HarveyK400"SNCF could not afford to build the TGV system today...now that...oprators are split from infrastructure owners...."
This should have been an easily predicted outcome when set this arrangement up. It's as if they thought rearranging the deck chairs would magically change the flow of money in and out of the whole system. Only government can go full speed ahead into stupid. (Well, maybe BP, too...)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
http://charlotte.bizjournals.com/charlotte/stories/2010/07/12/daily5.html
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Sam1It has been about a year since I reviewed the GAO report. As I remember the key points, the auditors visited Germany and France to look at high speed rail in other countries. They also reviewed the documents for the Japanese system. From their observations of these systems, they concluded that high speed rail has not and probably will not be able to cover its full costs. They observed correctly that high speed rail requires a large government capital input. The auditors reviewed the revenue and ridership projection models for many of the proposed U.S. high speed projects. I cannot remember the exact number. They concluded, based on their analysis of the models, that many of them used numbers that were not well supported. Moreover, they found that some of the models were inconsistent. Proponents for a course of action, i.e. high speed rail, mergers, acquisitions, etc. tend to wear rose colored glasses. This was true in the case of the Fortune 250 Company where I was employed for decades. Management finally authorized the auditors to look at the models used by the proponents of major projects or contracts to determine whether they made sense. We found in most instances that the project proponents adopted the most optimistic estimates, even when a little scrutiny suggested that achievement of the most optimistic outcome was unlikely. Clearly, estimating ridership and revenue 20 years out is chancy. Most of the corporate financial and organizational planners that I knew told me that anyone who thinks they can predict more outcomes more than 3 to 5 years with any degree of accuracy is just fooling themselves as well as their clients.
The auditors reviewed the revenue and ridership projection models for many of the proposed U.S. high speed projects. I cannot remember the exact number. They concluded, based on their analysis of the models, that many of them used numbers that were not well supported. Moreover, they found that some of the models were inconsistent.
Proponents for a course of action, i.e. high speed rail, mergers, acquisitions, etc. tend to wear rose colored glasses. This was true in the case of the Fortune 250 Company where I was employed for decades. Management finally authorized the auditors to look at the models used by the proponents of major projects or contracts to determine whether they made sense. We found in most instances that the project proponents adopted the most optimistic estimates, even when a little scrutiny suggested that achievement of the most optimistic outcome was unlikely.
Clearly, estimating ridership and revenue 20 years out is chancy. Most of the corporate financial and organizational planners that I knew told me that anyone who thinks they can predict more outcomes more than 3 to 5 years with any degree of accuracy is just fooling themselves as well as their clients.
Sam1 is largely seconded by the French (TGV: What the US should learn from France's high speed train, Trains).
OK. Here is the actual study in its entirety.
In its conclusion it states this:
"Our main conclusion is that the true confidence bands around the estimates from thesemodels must be very wide. They are probably wide enough to include demand scenarioswhere HSR will lose substantial amounts of money as well as those where it will make ahealthy profit."
As the 41 million figure mentioned in summary article from the BLE newsletter is clearly a lot lower than the other projections mentioned in the LA Times article, it is my contention that the Berkley review is not disputing that lower number.
Also missing from the article is any indication that this is one group of academics (Berkley) critiquing the statistical modeling assumptions of another, rival group (Cambridge/MIT).
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Sam1 schlimm Generally it is preferable to provide a link to the actual article rather than summarize and put quotes around it. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-high-speed-rail-20100701,0,1714268.story Your are entitled to your views. I disagree. The quoted points, which were lifted from a recent Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainman Publication, captured the essense of the full article. The key point is clear. The estimates of ridership and revenue are unreliable. There are many good reasons for using the original article, if available. For example, in the actual article, it stated that the projections were: "The authority estimates that the system would have between 88 million and 117 million passengers a year by 2030. However, under various scenarios offered by the agency, the number of passengers could be as low as 40 million a year." This is quite a contrast to your summary, which indicates 41 million. You are applying the conclusion of the Berkley study that the numbers are unreliable to this low, outlying figure,. Given that the population of California is expected to be 46 million by 2030 (currently 38 million) , a ridership estimate in which each resident uses the HSR service only one time per year does not seem especially optimistic.
