Sam1 They are an exception. But they are also an example of how roads can be funded and paid for by the users without indirect subsidies from the general taxpayers. Equally important, the users know up front what it costs them to drive on the toll roads mentioned. The cost is not hidden.
They are an exception. But they are also an example of how roads can be funded and paid for by the users without indirect subsidies from the general taxpayers. Equally important, the users know up front what it costs them to drive on the toll roads mentioned. The cost is not hidden.
Please explain how I-90, I-94, I-29, I-15, I-25 in western Mn, Mt, Nd, Sd, Wy will ever be paid for by user taxes or could have been paid for by making them toll roads. Those roads are some of the most deserted roads I've ever driven.
schlimm And many toll roads never fulfilled their original mission of paying of the bondholders in X years and becoming freeways. Instead they find ways (expansion, etc.) to remain toll roads forever: PA, OH, NJ, Garden State, IL, IN, and closer to TX, OK, just to name a few. Many have been in business over 50 years, the PA Turnpike Authority since 1937.
And many toll roads never fulfilled their original mission of paying of the bondholders in X years and becoming freeways. Instead they find ways (expansion, etc.) to remain toll roads forever: PA, OH, NJ, Garden State, IL, IN, and closer to TX, OK, just to name a few. Many have been in business over 50 years, the PA Turnpike Authority since 1937.
From my perspective the key point is that the roads were paid for directly by the users. They were not paid for out of general revenues. The users knew up front what it cost them to use the roadway.
I don't recall that an objective of the Pennsylvania Turnpike was to pay off the bondholders and remove the tolls from the roadway. The original highway ran from just west of Harrisburg to just east of Pittsburgh, along a route that had been laid out initially for a railroad to compete with the Pennsylvania. As I remember the story, the railroad right-of-way was funded at least in part by the New York Central, which was in a twist with the Pennsylvania over something that I have forgotten. Subsequently, as the road proved to be successful, it was extended to the Ohio state line and the New Jersey state line, with a northward extension to Scranton. The tolls collected on the initial portion of the roadway were used to help pay for the extensions and maintain the highway. The turnpike is maintenance intensive.
blue streak 1 Sam1: They are an exception. But they are also an example of how roads can be funded and paid for by the users without indirect subsidies from the general taxpayers. Equally important, the users know up front what it costs them to drive on the toll roads mentioned. The cost is not hidden. Please explain how I-90, I-94, I-29, I-15, I-25 in western Mn, Mt, Nd, Sd, Wy will ever be paid for by user taxes or could have been paid for by making them toll roads. Those roads are some of the most deserted roads I've ever driven.
Sam1: They are an exception. But they are also an example of how roads can be funded and paid for by the users without indirect subsidies from the general taxpayers. Equally important, the users know up front what it costs them to drive on the toll roads mentioned. The cost is not hidden.
The roadways were paid for by the user fees collected in more densely populated areas of the country and shifted to rural areas, which has been a long standing practice of the federal government. It was the same principle that was followed in funding the construction of the transcontinental railroads, which ran through equally bleak country. Whether there would have been enough users to pay for them with tolls is problematic.
The Highway Trust Fund, which was launched in 1956 or thereabouts, collected enough in the way of funds to pay for the entire federal highway system from approximately 1960 through 2007. It started with an infusion of federal money. The user fees (fuel taxes, fees, excise taxes, etc.) collected for the fund resulted in a surplus by 2000. And this was in light of the fact that a portion of the tax, beginning in the 1980s, was diverted to the Mass Transit Administration for public transit projects and the U.S. Treasury Department for deficit reduction.
In 2010 the fund required in infusion from the general fund of approximately $14 billion, following infusions of $7 billion in 2009, $8 billion in 2008, and approximately $7.4 billion on 2007. Why? Because the Congress has refused to raise the gasoline and diesel taxes, which are really user fees, to keep up with increases in the costs of construction and maintaining the federal highway system as well as population growth.
General fund monies are sourced from the taxpayers. Most motorists pay taxes. And because there are so many of them (214,000,000), they are a large source of funds. So the monies transferred from the general fund to the highway trust fund can be said to come mostly from motorists, as well as people who don't drive, although the number of Americans who don't drive is a distinct minority.
At the end of the day, how the nation has or is funding highways, airways, waterways, etc. is immaterial to how and where it should fund passenger rail. The key question is where is passenger rail the optimum solution for improving passenger transport? Where is it an optimum investment or spend? Where is the nation likely to get the biggest bang for its buck? Unfortunately, in too many instances, we have turned an economic and transport issue into a political issue, which means in the long run were are not likely to get optimum solutions.
Sam:
The amount of money being spent on these rail projects is less money than the subsidies and tax breaks being given to the oil industry, the most profitable industry in the country.
We all know that you believe that the government should not spend money on transportation; that it should be a for profit industry, but if you stop government spending on infrastructure the economy will crumble and even highways will become the domain of only the rich.
