I don't know, Paul, because I've only been to Chicago once when I was 3 mos.old, and two quick in and out drives to mid town from the south and east. And so I cannot compare it to anything I mentioned on the East coast. But I have been in contact with lots of people in the last several years who live in the mid and far west and I see quite a division in political and social viewpoints; I find similar divisions here, too. Even a brief visit through an area doesn't convey the whole of the problems. Drive Route 80 across PA and NJ at some hours and you'll have little company but at other times be jammed up with cars and trucks veying for space at 70+ miles per hour and often sitting in jams while diesel fumes permeate the air and yet you'd still be looking at open fields and forests. I am finding more and more differences in Americans...economic, environmental, social...than a once size fits all philosophy can adjust to. Coca Cola and a Big Mac are probably the only two things that actually have coast to coast appeal and adaption. Some would charge ignorance and stupidity, even worse, but I am becoming more and more convinced that there is so much more variety and variences in our country than we have been led to beleive. And that it is getting more and more different everyday. There is no one answer to Amtrak, public transit, or, even, politics anymore.
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.
henry6 Its the Geography card, Paul. Madison, Wisconsin is not the US from Brunswick, Maine to Richmond and Newport News, Va. nor from San Diego to Vancouver, nor Chicago to Detroit. In places like this, there is a need for transportation alternatives where you can't build new highways nor breath polluted air now and certain not in the future if it isn't addressed. Time and again I see that those who do not live in or have to deal with urban growth and suburban congestion don't understand the problem of transit, either commuter or othewise, in these areas. Open fields and forests, whether cultivated or wild, is not what there is in these urban areas. And thus the solutions to the problems are different. Even air traffic in and out of the airports as well as relative sky ways are also problematic in terms of congestion, safety, and pollution. Farebox be damned! We must find solutions for future life. Big business and free enterprise only works for their own farebox for the moment and not for the greater good of the community. Take away rail services, freight and passenger, in the East, for instance, where costs are high and returns low, and it would lead to a total collapse of the economy and huge migrations of both businesses and people. The only thing that will keep the East, or any urban growth area, alive, is a cooperative effort of governements and private enterprise. Not all governement nor all private enterprise...neither can do it alone. we've proven that since the beginning.
Its the Geography card, Paul. Madison, Wisconsin is not the US from Brunswick, Maine to Richmond and Newport News, Va. nor from San Diego to Vancouver, nor Chicago to Detroit. In places like this, there is a need for transportation alternatives where you can't build new highways nor breath polluted air now and certain not in the future if it isn't addressed. Time and again I see that those who do not live in or have to deal with urban growth and suburban congestion don't understand the problem of transit, either commuter or othewise, in these areas. Open fields and forests, whether cultivated or wild, is not what there is in these urban areas. And thus the solutions to the problems are different. Even air traffic in and out of the airports as well as relative sky ways are also problematic in terms of congestion, safety, and pollution. Farebox be damned! We must find solutions for future life. Big business and free enterprise only works for their own farebox for the moment and not for the greater good of the community. Take away rail services, freight and passenger, in the East, for instance, where costs are high and returns low, and it would lead to a total collapse of the economy and huge migrations of both businesses and people. The only thing that will keep the East, or any urban growth area, alive, is a cooperative effort of governements and private enterprise. Not all governement nor all private enterprise...neither can do it alone. we've proven that since the beginning.
Does living on the C&NW North Line and using commuter trains along with public buses to commute to college and to a job near Ogilvie Center count? Does bus and later auto commuting on Detroit freeways back before the domestic auto business hit hard times count? Does living and working in metropolitan Los Angeles and New York City count? I have lived and worked in a lot of places, on both coasts and in Flyover Country, and a person should not judge what manner of life experiences I have had. I have endured commutes on urban freeways and major surface streets in congested urban areas, and yes, I have endured commuter trains. Commuter trains may be lower stress than some driving commutes, but they have forms of stress of their own and are no picnic being crammed into the long benches of a gallery car.