Sam1 schlimm Generally it is preferable to provide a link to the actual article rather than summarize and put quotes around it. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-high-speed-rail-20100701,0,1714268.story Your are entitled to your views. I disagree. The quoted points, which were lifted from a recent Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainman Publication, captured the essense of the full article. The key point is clear. The estimates of ridership and revenue are unreliable.
schlimm Generally it is preferable to provide a link to the actual article rather than summarize and put quotes around it. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-high-speed-rail-20100701,0,1714268.story
Generally it is preferable to provide a link to the actual article rather than summarize and put quotes around it.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-high-speed-rail-20100701,0,1714268.story
Your are entitled to your views. I disagree.
The quoted points, which were lifted from a recent Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainman Publication, captured the essense of the full article. The key point is clear. The estimates of ridership and revenue are unreliable.
There are many good reasons for using the original article, if available. For example, in the actual article, it stated that the projections were:
"The authority estimates that the system would have between 88 million and 117 million passengers a year by 2030. However, under various scenarios offered by the agency, the number of passengers could be as low as 40 million a year."
This is quite a contrast to your summary, which indicates 41 million. You are applying the conclusion of the Berkley study that the numbers are unreliable to this low, outlying figure,. Given that the population of California is expected to be 46 million by 2030 (currently 38 million) , a ridership estimate in which each resident uses the HSR service only one time per year does not seem especially optimistic.
It was not my estimate. It was from a summary of the article contained in the BLE&T news letter. Again, the key point is crystal clear. The estimates are suspect, as tends to be the case for all long term estimates.
Sam1schlimm Generally it is preferable to provide a link to the actual article rather than summarize and put quotes around it. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-high-speed-rail-20100701,0,1714268.story Your are entitled to your views. I disagree. The quoted points, which were lifted from a recent Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainman Publication, captured the essense of the full article. The key point is clear. The estimates of ridership and revenue are unreliable.
oltmanndSam1Unfortunately, as pointed out by the Government Accountability Office in its report on high speed rail projects, the proponents tend to overstate the number of riders and revenues that will be generated by their project whilst understating the costs. They must be talking about projects worldwide. There are none to measure on shore....correct? I would suspect there are significant political and social differences between the US and other countries to render ridership and cost comparisons almost useless. The California HSR might be the cleverest way to not spend $2B and make it look like you're actually doing something. I'm starting to doubt whether they will ever be able to ante up their portion to get the $2B.
Sam1Unfortunately, as pointed out by the Government Accountability Office in its report on high speed rail projects, the proponents tend to overstate the number of riders and revenues that will be generated by their project whilst understating the costs.
I would suspect there are significant political and social differences between the US and other countries to render ridership and cost comparisons almost useless.
The California HSR might be the cleverest way to not spend $2B and make it look like you're actually doing something. I'm starting to doubt whether they will ever be able to ante up their portion to get the $2B.
It has been about a year since I reviewed the GAO report. As I remember the key points, the auditors visited Germany and France to look at high speed rail in other countries. They also reviewed the documents for the Japanese system. From their observations of these systems, they concluded that high speed rail has not and probably will not be able to cover its full costs. They observed correctly that high speed rail requires a large government capital input.
So this project seems to be headed down the usual American path. It will eventually cost 4 times what it should have, if it gets built at all, because we have strangled it with studies, hearings, law suits, and bureaucratic nonsense that will cause it to be ten years before the first shovel of dirt is moved.
"The largest share of the $8 billion in grants awarded in January went to California, which got $2.3 billion for a 220-mph route between Los Angeles and San Francisco."
Whether the government is putting its eggs in the best high speed rail basket, however it is defined, is debatable, as shown in an article that appeared recently in the LA Times.