Toll roads are an obsolete concept that should be retired to the dustbin of history. They INCREASE the cost of the road because they must raise enough in tolls to cover the cost of building and maintaining toll plazas, salaries and benefits of toll collectors, administrators and the cost of collecting, protecting, and accounting for the revenue. They also reduce the capacity of the road by creating the choke points at the toll plazas. Tax payers still pay for enforcement and emergency services on those private roads.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Sam1 dakotafred: Surely you will acknowledge, Sam, that such roads are an exception to the rule of public financing. They are an exception. But they are also an example of how roads can be funded and paid for by the users without indirect subsidies from the general taxpayers. Equally important, the users know up front what it costs them to drive on the toll roads mentioned. The cost is not hidden.
dakotafred: Surely you will acknowledge, Sam, that such roads are an exception to the rule of public financing.
Surely you will acknowledge, Sam, that such roads are an exception to the rule of public financing.
However, most highways -- and almost all the city and county streets and roads that tie into them -- will continue to be publicly underwritten. That is the model, not Sam's. Same with the vast infrastructure supporting our air system.
I agree with posters who say an open Uncle Sam checkbook for roads and air does not justify the same for passenger rail. There is the legitimate question of efficiency and value received. Also -- and this is the biggie -- the American public is solidly behind highways and air. The same cannot be demonstrated as yet for passenger rail, outside the NE corridor and maybe a couple of other places.
What I'm getting at is that perhaps the passenger rail many of us believe in -- operating subsidy and all -- will just have to await that public demand. Then, if history is any guide, Uncle Sam's checkbook will be no problem.
Same with state taxpayer money. In North Carolina, is $12 million a year worth it to people -- or not? I will say the projection of no subsidy, if the improvements and expansion of service are realized, is something only a child (or someone with something to sell) could believe in.
Which came first Fred; the chicken or the egg?
When you run one train a day or sometimes not even that frequency, you cannot say that the lack of passengers proves that there is no market. Trains that run frequently and on time are used by a lot of people. Most large cities have commuter rail and it is heavily used. Amtrak is way over extended. They provide minimal service that seldom runs on time or at convenient times of day. NCDOT has been running morning and evening drive time trains between Charlotte and Raleigh for years. When they added a noon train last year, ridership increased 46% on the route.
Take one corridor that serves several large or medium size cities with stops in the small towns along the way and run frequent, on time, trains alternating with express trains that only stop at the larger cities. Then we will evaluate whether or not there is a market that would justify expanding to other corridors.
I can find nothing to argue with in Phoebe Vet above. And, as I said earlier, North Carolina's Piedmont project looks like the model of what modern passenger rail should be. No super-expensive bells and whistles, but highway-competitive speeds and frequent daytime service over a logical corridor.
May its tribe increase.
dakotafred Sam1: dakotafred: Surely you will acknowledge, Sam, that such roads are an exception to the rule of public financing. They are an exception. But they are also an example of how roads can be funded and paid for by the users without indirect subsidies from the general taxpayers. Equally important, the users know up front what it costs them to drive on the toll roads mentioned. The cost is not hidden. However, most highways -- and almost all the city and county streets and roads that tie into them -- will continue to be publicly underwritten. That is the model, not Sam's. Same with the vast infrastructure supporting our air system. I agree with posters who say an open Uncle Sam checkbook for roads and air does not justify the same for passenger rail. There is the legitimate question of efficiency and value received. Also -- and this is the biggie -- the American public is solidly behind highways and air. The same cannot be demonstrated as yet for passenger rail, outside the NE corridor and maybe a couple of other places. What I'm getting at is that perhaps the passenger rail many of us believe in -- operating subsidy and all -- will just have to await that public demand. Then, if history is any guide, Uncle Sam's checkbook will be no problem. Same with state taxpayer money. In North Carolina, is $12 million a year worth it to people -- or not? I will say the projection of no subsidy, if the improvements and expansion of service are realized, is something only a child (or someone with something to sell) could believe in.
Sam1: dakotafred: Surely you will acknowledge, Sam, that such roads are an exception to the rule of public financing. They are an exception. But they are also an example of how roads can be funded and paid for by the users without indirect subsidies from the general taxpayers. Equally important, the users know up front what it costs them to drive on the toll roads mentioned. The cost is not hidden.
The federal highway system, as well as most state highways, are funded by user fees, usually in the form of fuel taxes, license fees, excise taxes, etc. However, as I have said, because the Congress has failed to raise the fuel taxes to keep pace with inflation and population growth, monies have been transferred from the general fund(s) to the highway funds. Most motorists pay taxes, which flow into the general fund(s), from which a small portion of the receipts, which are paid by motorists (most Americans drive), are transferred to the highway funds.
Interestingly, the amount of money transferred from the federal general fund to the highway trust fund has been approximately the same as the amount of money transferred from fuel taxes to the Mass Transit Fund and the U.S. Treasury Department. However, 2010 was an exception, when nearly $14 billion was transferred from the general fund to the highway trust fund. In other words, motorists have been subsidizing mass transit and making a payment on the national debt through their fuel taxes.
City streets and county roads are funded with property taxes. Again, most motorists pay these taxes, so in effect they are paying for the streets and roads that they use. However, upper income motorists pay more in property taxes than lower income folks, thereby in effect subsidizing lower income drivers.
