldn't bother me that people in the advocacy community choose partisan sides, that is, identify opposition to trains broadly with one of the two political parties, rather than address the points raised by the individual politician in question. But it does bother me. Why? It means we will continue to be out in the wilderness and not get anywhere.
We could learn something from the example of Anthony Haswell from back in the days when he founded NARP. His newletter always featured a "Friend of Passenger Trains." Most of the lauded politicians, I believe were Democrats -- Claiborne Pell, whom we can credit with the Northeast Corridor Demonstration Project, which gave us the Metroliner and was the nucleus of Amtrak, was a Democrat. But Tony Haswell acknowledged Republicans too -- I remember a fellow named Prouty being given the spotlight, and in a different context, I remember some right-wing types talking about Mr. Prouty and even to them he was a "stick in the mud." But I guess he supported trains at some point, and even a little bit of support got you NARP recognition. And the NARP newsletter never attacked politicians for not supporting trains, and certainly never went as far as to label any political party.
So I am glad you guys along with all of my advocacy colleagues at the Mad City Model Railroad Show all got this off your chests and out of your systems, and from here we can work on building a broad coalition to get trains.
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 MilenkovicIt is indeed unsurprising that a Republican is objecting to the 8 billion for passenger rail expansion. There are some exceptions, but Republicans are not that keen on trains and especially passenger trains. This is something I have experienced first hand going back 40 years
Rep John Mica of Florida IMHO takes a different view of HSR. This mirrors the differences that are spoken on this News Wire in different threads. His view is all HSR effort be placed on one - three projects and not do any work to incrementally improve several routes. If you read some of his other comments he was unhappy that the NEC did not get more money to speed those two segments up. He also seemed to think Florida did not get enough money (now is that any surprize?).
Hopefully he will work for a next grant. He was right that the FRA was slow on the awards but did he work for more people to analyze the requests?
It's not one political party or another.
President Ronald Regan was a rail fan and member of the national Train Collectors Association. Some of his items are displayed at our National Toy Train Musem in Strasberg PA.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
blue streak 1 He also seemed to think Florida did not get enough money (now is that any surprize?).
And the funny thing is----what if he's right? If it got more money it might actually be a little ahead of the curve here.
Rational analysis implies that we leave personal political opinions out. I shall offer some recent analysis of the California HSR scene which has far as I can tell has no political bias.
The CA voters approved a $9.95 billion bond issue which with interest will cost the state about $19.4 billion. This was for the approximately 800 mile system connecting Sacremento, San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego with HSR all of which was said at that time to cost $45 Billion.
The state received $2.25 billion from the recent Federal stimulus appropriation.
Last year the planners revised the estimated cost of the first 520 mile segment from $33.6 to $42,6 billion.
Planners also revised the estimated 2030 ridership from 55 million per year to 41 million. As a comparison the Acela currently carries 3 million per year.
They also raised the projected cost of a ride from LA to SF from $55 to $105.
As we should all be aware given the history of goverment projects they always exceed estimates, sometimes by a factor of 2, 3 or 4 times. Should the CA voters be given another opportunity to vote on the bonds, perhaps. But they, and we, should see the handwriting and be prepared.
Not withstanding the possible impact on the industry, it seems a little strange that RT&S would pick up on a political piece rather than focus on technical aspects and leave the other to Railway Age.
A forumist involved in the process has assured us that the rules for evaluation were adhered to. Political hanky-panky was refreshingly absent. It was not the case that plans were developed after the grant; but that some states had done most of the work, including the political groundwork, prior to the announcement of the program and were ready to proceed for the projects that were funded. In a sense, the complaint was sour grapes.
I'm glad Illinois got something; but I'm surprised CHI-STL came out so high, given previous estimates. This obviously affected the resources available for other State improvements that didn't make it.
diningcarPlanners also revised the estimated 2030 ridership from 55 million per year to 41 million. As a comparison the Acela currently carries 3 million per year.
Hold the phone.