"LOS ANGELES - an academic study has found that ridership forecasts for the California high-speed rail project is flawed and needs further work.The analysis released Thursday by the University of California; Berkeley challenges the optimistic projections that by 2035, 41 million passengers could ride the trains every year.UC Berkley transportation experts said certain methodology used in the forecasts are unreliable, making it impossible to predict whether the 800-mile system would be profitable.Ridership predictions are critical to the $42-billion project because they form the basis for route selection, private investment and public funding decisions.The CEO of the California High-Speed Rail Authority is standing by the forecasts, calling them a "sound tool" for planning the system."
Unfortunately, as pointed out by the Government Accountability Office in its report on high speed rail projects, the proponents tend to overstate the number of riders and revenues that will be generated by their project whilst understating the costs. Moreover, the estimates tend to be moving targets. For example, proponents of the California high speed rail project claimed that a passenger would be able to travel from LA to San Francisco for $55. This estimate was subsequently raised to $115. In any case, these projects will never pay for their capital costs and, in most instances it is unlikely that they will be able to covering their operating costs without some fancy accounting. Thus, the taxpayers will be on the hook for the deficits generated by the projects.
Falcon:
I don't think we are on the same page.
No one in the federal government is proposing true high speed rail in this country. The only true high speed projects under consideration are being proposed by state governments, and in those cases the local voters have been approving the funds so far.
Amtrak's definition of high speed rail is anything over 79 MPH. Amtrak is proposing "high speed corridors", but they mean 90 to 110 MPH and the elimination of slow speed segments and grade level crossings. It's a small step, but I support it.
It has been pointed out to me that I tend to over react when people start complaining about the cost of supporting our infrastructure, so I will try to reduce my "tea" references. I do, however believe that we have our spending priorities wrong.
I would love to see a true high speed rail network, supported by regional rail feeders and local transit in the communities served, but I have no delusions that that will happen in my lifetime.
Phoebe Vet Can we presume that you are equally offended by everything else the government does that doesn't make a profit or at least break even? We could build a tremendous passenger rail network with the money we spend on the largest military in the world, or just the money we spend supporting military bases all over the world. I didn't even include the hundreds of billions spent beating up and occupying small countries. The government supports things that benefit our society, whether or not they make money. Police, Fire, water systems, sewer systems, road construction and maintenance, public parks, an inexpensive postal system, environmental conservation, NASA, the Coast Guard, Border Patrol, etc. The ability of our people to move around the country easily, comfortably, and quickly is one of those things. If you are looking for government waste to wave your tea bags at, I can find you a lot of things that are a lot more outrageous than constructing a modern passenger rail network.
Can we presume that you are equally offended by everything else the government does that doesn't make a profit or at least break even? We could build a tremendous passenger rail network with the money we spend on the largest military in the world, or just the money we spend supporting military bases all over the world. I didn't even include the hundreds of billions spent beating up and occupying small countries.
The government supports things that benefit our society, whether or not they make money. Police, Fire, water systems, sewer systems, road construction and maintenance, public parks, an inexpensive postal system, environmental conservation, NASA, the Coast Guard, Border Patrol, etc. The ability of our people to move around the country easily, comfortably, and quickly is one of those things.
If you are looking for government waste to wave your tea bags at, I can find you a lot of things that are a lot more outrageous than constructing a modern passenger rail network.
.