It is not $12 million per year. It is $12 million per year compounded to infinity. Moreover, the anaylists fail to mention the financing costs associated with the $12 million. Equally important, they fail to mention the cost of upgrading the infrastructure, as well as the financing costs embedded in the capital costs.
Contrary to what several people have wrongly concluded from my remarks, it is appropriate for the government to fund transport infrastructure if there is a reasonable probability that the users will pay for it through the fare box or from user fees. This, by the way, has been the underlying premise for most federal funding of transport infrastructure in the United States.
The federal government under wrote the funding of the transcontinental railroads on the premise that it would recoup the investment through taxes and fees. It got its money back and then some. The question facing the proponents of expanded passenger rail is whether the government (we the people) will get our money back. Experience over the past 50 years is not on their side. If the answer is not likely, then I don't think that it is a good investment. And I don't support it.
It may be childish to believe that the users should pay for the services that they want. The contrary view, however, that we must subsidize the users is one of the mind sets that has led us to the huge national and state debts facing we the people.
Phoebe Vet Sam: The amount of money being spent on these rail projects is less money than the subsidies and tax breaks being given to the oil industry, the most profitable industry in the country. We all know that you believe that the government should not spend money on transportation; that it should be a for profit industry, but if you stop government spending on infrastructure the economy will crumble and even highways will become the domain of only the rich. Toll roads are an obsolete concept that should be retired to the dustbin of history. They INCREASE the cost of the road because they must raise enough in tolls to cover the cost of building and maintaining toll plazas, salaries and benefits of toll collectors, administrators and the cost of collecting, protecting, and accounting for the revenue. They also reduce the capacity of the road by creating the choke points at the toll plazas. Tax payers still pay for enforcement and emergency services on those private roads.
The most widely accepted measures of profitability is Return on Equity (ROE), followed by Return on Assets (ROA) and Return on Sales (ROS). ROE is the best indicator of the return for the shareholders.
In 2010, of the Fortune 500 companies, not a single oil company was in the top 10: Energy Transfer Equity, Pitney Bowes, Toys "R" Us, Western Union, Philip Morris International, Yum Brands, Campbell Soup, Coca-Cola Enterprises, Celanse, and Altria Group were the most profitable U.S. corporations.
If one uses net income (profits) as a benchmark, Exxon was number one, but only two oil companies were in the top 25. Pharmaceuticals, health equipment manufacturers, and selected health service companies are a far better bet. Net income only tells us how much money flowed to the bottom line; it is not a good measure of profitability.
Many of the problems you cite re: toll roads are not a problem in Texas. All the toll roads in the Lone Star state use electronic toll collection devices, which have eliminated slow downs at toll stations, toll collectors, and most of the administrative burden associated with the collection of tolls.
North Carolina has been operating with refurbished hand-me-down equipment; but wouldn't tilting Acela cars (with traps & steps) reduce speed restrictions and lead to improved schedules and fuel economy? Why clone corridor trains from the few long-distance trains? I'd also suggest Talgos for Southeast services south of Raleigh if a sufficient number of trains were reached; but for the time being compatibility with the NEC interfaced by the Carolinian seems more reasonable.
Don't confuse my belief in the value of trains with a lack of respect for spending.
Acela would require electrification. A great idea but very expensive.
As for the tilting trains, with increased complexity comes increased maint. costs.
NCDOT buys used and overhauls them to save money. By spending less money on each train, more trains are possible with the same budget. The overhauled equipment is in better shape than a lot of Amtrak's equipment. It is not ragtag.
I absolutely approve of the decision to use the limited resources to upgrade the track and increase capacity rather than obsess about the speed. They have improved the speed to 79 mph over most of the route, and the goal is a modest 90 mph. The route from Raleigh to Richmond, if ever completed, will be 110 mph.
Sam1 The roadways were paid for by the user fees collected in more densely populated areas of the country and shifted to rural areas, which has been a long standing practice of the federal government. .It was the same principle that was followed in funding the construction of the transcontinental railroads, which ran through equally bleak country. Whether there would have been enough users to pay for them with tolls is problematic.
The roadways were paid for by the user fees collected in more densely populated areas of the country and shifted to rural areas, which has been a long standing practice of the federal government. .It was the same principle that was followed in funding the construction of the transcontinental railroads, which ran through equally bleak country. Whether there would have been enough users to pay for them with tolls is problematic.
Ah, definitely an outright subsidy. The user fees should have been reduced in the more densely populated areas since most folks will never get any advantage from those Interstates through remote western regions. And while my comment is partly tongue in cheek, it does illustrate how terminology gets selected to justify specific positions. In this case Sam uses "shifted" (good), instead of "subsidized" (bad).
Commuter rail always gets a subsidy, or tax shift. As a driver, I appreciate not having to compete for space with 3,000 more automobiles in my way when driving to work, and it is a very cheap way to accomplish that. Usually it is far cheaper than attempting to build more urban expressways, which usually just relocate the gridlock, not solve the congestion problem.
And I don't think the analogy with construction of the transcontinental railroads is entirely valid. The motivating factors and needs were quite different.