Acela's trip is 451 miles.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
aegrotatio diningcarPlanners also revised the estimated 2030 ridership from 55 million per year to 41 million. As a comparison the Acela currently carries 3 million per year. Hold the phone. Acela's trip is 451 miles. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Phoebe VetWhat a surprise; a Republican is trying to disrupt yet another piece of legislation or it's implementation. I know that is a political statement, but it is what it is. I will not pursue it any further.
Your are right. Even Don Philips in this month's TRAINS Mag issue agrees that if the Republicans gain more power this year, HSR will stop dead in it's tracks.
It's not as much Republicans are not in favor of rail, they just don't like the fact that Amtrak is a government run agency.
I am not making a political statement, I am just saying how Republicans view Amtrak & HSR. At least that is how I was taught in high school & college.
The political controversy over HSR has nothing whatsoever to do with trains. It is all about the public subsidy to build HSR versus the public need for HSR. One point of view is that the need is not great enough to justify the cost, and we don't have the money. If it were being financed by private investors taking an investment risk with their own money, nobody would object.
Bucyrus The political controversy over HSR has nothing whatsoever to do with trains. It is all about the public subsidy to build HSR versus the public need for HSR. One point of view is that the need is not great enough to justify the cost, and we don't have the money. If it were being financed by private investors taking an investment risk with their own money, nobody would object.
Part of the political problem IMHO is that not all public subsidity is a USA problem. The many nations that have a public subsidy for rail are competing with the USA.
If most HSR operations can get their operating revenue above operating costs such as Acela then maybe there is hope. I wonder how much less on board labor costs contribute to the present Acela figures? Certainly higher speeds can reduce those costs if the crews can turn at end points rapidly. Also equipment utilization increases.
diningcaraegrotatio diningcarPlanners also revised the estimated 2030 ridership from 55 million per year to 41 million. As a comparison the Acela currently carries 3 million per year. Hold the phone. Acela's trip is 451 miles. You're comparing apples and oranges. Not comparing, just offering information. But 520 miles from SF to LA is where the most of the passenger business is expected to be generated so you have offered a comparison I had not concieved.
This still may be a case of apples and oranges if the San Joaquins, Surfliners, and Capitols are added in a role similar to the Regionals and Keystones in addition to the Acelas. Still, that's a huge disparity that may not be supported by the difference in speed.
Hmmmm ?
Is that why the U.S. Government built hunderds of miles of Interstate Highways through Farm Country. We in the Northeast didn't gain from that, Why not build Interstate Highways only where we have high populations ?
If you wait 45 minutes each morning to cross the "TZ" or "GW" bridges into New York, you will take the train if it is built. Airport delays, cancelations, and security -- first choice is now "The Acela" (First and Business class) and "Northest Regional" (Business and Coach class).
DMUinCT Hmmmm ? Is that why the U.S. Government built hunderds of miles of Interstate Highways through Farm Country. We in the Northeast didn't gain from that, Why not build Interstate Highways only where we have high populations ? If you wait 45 minutes each morning to cross the "TZ" or "GW" bridges into New York, you will take the train if it is built. Airport delays, cancelations, and security -- first choice is now "The Acela" (First and Business class) and "Northest Regional" (Business and Coach class).
DMU: Good point. Should we have built and now maintain I90 / I-94 through MN, ND, SD, MT, ID, etc? I say yes even though driving through there at night you will find it more vacant / scary than my grandma's dirt road. Especially in winter. These roads will never pay (taxes) for themselves. There needs to be a realization that it is not a me vs you ( I got mine s*** you ). Instead the USA ( and probably Canada) needs to tie these countries even closer together in all ways. Each form of transportation has its place and each form needs backup in case of some unforseen problem shuts down one form or another. Also a much more thoughtful co-ordination of interconnections of various modes is needed. They each have their place.
But DMUinct, the Federal Highway program did help, rather "change", the Northeast in many ways. Driving intercity and interstate became much easier for both automobiles and trucks cutting driving times often to less than half of what they had been. It also allowed truckers easier access into and out of the city while also allowing for containers and other merchandise to move off the docks to the interior. Rail got the deje vu idea after this started (deje vu because the LIRR in the 1840's carried wagons on flatcars, the PRR and others in the 1930s began piggy back services, and the cement industry in the late 40's went to containers) and began in earnest to go after piggy back and intermodal. The Interstate system did a lot for the Northeast and not just rural areas. Rail passenger traffic was hurt the most, but so was rail freight. Granted, the St. Lawerence Seaway took some harbor traffic away from rails (opened conicidental to the beginning of the Eisenhower Highway system) as did the move of industry to the south and west.