Phoebe Vet Paul Milenkovic We have a guy come on here and meekly ask whether HSR is first priority of the passenger rail dollar and get the same swift rapid-response treatment and entirely unprovoked too. Paul: You keep using the term meekly asks if it's a first priority. Followed by an accusation of an unprovoked attack by me. These quotes are from the post to which I was responding: The argument that taxpayers should, nevertheless, support new HSR systems, even if they operate at a deficit, because they already pay great gobs of money to support other govenment programs (both in transport and in other areas) that don't pay their way doesn't cut a whole lot of weight with me. It's like saying that, because you use your credit card to buy more stuff than you can afford at Walmart, you have an obligation to spend even more to buy stuff you can't afford to buy stuff at Target. Don't get me wrong. From a hobby standpoint, I like HSR. If an HSR line is built from Chicago, I would certainly ride it once in awhile, if only for the experience. But I don't expect the taxpayers to support my hobby. That is accusatory. He stated that the "glitzy" HSR is a hobby that is being built solely out of ego and that if the government chooses to fund it it is an inappropriate use of his tax dollars. I merely stated why I disagree with that assessment. That is IS a proper use of tax dollars. The Tea bag reference was probably over the top, but for the last several months we have been blasted almost daily in the media with coverage of ignorant people waving often misspelled signs with derogatory pictures and phrases screaming that anything that does not directly benefit them individually is government waste. It's wearing thin, and I am not the only person who is getting fed up with them. So every time I hear someone say the government shouldn't fund (your pet project here) I tend to react reflexively.
Paul Milenkovic We have a guy come on here and meekly ask whether HSR is first priority of the passenger rail dollar and get the same swift rapid-response treatment and entirely unprovoked too.
We have a guy come on here and meekly ask whether HSR is first priority of the passenger rail dollar and get the same swift rapid-response treatment and entirely unprovoked too.
Paul:
You keep using the term meekly asks if it's a first priority. Followed by an accusation of an unprovoked attack by me.
These quotes are from the post to which I was responding:
The argument that taxpayers should, nevertheless, support new HSR systems, even if they operate at a deficit, because they already pay great gobs of money to support other govenment programs (both in transport and in other areas) that don't pay their way doesn't cut a whole lot of weight with me. It's like saying that, because you use your credit card to buy more stuff than you can afford at Walmart, you have an obligation to spend even more to buy stuff you can't afford to buy stuff at Target.
Don't get me wrong. From a hobby standpoint, I like HSR. If an HSR line is built from Chicago, I would certainly ride it once in awhile, if only for the experience. But I don't expect the taxpayers to support my hobby.
That is accusatory. He stated that the "glitzy" HSR is a hobby that is being built solely out of ego and that if the government chooses to fund it it is an inappropriate use of his tax dollars.
I merely stated why I disagree with that assessment. That is IS a proper use of tax dollars. The Tea bag reference was probably over the top, but for the last several months we have been blasted almost daily in the media with coverage of ignorant people waving often misspelled signs with derogatory pictures and phrases screaming that anything that does not directly benefit them individually is government waste. It's wearing thin, and I am not the only person who is getting fed up with them. So every time I hear someone say the government shouldn't fund (your pet project here) I tend to react reflexively.
This is a true story, by the way, and it is illustrative of the problem with getting people served by rail transportation in a highway-oriented society. A man is all tired and worn out and crabby from driving and fighting traffic, the worst part of it is he got stuck behind one of those "Tea Party" demonstrations on State Street when trying to get through Chicago, and by now all he wants to do is park his car and complete the remainder of his journey in a nice, comfortable, air-conditioned train.
He comes up upon a "minimart", and asks the man behind the counter for help finding a train station, buying a ticket, and getting on a train. It turns out that his other man is, um, an ethnic Near Eastern person from Chicago (OK, he is a Serb who is Catholic because the priest made him change religions to marry an ethnic Yugoslav-German woman, if you have to ask) who has a license to sell the I-Pass for the Illinois Tollroad Authority. The shop owner says that he can't help with the train, he only sells the I-Pass to go on the Tollroad.
The tired and crabby driver curses the shop owner out, pointing out that Illinois DOT now supports trains as well as highways, and that the shop owner is a disgrace to to the State of Illinois for not helping him out, and that he is just as bad as that disgraced former Governer of Illinois, and all of you ethnic Serbs are all alike. So the shop owner says, "OK, so you don't want to buy an I-Pass from me, but I tell you what, if you just drive another mile or two on this country road, you will find someone who can help you find the train station."