John
Sam1 oltmannd: Phoebe Vet: dakotafred: On its face, and based on information contained in previous posts by Phoebe, this looks to be as worthwhile as passenger-rail projects get. Two questions that could affect the discussion (and pardon me if this has been provided before): How much do passenger trains cost the state every year -- I'm thinking of just the operating subsidy -- and what kind of shape is N.C.'s budget in? http://www.letsgetmoving.org/images/uploads/pages/RTA-NC-HSR-summary.pdf http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/03/30/2182157/debate-cut-short-on-bill-to-kill.html Catch 22! From the Observer article: "We ask that you consider the jobs impact. This is bridge work, this is roadway work. This isn't rocket science. This is stuff our folks do every day, when we have an opportunity," Jenkins said. But Killian dismissed the jobs issue. "Folks, what we need are private sector jobs," Killian told the committee. "We do not need publicly financed jobs. Taking federal dollars for temporary jobs in our state, it's not going to solve our economic problems." The rail project has bridge and roadway work in it. Some don't want "public sector" financed jobs. So, what would be private sector bridge and roadway work? Is that an oxymoron? Texas State Highways 130, 45, and 121, amongst others, are private toll roads in the Lone Star state that were built by private operators. They were funded by the sale of bonds in the capital markets. In addition, the Houston Toll Road, as well as others, have been built by quasi-private or quasi governmental authorities. They receive no money from the state. They are financed by tolls. They are expected to pay for themselves. SH130, which is a stones throw from my house, is on track to recover its costs and generate a return for the toll authority, which includes overseas investors.
oltmannd: Phoebe Vet: dakotafred: On its face, and based on information contained in previous posts by Phoebe, this looks to be as worthwhile as passenger-rail projects get. Two questions that could affect the discussion (and pardon me if this has been provided before): How much do passenger trains cost the state every year -- I'm thinking of just the operating subsidy -- and what kind of shape is N.C.'s budget in? http://www.letsgetmoving.org/images/uploads/pages/RTA-NC-HSR-summary.pdf http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/03/30/2182157/debate-cut-short-on-bill-to-kill.html Catch 22! From the Observer article: "We ask that you consider the jobs impact. This is bridge work, this is roadway work. This isn't rocket science. This is stuff our folks do every day, when we have an opportunity," Jenkins said. But Killian dismissed the jobs issue. "Folks, what we need are private sector jobs," Killian told the committee. "We do not need publicly financed jobs. Taking federal dollars for temporary jobs in our state, it's not going to solve our economic problems." The rail project has bridge and roadway work in it. Some don't want "public sector" financed jobs. So, what would be private sector bridge and roadway work? Is that an oxymoron?
Phoebe Vet: dakotafred: On its face, and based on information contained in previous posts by Phoebe, this looks to be as worthwhile as passenger-rail projects get. Two questions that could affect the discussion (and pardon me if this has been provided before): How much do passenger trains cost the state every year -- I'm thinking of just the operating subsidy -- and what kind of shape is N.C.'s budget in? http://www.letsgetmoving.org/images/uploads/pages/RTA-NC-HSR-summary.pdf http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/03/30/2182157/debate-cut-short-on-bill-to-kill.html
dakotafred: On its face, and based on information contained in previous posts by Phoebe, this looks to be as worthwhile as passenger-rail projects get. Two questions that could affect the discussion (and pardon me if this has been provided before): How much do passenger trains cost the state every year -- I'm thinking of just the operating subsidy -- and what kind of shape is N.C.'s budget in?
On its face, and based on information contained in previous posts by Phoebe, this looks to be as worthwhile as passenger-rail projects get.
Two questions that could affect the discussion (and pardon me if this has been provided before): How much do passenger trains cost the state every year -- I'm thinking of just the operating subsidy -- and what kind of shape is N.C.'s budget in?
http://www.letsgetmoving.org/images/uploads/pages/RTA-NC-HSR-summary.pdf
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/03/30/2182157/debate-cut-short-on-bill-to-kill.html
Catch 22!
From the Observer article:
"We ask that you consider the jobs impact. This is bridge work, this is roadway work. This isn't rocket science. This is stuff our folks do every day, when we have an opportunity," Jenkins said.
But Killian dismissed the jobs issue.
"Folks, what we need are private sector jobs," Killian told the committee. "We do not need publicly financed jobs. Taking federal dollars for temporary jobs in our state, it's not going to solve our economic problems."
The rail project has bridge and roadway work in it.
Some don't want "public sector" financed jobs.
So, what would be private sector bridge and roadway work? Is that an oxymoron?
Texas State Highways 130, 45, and 121, amongst others, are private toll roads in the Lone Star state that were built by private operators. They were funded by the sale of bonds in the capital markets. In addition, the Houston Toll Road, as well as others, have been built by quasi-private or quasi governmental authorities. They receive no money from the state. They are financed by tolls. They are expected to pay for themselves.
SH130, which is a stones throw from my house, is on track to recover its costs and generate a return for the toll authority, which includes overseas investors.