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.
When anyone objects to the public subsidy of passenger rail, the instant rebuttal is that passenger rail subsidy is acceptable because we subsidize highways. However, that comparison alone is meaningless.
The meaningful, honest, objective, and useful comparison is how much use the average taxpayer gets out of highway per tax dollar, compared to how much use the average taxpayer gets out of passenger rail per tax dollar.
Bucyrus When anyone objects to the public subsidy of passenger rail, the instant rebuttal is that passenger rail subsidy is acceptable because we subsidize highways. However, that comparison alone is meaningless. The meaningful, honest, objective, and useful comparison is how much use the average taxpayer gets out of highway per tax dollar, compared to how much use the average taxpayer gets out of passenger rail per tax dollar.
To carry this analogy to its logical extreme, and how much use per tax dollar does the average taxpayer get out of his public schools?
CSSHEGEWISCH To carry this analogy to its logical extreme, and how much use per tax dollar does the average taxpayer get out of his public schools?
Carrying that analogy to the extreme, if you had to make a choice between two outcomes, is it more important to have a train because you feel inconvenienced by driving, or is it more important not to have 90 percent of the population as functional illiterates?
Um...you're reading it right here represented by probably 90% of the posters
Paul Milenkovic CSSHEGEWISCH To carry this analogy to its logical extreme, and how much use per tax dollar does the average taxpayer get out of his public schools? Carrying that analogy to the extreme, if you had to make a choice between two outcomes, is it more important to have a train because you feel inconvenienced by driving, or is it more important not to have 90 percent of the population as functional illiterates?
This is not a political statement.
I have to take issue with this post. It is not a fair comparison. One is related as a personal desire and the other is related as a benefit to society in general.
I would rephrase your question. Does each provide a benefit to society in general even though not all tax payers benefit individually? After all, many people pay school taxes yet send their own children to private schools and others have no children.
I do not offer an answer to the question.
CSSHEGEWISCH Bucyrus When anyone objects to the public subsidy of passenger rail, the instant rebuttal is that passenger rail subsidy is acceptable because we subsidize highways. However, that comparison alone is meaningless. The meaningful, honest, objective, and useful comparison is how much use the average taxpayer gets out of highway per tax dollar, compared to how much use the average taxpayer gets out of passenger rail per tax dollar. To carry this analogy to its logical extreme, and how much use per tax dollar does the average taxpayer get out of his public schools?
What I said is not an analogy. It can’t be taken to extremes. It is simply the basis for making a fair comparison between various types of public subsidies. The point of the comparison is to assess the overall average bang for the buck of various subsidies in order to find which ones are more worthwhile than others.
I will say this, I am impressed at how they awarded the HSR funds so far. It has been a thoughtful process that I believe was executed fairly.
Bucyrus The meaningful, honest, objective, and useful comparison is how much use the average taxpayer gets out of highway per tax dollar, compared to how much use the average taxpayer gets out of passenger rail per tax dollar.
Thats ridiculous. It shouldn't be use it should be benefit to society overall.
Thats what it is for Highways and Airlines. How many families under the poverty line fly in this country? Aren't Airlines traditionally for the Middle Class and above? Our transportation system like our National Defense should utilize all modes available and use each to it's specific strength.
Phoebe Vet Paul Milenkovic CSSHEGEWISCH To carry this analogy to its logical extreme, and how much use per tax dollar does the average taxpayer get out of his public schools? Carrying that analogy to the extreme, if you had to make a choice between two outcomes, is it more important to have a train because you feel inconvenienced by driving, or is it more important not to have 90 percent of the population as functional illiterates? This is not a political statement. I have to take issue with this post. It is not a fair comparison. One is related as a personal desire and the other is related as a benefit to society in general. I would rephrase your question. Does each provide a benefit to society in general even though not all tax payers benefit individually? After all, many people pay school taxes yet send their own children to private schools and others have no children. I do not offer an answer to the question.