So the angry and cursing motorist comes back 20 minutes later and says (somewhat apologetically this time), "Your friend over there at the toll station who calls himself Blagojevich tells me I need an I-Pass to get to the next exit where the train station is located."
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Sam1Unlike firms offering a qualified pension plan, the government does not have to determine the actuarial value of the retirement benefits for its employees (military and civilian) and fund them on an on-going basis. It just takes the money from the yearly operating budget, which is course is paid for by the taxpayers. The amount of unfunded military and federal employee retirement benefits is nearly as great as the amount of unfunded Social Security obligations. What do you think would happen to a candidate for Congress if he or she promised to modernize the military retirement plan, which was put together in 1866, when male life expectancywas approximately 45 years? Or touch the civilian retirement plan?
Unlike firms offering a qualified pension plan, the government does not have to determine the actuarial value of the retirement benefits for its employees (military and civilian) and fund them on an on-going basis. It just takes the money from the yearly operating budget, which is course is paid for by the taxpayers. The amount of unfunded military and federal employee retirement benefits is nearly as great as the amount of unfunded Social Security obligations.
What do you think would happen to a candidate for Congress if he or she promised to modernize the military retirement plan, which was put together in 1866, when male life expectancywas approximately 45 years? Or touch the civilian retirement plan?
No, no, and no. The reverse is not also true.
I have seen the posts about "Unamerican Socialist", and it is simply untrue that the discussion comes to a halt -- that person gets a swift and rapid response in these parts.
We have a guy come on here and meekly ask whether HSR is first priority of the passenger rail dollar and get the same swift rapid-response treatment and entirely unprovoked too. The question was not raised on whether government money should go to trains but whether it should go to HSR at the expense of other types of trains.
We have a published railroad author come to our local advocacy group to talk about the historical Hiawatha train and get blacklisted by our group for a return engagement for expressing the view that the "future of trains is in corridors and not in long-distance." The same attitudes occur in both the on-line and local advocacy communities, and the net effect is to set the cause back.
We can talk forever and ever about how "those other guys get all of that subsidy, direct and hidden", but until we address the question whether rail is addressing particular transportation problems in a more cost-effective manner than the competition, we will be spinning our wheels. Rail could address certain transportation problems more cost effectively than alternatives than new road or airport construction, but few in the advocacy community want to do the leg work to make these cases (and accept the outcome if the case is negative for rail) -- we simply fall back on the old shibboleths that airlines are getting subsidy and trains need to get the same thing. It's lazy advocacy, and it has kept us 40 years in the transportation wilderness.
henry6 In effect, we, the US, has run down the middle of the road, picking the best of each side and using it to progress with no one side really getting ahead of the other. Is the question, therefore. that we must choose between an all private sector control of business and commmerce including infrastructure or an all socialistic governement control of business and commerce including the infrastructure? I really don't think that is the question because there is no 100% answer for either side.
In effect, we, the US, has run down the middle of the road, picking the best of each side and using it to progress with no one side really getting ahead of the other. Is the question, therefore. that we must choose between an all private sector control of business and commmerce including infrastructure or an all socialistic governement control of business and commerce including the infrastructure? I really don't think that is the question because there is no 100% answer for either side.
Well put. A good example would be the tremendous amount of government funded research that NASA has done to benefit civil aviation. NASA has researched and developed engine technology, airfoil designs, and composite construction materials now used extensively in civil aircraft, etc.