Uh, not built on private land, though, correct? And, gov't backed bonds, too, right? These are PPP projects and have some "baked in" indirect subsidy as such. Attempts at similar projects, such as an Atanta to Athens highway, I-75 express lanes, in GA have failed to attract any interested private parties.
I'd say private toll roads are the exception, not the norm and only fit into very narrow niches in the market - typically suburban/exurban "connectors" that leverage the existing public highway system.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Are you aware the Lynchburg train is doing exactly that? Why would it be unreasonable for a built-out NC corridor with good NEC connections to show similar results?
The builders acquired the land through eminent domain proceedings, if required. The bonds are not backed by the government. In some locations the bonds are issued by the Texas Turnpike Authority, which get a municipal rate. They are revenue bonds and are not backed by the state. If the turnpike fails to generate sufficient revenues to service the bonds, they would default. It is not likely to happen, but it could happen.
As I said, private roads are the exception. My point was that they could work. And they are working in a few instances in Texas. Frankly, I have no idea whether they work outside of Texas. But they work in Texas. They are a way of financing road construction without impinging on the state's credit rating.
oltmannd Same with state taxpayer money. In North Carolina, is $12 million a year worth it to people -- or not? I will say the projection of no subsidy, if the improvements and expansion of service are realized, is something only a child (or someone with something to sell) could believe in. Are you aware the Lynchburg train is doing exactly that? Why would it be unreasonable for a built-out NC corridor with good NEC connections to show similar results?
Sam; This project has many road improvements (mainly overpasses, underpasses, safer grade crossing improvements, etc. So chance of fewer grade crossing accidents. It also helps NS and CSX make their operations more fluid which may finally translate into more revenue for NS and maybe more lease payments? So your car addicts get some benefit as well.
Oltmannd: you are correct about the Lynchburg train.
A look at the Jan performance report shows LYNCH has a + $1.3M operating profit.. 47k riders the 1st four months (+26K). More importantly is the performance of the Carolinian. For the 4 months of FY 2011 Carolinian had a 0.6M operating profit with 104k riders. One could expect once the new Raleigh - Richmond line is in place that the Piedmonts or their off spring will do as well. As well the on time of the Piedmonts has already risen due to work already completed with a 89% Ot in Jan and FY of 81%.
We must all expect that a numer of riders and probably OT will suffer in Feb - Apr due to the ongoing double tracking work by NS between Greensboro and CLT. The cancellation of trains Monday - Thursday of each week will effect performance and operating costs as the crews will be paid by AMTRAK whether they operate or not. However how to factor additional riders (if any) onto Carolinian in response to these cancellations is unknown.
blue streak 1 So chance of fewer grade crossing accidents. It also helps NS and CSX make their operations more fluid which may finally translate into more revenue for NS and maybe more lease payments? So your car addicts get some benefit as well. Oltmannd: you are correct about the Lynchburg train. A look at the Jan performance report shows LYNCH has a + $1.3M operating profit.. 47k riders the 1st five months (+26K). More importantly is the performance of the Carolinian. For the 5 months of FY 2011 Carolinian had a 0.6M operating profit with 104k riders. One could expect once the new Raleigh - Richmond line is in place that the Piedmonts or their off spring will do as well. As well the on time of the Piedmonts has already risen due to work already completed with a 89% Ot in Jan and FY of 81%. We must all expect that a numer of riders and probably OT will suffer in Feb - Apr due to the ongoing double tracking work by NS between Greensboro and CLT. The cancellation of trains Monday - Thursday of each week will effect performance and operating costs as the crews will be paid by AMTRAK whether they operate or not. However how to factor additional riders (if any) onto Carolinian in response to these cancellations is unknown.
A look at the Jan performance report shows LYNCH has a + $1.3M operating profit.. 47k riders the 1st five months (+26K). More importantly is the performance of the Carolinian. For the 5 months of FY 2011 Carolinian had a 0.6M operating profit with 104k riders. One could expect once the new Raleigh - Richmond line is in place that the Piedmonts or their off spring will do as well. As well the on time of the Piedmonts has already risen due to work already completed with a 89% Ot in Jan and FY of 81%.
January is the fourth month of FY11. I don't see the February report on Amtrak's webpage. Where are you getting the February numbers?
As shown, the Washington-Lynchburg service turned a $1.3 million operating profit before interest and depreciation. The Carolinian shows a loss of $600,000 (2.1 cents per passenger mile) on revenues of $6.4 million.
Amtrak does no allocate interest and depreciation by route, claiming that it would be unfair because of the sale and leaseback of presumably significant amounts of its operating equipment. This is a unique approach. It suggests the possibility of an unfavorable sale/leaseback contract.
With the improvements in the line from Charlotte to Richmond, it will be interesting to see how the capital charges are allocated. If the line upgrade is being made primarily to benefit passenger trains, the bulk of the capital costs should be allocated to passenger operations, which will not make for a good financial picture.
I am all for passenger trains. Contrary to your impressions, I am not a car nut or addict. In fact, I don't really like them, but in Texas no car means greatly restricted mobility. Whilst I lived in Australia, I did without a car, primarily because I lived in Melbourne, which has an excellent public transport system. I wonder how many people who are train buffs have sold their cars? I suspect not many.