You take issue with "this post." Which one? The post that since schools get public money that trains should too? Or my reply that with respect to the social benefit of trains is no comparison to the social benefit of education?
You say "this is not a political statement." Which is not a political statement? The original discussion of whether funding of education is comparable to funding of trains or not is not political? Or is your reply somehow non-political but the previous statements are?
You once stated on this forum that you had once served as a police officer. Every police officer and corrections officer I have talked to tells me that every person in the criminal justice system represents someone that the education system had missed. That we have that many people in jail probably speaks to the shortcomings of our current education system, and I will grant that the current system could stand improvement -- whether that means more spending, better teachers, spending the same but working smarter, whatever. But imagine the chaos in society in the absence of near-universal literacy.
The transportation system also provides broad social benefits beyond the immediate users, and I reckon that we could have a better transportation system if we had more trains. But there is simply no comparison between the broad and far-reaching social benefit of public education, the personal benefit of not stepping outside the house and getting clonked on the head by roving bands of criminals plying the streets, and having a train as an alternative to a car or perhaps an intercity bus.
Another point, I have never, ever on this forum taken the position that transportation is not a proper function of government. Never. Ever. I have, however, taken the position that trains for some reason seem to be a mode that requires higher levels of subsidy than other modes, and even if one accepts the widely accepted notion that government has a proper role in a lot of things, that does not throw consideration of cost-effectiveness out the window.
Comparisons of spending on trains to spending on health care, education, old-age pensions, and yes, even national defense are really quite besides the point, but as passenger train advocates, we keep making those comparisons because we are quite throroughly frustrated that the rest of society doesn't see it our way on the inherent goodness of trains. Even comparisons with Mountain West Interstates are really quite besides the point. So we are wasting money on highways in remote areas, we need to waste money on trains to even things out?
The way I see a way forward is to 1) either get a handle on why trains require high levels of subsidy, to run them more efficiently with lower levels of subsidy per passenger mile, or 2) determine specific applications for trains where the alternatives are of higher cost -- in those specific applications.
CMStPnP Bucyrus The meaningful, honest, objective, and useful comparison is how much use the average taxpayer gets out of highway per tax dollar, compared to how much use the average taxpayer gets out of passenger rail per tax dollar.
What is the prevailing question? Benefit to society, i.e.: ability to transport goods to and from factories and markets, be part of the assembly line, allow for manufactruing and business growth and supply the population, and to help transport people to and from where they must travel including work and home? Or is it if Tommy Taxpayer doesn't use I80 across Nevada or anyother highway except the one in his town, or the locks on the Mississippi or the Dulles International Airport or electricity from the Tennesee Valley Authority, he should not pay the tax? I understand Libertarianism and what it means. But we have progressed so much further by cooperation, pooling resources and work, doing for the good of society, to abandon all that has been done and need be done because one person is too greedy and self important to participate in society. Thus if a rail siding supported by some government funding in California means I can have affordable fresh lettuce on my table in Upstate NY in February I feel the funding is worth it. And the thinking isn't as convoluted as thinking that what happens or is done elsewhere doesn't affect me; no man is an island is more true than ever. If there are those who either don't want to pay their fare share, live up to the responsibity of being a citizen of the United States, then they should find another place on Earth to live...buy an abandoned south sea island someplace and try to start a tax free, resposibity free society and see how long you'll last.
Paul:
You sure read a lot into my post so let me answer your questions about it.
My first post on this thread was clearly political in nature and I said that I would not follow it up or argue it further. The statement "This is not political" was addressing that. I did not infer that either post quoted in my reply was political.
What I took issue with was only the form of your question, which phrased the train question as one of personal convenience and education as one of societal importance. I stated the proper comparison would be to compare the importance to society of each. I did not make any argument one way or the other about trains or education.
You will certainly get no argument from me on the pathetic state of our educational system or the consequences thereof.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.