Paul Milenkovic This thread if not the entire advocacy community has "run off the rails" and "put 'er on the ground" as it were. A person cannot express skepticism whether the time is ripe for HSR without the conversation devolving into partisan politics. Look people, if HSR is going to be tied to the "Red State-Blue State" divide, HSR or anything else rail is going to be a big loser. Why? Because the partisan divide is pretty much right down the middle of the electorate, pretty much a 50-50 or maybe as much as a 52-48 split. So, you take your 52 percent on your side of the partisan divide, and maybe, just maybe, if you are persuasive, you get 90 percent of that, and what do you have 47 percent, at best. You lose. No growth of Amtrak. No HSR. You are certainly not getting any votes from the other side of the partisan divide because you have made train advocacy a "hot button issue." A person on this forum tries to express some modest skepticism regarding HSR, concerns readily addressed, but no, this person gets branded a right-wing zealot and a bunch of other people "pile on" saying how much they are in agreement. I see the same thing in the bricks-and-morter advocacy world, and our in-your-face local advocacy group will yet find some way to torpedo the Madison-Milwaukee train by offending people.
This thread if not the entire advocacy community has "run off the rails" and "put 'er on the ground" as it were.
A person cannot express skepticism whether the time is ripe for HSR without the conversation devolving into partisan politics.
Look people, if HSR is going to be tied to the "Red State-Blue State" divide, HSR or anything else rail is going to be a big loser. Why? Because the partisan divide is pretty much right down the middle of the electorate, pretty much a 50-50 or maybe as much as a 52-48 split.
So, you take your 52 percent on your side of the partisan divide, and maybe, just maybe, if you are persuasive, you get 90 percent of that, and what do you have 47 percent, at best. You lose. No growth of Amtrak. No HSR. You are certainly not getting any votes from the other side of the partisan divide because you have made train advocacy a "hot button issue."
A person on this forum tries to express some modest skepticism regarding HSR, concerns readily addressed, but no, this person gets branded a right-wing zealot and a bunch of other people "pile on" saying how much they are in agreement. I see the same thing in the bricks-and-morter advocacy world, and our in-your-face local advocacy group will yet find some way to torpedo the Madison-Milwaukee train by offending people.
But Paul, isn't the reverse also true? If you support government involvement you are labled an Unamerican Socialist and thus also bring the discussion to a halt? What Phoebe Vet stated clearely was the state of the situation: no matter what form of transportation or other public utility, the government plays a big role. Period. Whether or not to change railroads, i.e. HSR, Amtrak, freight, etc., to either all private or all public ownership is the question posed again and agian with no resolve except to name calling. Historically, progress-- industrial, business, transportation, services and utilities--has been a constortium, a cooperation, and joint venture, a give and take and take and give, of both the private and public sectors. In effect, we, the US, has run down the middle of the road, picking the best of each side and using it to progress with no one side really getting ahead of the other. Is the question, therefore. that we must choose between an all private sector control of business and commmerce including infrastructure or an all socialistic governement control of business and commerce including the infrastructure? I really don't think that is the question because there is no 100% answer for either side.
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.
The military is already being privatized, what else explains Blackwater and other similar private security (mercenaries) contractors.
schlimm Phoebe VetCan we presume that you are equally offended by everything else the government does that doesn't make a profit or at least break even? Like henry6, this was one of the most succinct expressions of the inconsistencies and clearly political bias of our resident accountant. I can only remark that perhaps she would prefer to "privatize" the remainder of our military not already out-sourced. For that matter, why not privatize the whole government?
Phoebe VetCan we presume that you are equally offended by everything else the government does that doesn't make a profit or at least break even?
Like henry6, this was one of the most succinct expressions of the inconsistencies and clearly political bias of our resident accountant. I can only remark that perhaps she would prefer to "privatize" the remainder of our military not already out-sourced. For that matter, why not privatize the whole government?
A careful read of my post reveals two key points;
I have maintained consistently these views since I began posting to these forums more than three years ago.
No suggestion that the military should be outsourced was made or implied. Since the beginning of the Republic the U.S. military has relied on contractors for equipment and supplies, as well as critical support services best performed by civilians.