I am an addict, however, when it comes to fiscal responsbiliity. I would stop all subsidies and allow the chips to fall where they may. I am to no surprise an enthusiastic competive markets supporter.
Thanks for the photos. The train is handsome inside and out and no mistaking the State's role in the service. FWIW, Illinois has been content to use Amtrak's stock and identification..
As good as those outside swing hanger trucks are; I thought they were higher maintenance and no longer manufactured?
oltmannd Sam1: oltmannd: Phoebe Vet: dakotafred: On its face, and based on information contained in previous posts by Phoebe, this looks to be as worthwhile as passenger-rail projects get. Two questions that could affect the discussion (and pardon me if this has been provided before): How much do passenger trains cost the state every year -- I'm thinking of just the operating subsidy -- and what kind of shape is N.C.'s budget in? http://www.letsgetmoving.org/images/uploads/pages/RTA-NC-HSR-summary.pdf http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/03/30/2182157/debate-cut-short-on-bill-to-kill.html Catch 22! From the Observer article: "We ask that you consider the jobs impact. This is bridge work, this is roadway work. This isn't rocket science. This is stuff our folks do every day, when we have an opportunity," Jenkins said. But Killian dismissed the jobs issue. "Folks, what we need are private sector jobs," Killian told the committee. "We do not need publicly financed jobs. Taking federal dollars for temporary jobs in our state, it's not going to solve our economic problems." The rail project has bridge and roadway work in it. Some don't want "public sector" financed jobs. So, what would be private sector bridge and roadway work? Is that an oxymoron? Texas State Highways 130, 45, and 121, amongst others, are private toll roads in the Lone Star state that were built by private operators. They were funded by the sale of bonds in the capital markets. In addition, the Houston Toll Road, as well as others, have been built by quasi-private or quasi governmental authorities. They receive no money from the state. They are financed by tolls. They are expected to pay for themselves. SH130, which is a stones throw from my house, is on track to recover its costs and generate a return for the toll authority, which includes overseas investors. Uh, not built on private land, though, correct? And, gov't backed bonds, too, right? These are PPP projects and have some "baked in" indirect subsidy as such. Attempts at similar projects, such as an Atanta to Athens highway, I-75 express lanes, in GA have failed to attract any interested private parties. I'd say private toll roads are the exception, not the norm and only fit into very narrow niches in the market - typically suburban/exurban "connectors" that leverage the existing public highway system.
Sam1: oltmannd: Phoebe Vet: dakotafred: On its face, and based on information contained in previous posts by Phoebe, this looks to be as worthwhile as passenger-rail projects get. Two questions that could affect the discussion (and pardon me if this has been provided before): How much do passenger trains cost the state every year -- I'm thinking of just the operating subsidy -- and what kind of shape is N.C.'s budget in? http://www.letsgetmoving.org/images/uploads/pages/RTA-NC-HSR-summary.pdf http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/03/30/2182157/debate-cut-short-on-bill-to-kill.html Catch 22! From the Observer article: "We ask that you consider the jobs impact. This is bridge work, this is roadway work. This isn't rocket science. This is stuff our folks do every day, when we have an opportunity," Jenkins said. But Killian dismissed the jobs issue. "Folks, what we need are private sector jobs," Killian told the committee. "We do not need publicly financed jobs. Taking federal dollars for temporary jobs in our state, it's not going to solve our economic problems." The rail project has bridge and roadway work in it. Some don't want "public sector" financed jobs. So, what would be private sector bridge and roadway work? Is that an oxymoron? Texas State Highways 130, 45, and 121, amongst others, are private toll roads in the Lone Star state that were built by private operators. They were funded by the sale of bonds in the capital markets. In addition, the Houston Toll Road, as well as others, have been built by quasi-private or quasi governmental authorities. They receive no money from the state. They are financed by tolls. They are expected to pay for themselves. SH130, which is a stones throw from my house, is on track to recover its costs and generate a return for the toll authority, which includes overseas investors.
With the exception of the I-88 extension to Rock Falls, IL about 100 miles west, the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority built toll roads in the Chicago metro area with high daily volumes held hostage by alternative slow arterial roads and congestion. This freed up the State's Interstate allocation for many more route miles of Downstate freeways. The metro area has subsidized Downstate freeways that would have been a costlier driving alternative as toll roads to the uncongested rural highways with relatively minor speed reductions for developed areas. Downstate tollways would not have attracted sufficient volume to pay for construction and maintenance.
HarveyK400 Is there some fundamental incompatibility of Acela cars with other Amtrak locomotives that would not permit a change from electric to diesel in Washington, DC? If increased complexity and maintenance cost was okay for Acela, why not for Carolina if speeds could be raised from 90mph to 110mph with higher limits for most curves? I can understand the funding logic; but wouldn't new equipment be a long-term solution? Otherwise, would Amtrak's plan for fleet replacement be a needless expenditure? If it is more cost-effective to rehabilitate old equipment, would it also be practical to replace existing trucks with tilting ones? Why do premium improvements need to be confined to premium services?
Acela is made in trainsets with an electric engine on each end. You cannot just uncouple an engine and couple a new one the way you can with standard consists. Bombarier developed a turbine electric engine that looks just like the Acela. They took it on tour around the country showing it to all the major potential customers. They couldn't sell one. It now resides in a museum.
NCDOT is doing a very good job with a limited budget. I would rather have more trains than fancier trains any day.
Sam1 quote:
City streets and county roads are funded with property taxes.
[/quote]
Sam1 is off the mark here. It's true that a lot of work on strictly residential streets is borne solely by the adjacent property owner. (Although a prosperous town like my Bismarck, N.D., usually helps out with city sales-tax money.) But I guarantee you, feeder or arterial streets in every important city in every state are on a state DOT list that is helped out with federal funding, usually to the tune of 80 or 90 percent -- same as out on the highway.
The point is BIG federal bucks behind concrete, and who cares if the arterial in Bismarck -- or I-94 across North Dakota -- covers its expenses? The justification is transportation. (Even the New York or Florida driver would miss I-94 if it turned into a cow path at the N.D. state line.) In the same way, corridor passenger rail can be justified in places like North Carolina, when it so obviously serves a public purpose.
dakotafred Sam1 quote: City streets and county roads are funded with property taxes.
Sam1 is off the mark here. It's true that a lot of work on strictly residential streets is borne solely by the adjacent property owner. (Although a prosperous town like my Bismarck, N.D., usually helps out with city sales-tax money.) But I guarantee you, feeder or arterial streets in every state are on a state DOT list that is helped out with federal funding, usually to the tune of 80 or 90 percent -- same as out on the highway.
Nicely put, Fred. What seems to always get lost in these discussions is public interest/purpose. Some people seem to think the only decision factor to consider is profit. sam1 mentions using the fine public transit in Melbourne. Is that a public agency or private enterprise?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Phoebe Vet with an electric engine on each end. You cannot just uncouple an engine and couple a new one the way you can with standard consists. Bombarier developed a turbine electric engine that looks just like the Acela. They took it on tour around the country showing it to all the major potential customers. They couldn't sell one. It now resides in a museum. NCDOT is doing a very good job with a limited budget. I would rather have more trains than fancier trains any day.
with an electric engine on each end. You cannot just uncouple an engine and couple a new one the way you can with standard consists. Bombarier developed a turbine electric engine that looks just like the Acela. They took it on tour around the country showing it to all the major potential customers. They couldn't sell one. It now resides in a museum.
I understood the question to be could a regular motor or loco be attached to the front and power the train by HEP.
The point is BIG federal bucks behind concrete, and who cares if the arterial in Bismarck -- or I-94 across North Dakota -- covers its expenses? The justification is transportation. (Even the New York or Florida driver would miss I-94 if it turned into a cow path at the N.D. state line.) In the same way, corridor passenger rail can be justified in places like North Carolina, when it so obviously serves a public purpose. [/quote]
Between 90 and 95 per cent of the cost of the streets in Dallas, TX, where I lived for 33 years, are funded from property taxes. True, some of the arterial streets are funded with DOT monies, but they constitute a small portion of the total. Anyone who drives around Dallas or any other major city in Texas, where the funding ratios are similar, can see it.
Prior to 2002 city streets in Dallas were built and maintained on a pay as you go basis. Beginning in 2002 the city began borrowing money for the maintenance of its streets, in part because of depressed revenues as a result of the recession that was experienced in 2001 to 2003.
Funding city streets and county roads with property taxes is a bad idea for at least two reasons. First, the cost is not reflected in the price of driving at the pump, so motorists don't realize the true cost of driving. If the true cost was reflected at the pump, many motorists would opt for more fuel efficient vehicles and alternate modes of transport, including passenger rail. If politicians were not politicians, they could push the cost of local streets and country roads through the price of fuels at the pump and off-set the increase with a corresponding reduction of property taxes. Of course, it probably will never happen.
The other downside effect of relying on property taxes for city streets can be seen in hundreds of small communities in Texas. This is especially true in west Texas. The main street through town is usually a federal or state highway. It is usually in good shape. But most of the city streets in these towns, especially in west Texas, are in poor shape. Why? Because they are maintained with property taxes. Unfortunately, most of the towns in west Texas, outside of the oil patch, have fallen on hard times. Their property tax base, as a result, has shrunk in value, thereby generating fewer property tax dollars and, therefore, fewer dollars to maintain the local streets. Don't take my word for it, however, Go have a look.
Phoebe Vet Acela is made in trainsets with an electric engine on each end. You cannot just uncouple an engine and couple a new one the way you can with standard consists. Bombarier developed a turbine electric engine that looks just like the Acela. They took it on tour around the country showing it to all the major potential customers. They couldn't sell one. It now resides in a museum. NCDOT is doing a very good job with a limited budget. I would rather have more trains than fancier trains any day.