There are numerous activites performed by governments at all levels that could be outsourced. In fact, there are many examples of where they have been with good results.
oltmanndFalcon48 Given differences in population density in this country vs foreign countries with HSR, The eastern half of the US and California are not dissimilar to Europe.Falcon48Any HSR lines actually built will drain money away from existing transit and regional rail services.Not really. It's the non-discretionary portions of the budge that will sink all discretionary spending. Non-discretionary spending is Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (this is the 900# gorilla) and debt interest. Federal spending has typically been about 20% of GNP for the past 40 years. Non-discretionary spending is currently about 60% of the Federal budget and will exceed 20% of GNP in the next 40 years, leaving nothing for defense, education, transit, highways or anything else. I wouldn't expect taxpayers to support my hobby, my travel or my commute unless doing so was in the overall interest of the country.
Falcon48 Given differences in population density in this country vs foreign countries with HSR,
Falcon48Any HSR lines actually built will drain money away from existing transit and regional rail services.
I wouldn't expect taxpayers to support my hobby, my travel or my commute unless doing so was in the overall interest of the country.
Your assessment of non-discretionary vs. discretionary federal spending is spot on. However, you left out two items of the non-discretionary spend that are worth mentioning. They are the unfunded military and federal retirement promises.
The amount society decides to spend in the public vs. private sectors is a value judgment, and whether the activity should be in the public sector or private sector is also a value judgment. Hopefully, the efficiency and effectiveness of each option is weighed carefully, although in many if not most instances a heavy dose of emotionalism usually creeps into the equation.
What the U.S. spends on its military establishment is subject to extensive debate. Amazingly, some people even have a few intelligent things to say about it, but my experience tells me that most people outside of the military establishment or the highest reaches of the federal government are not knowledgeable regarding the appropriateness of the military spend, which by the way is roughly 4.5 per cent of GDP.
What the U.S. spends on its military establishment or postal service or national parks, etc. has nothing to do with what it should spend on passenger rail. The key question is what problem is passenger rail designed to fix? And where would it be an optimum solution? How rich should the solution be? The answers to these questions should drive the decisions regarding the appropriateness of any potential spend on passenger rail.
If a robust cost model is used to determine where passenger rail is a good fit, the only places that would come up positive are in those relatively few areas of the country where the cost of expanding the highway and airways systems is prohibitive.
Oh, the "inexpensive postal system" has one of the highest overhead burdens of any organization (government or otherwise) in the United States. It has been losing money by the buckets for a long time, although it is supposed to cover its costs. This year it will require a federal subsidy of $3.8 billion. And this is on top of $3.4 billion that it gets each year from the federal government for services supposedly provided for it. How these services are priced is problematic, but some analysts believe that the government payment greatly exceeds the cost of the services received and in fact is a subsidy.
The postal service has one retiree for every 1.47 active employees. These retirees have generous retirement benefits. It is one of the factors that are contribution to the financial problems besetting the postal service. No business organization could sustain this ratio. Oh, did I say it? The post office is all too typical of many government organizations. And it is why I don't want the government at any level to run anything that can be run by a competitive business, even it the only thing that would fit is a sole source contract.
The primary place where Amtrak's abysmal on time performance is important is when making connections. It is very unlikely that they will hold a train or an airplane because the incoming train is late.
oltmannd Is being delayed 5 minutes, 5 days a week worth the same to you as being delayed once for 25 minutes? And, maybe, it's not even the actual delay that's important, it's the reliability of the trip. If you always have to allow an extra 25 minutes to be sure you get somewhere on time even though 4 out of 5 times you will arrive 25 minutes early, is that not worse than alway having to leave 5 minutes early?
Don: You have squarely hit the nail on the head. I have a doctor that I vist once every 3 months north of Peachtree station. I have to leave 1 hr earlier than needed because once every 3 - 4 times I just make it on schedule. You have spoken of this for Amtrak on time performance and it appears that getting close to the 80% on time for them really attracks many more passengers?
We probably know know persons who leave every day 1/2 - 1 hr earlier to work but cannot start until regular starting time but be one minute late -----------?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.