As I understood it, Acela was designed as separate and independent cars and locomotives for flexibility in consists even though they are operated in sets with trainline controls and head end power. For that criteria, the Acela sets are not connected by drawbars, nor are they articulated for the advantages that might afford. The Bombardier turbine locomotive would seem to be bear out Acela's inherent interoperability.
As for the turbine, it seems to have been a product ahead of the market. Maybe it could be dusted off and sold to Illinois when 110mph operation is implemented in 2012, assuming it doesn't have nose-mounted traction motors.
I would agree that North Carolina is doing a good job on a limited budget; but as expensive as tilt capability may be; a lot of trains still might be acquired for the cost of curve reduction. Didn't curve reduction account for $200m-$300m?
It is my understanding that Acela does not have drawbars but a semi permanent coupler, mounted inside the diaphragm. Here is picture of 10003 and the non standard height couplers.
When the Crescent or Carolinian enter the NEC they have a half hour layover in DC while they change the engines.
ACELA: A custom design by "Bombardier Alstom Consortium"
Boston to Washington High Speed Hourly Service!
1. 20 Dedicated 6 car Train Sets with a 6,000hp electric locomotive on each end. Provision to add a 7th or 8th car in the future.
2. Running at speeds up to 150mph depending on Track and Catenary condition. Mostly 135mph.
3. No steps on the cars, they MUST operate from high platforms.
4. Designed to "tilt" in curves up to 7 degrees, they are now locked at half tilt do to a close running clearence to adjacent trains.
5. Cars are "First Class" (3 across seating) and "Business Class"(4 across seating) ONLY! Swing up leg rests, swing down foot rests, and fold down tables. Airline style overhead cargo bins, power outlets on the seats and Wi-Fi. Now being redone with Leather Seats. No Coach seats on an Acela.
6. The locomotive is "interlocked" with the cars. The train can not start until all doors are closed and locked. The Engineer can request an overide if a door problem developes, the Conductor has a Card Reader Card to open a door if needed.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
Phoebe Vet It is my understanding that Acela does not have drawbars but a semi permanent coupler, mounted inside the diaphragm. Here is picture of 10003 and the non standard height couplers. When the Crescent or Carolinian enter the NEC they have a half hour layover in DC while they change the engines.
I think Harvey has the right idea.
Acela does come in a "trainset", but the technology isn't wedded to the concept.
There's nothing that would prevent the modification of Acela coaches to use good, old fashioned tightlock type H couplers - or from doing a 10 minute engine change in DC for that matter. Tilting coaches would be helpful on the Piedmont route and extremely helpful south of Charlotte, should the route ever get extended to Atlanta.
schlimm dakotafred: Sam1 quote: City streets and county roads are funded with property taxes. Sam1 is off the mark here. It's true that a lot of work on strictly residential streets is borne solely by the adjacent property owner. (Although a prosperous town like my Bismarck, N.D., usually helps out with city sales-tax money.) But I guarantee you, feeder or arterial streets in every state are on a state DOT list that is helped out with federal funding, usually to the tune of 80 or 90 percent -- same as out on the highway. The point is BIG federal bucks behind concrete, and who cares if the arterial in Bismarck -- or I-94 across North Dakota -- covers its expenses? The justification is transportation. (Even the New York or Florida driver would miss I-94 if it turned into a cow path at the N.D. state line.) In the same way, corridor passenger rail can be justified in places like North Carolina, when it so obviously serves a public purpose.
dakotafred: Sam1 quote: City streets and county roads are funded with property taxes.
Nicely put, Fred. What seems to always get lost in these discussions is public interest/purpose. Some people seem to think the only decision factor to consider is profit. sam1 mentions using the fine public transit in Melbourne. Is that a public agency or private enterprise?[/quote]
Public transport in Melbourne was privatized in the late 1990s. The tram system, commuter rail system, and local buses were privatized after having been run by the government for decades. With dire financial consequences!
The operators bid on the systems that they wanted to run. They are awarded long term contracts with stringent performance criteria that they have to meet. If they do so, they receive incentive payments. If they don't meet the performance criteria, they do not receive the incentive payments and, if they consistently fail to meet them, they will lose the contract.
There is one operator for the tram system, which happens to be the largest tram system in the southern hemisphere. The commuter rail system has another contract operator. And there are numerous bus line operators. For example, I rode a bus to and from work that was operated by an Australian company. But I frequently took other buses that were operated by an English company.
All the operators are for profit companies. The Australian government, in the public interest, subsidizes them. However, at the end of the day, they have to meet their performance standards or they lose money and ultimately the contract.
Whether intercity rail is in the public interest is debatable. In Melbourne approximately 50 per cent of the people use public transit to get to and from work. In the U.S. less than 5% of the population uses public transit. And less than one per cent of the public uses passenger rail for intercity travel.
Electricity is in the public interest. For most people in the United States, its is generated and delivered by investor owned companies. These companies provide electric service to approximately 85 per cent of the population and generate more than 90 per cent of the power. They cover their costs and earn a return for their shareholders. If a person cannot afford to pay for electric energy, he or she can receive help from the government. If this arrangement works for electric utilities, why would it not be a good model for public transport including intercity rail? Tradition and inside the box thinking are the major impediments!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.