And where have I ever stated that Amtrak or transit trains should not be subsidized? I have suggested that subsidy money needs to be use effectively. I have suggested that if we claim congestion relief or pollution reduction or fuel savings as an advantage of trains that we should look at the numbers instead of cling to a belief that trains are automatically better. As an advocacy community we need to get our act together because the political arena is also a sphere of competition, we need to be accountable for the outcomes of our advocacy strategies including the dustup with the Wisconsin trains, and we need to stop whining and blaming our lack of success on nefarious political forces.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
henry6 Roads are clogged with traffic and being ripped up at record rates; truckers want to bring on bigger and bigger rigs; it is costly to repair and maintain roads and there really is no room to build more roads. You are mincing political phrases and clouding the issue with your statement that "the government doesn't pay for any services of infrastructure...The people as taxpayers..." If you mean the government doesn't represent the taxpayer, then in today's climate of big businesses and PAC's running the government, you may be right.
Roads are clogged with traffic and being ripped up at record rates; truckers want to bring on bigger and bigger rigs; it is costly to repair and maintain roads and there really is no room to build more roads.
You are mincing political phrases and clouding the issue with your statement that "the government doesn't pay for any services of infrastructure...The people as taxpayers..." If you mean the government doesn't represent the taxpayer, then in today's climate of big businesses and PAC's running the government, you may be right.
Well that's the thing. Maybe the optimal solution is to simply get rid of Amtrak and out of the way of congested freight lines so the intercity railroads can focus on intermodal freight, perhaps saving far more pollution and congestion by getting more trucks off the road on a per ton-mile basis than Amtrak can ever get intercity motorists off the road and into Amtrak trains on a per passenger-mile basis.
As to my mincing of words, the advocacy community is beating a dead horse. If there was broad support for trains in the way there is broad support for public money for new football stadiums, all of the PACs and corporate what-not-all would be falling over themselves to tap public money for trains.
Not only are trains failing in the farebox marketplace, they are failing in the political arena as well, and there are other causes that are much more successful politically. Advocacy people need to stop blaming "the highway lobby" and the "oil lobby" and "corporate interests" and take a hard look at our own effectiveness.
henry6 Paul, I don't know where you live now nor how familiar you are with today's suburban and urban life. Roads are clogged with traffic and being ripped up at record rates; truckers want to bring on bigger and bigger rigs; it is costly to repair and maintain roads and there really is no room to build more roads and I haven't even mentioned the air pollution and attending health and environmental problems nor the price of and use of gasoline product. A single railorad track probably costs more to build than a single lane of highway but will carry more people per hour than a six lane highway and won't introduce as much pollution to the air and consumes less fuel. Urban planners cannot condone more highway building and have suggested rail as a least expensive, most environmentally friendly using less fuel mode of transit. This is why such services have been so succussful where built. And it has not only been for commuter rail, but also longer distance regional rail services like Maine's Downeaster (which has added trains and is about to open about 25 more miles of service to Brunswick), Californias several corridors, Oregon and Washington's Portland-Seattle-Vancouver services, and Chicago's St. Louis, Milwaukee, and Detroit services in addtition to NY to Albany, to Boston and to D.C.. These are services which have been both successful and are growing! You are mincing political phrases and clouding the issue with your statement that "the government doesn't pay for any services of infrastructure...The people as taxpayers..." If you mean the government doesn't represent the taxpayer, then in today's climate of big businesses and PAC's running the government, you may be right. But the reality is that the people are the government, choose the Congress and the President and pay taxes to, in part, pay those salaries as well as projects. The Eisenhower Federal HIghway System was built with taxpayer money adminsitered by the Fedral government at the behest of Congress under the concept put forth by President Eisenhower. In 1776 the Constitution of the US was written and began being adopted by each of the 50 States as they came into the Union. The Constitution allows for the Congress to regulate interstate commerce and provide Postal Roads for the operation of the United States Post Office. Prvate turnpikes were used but eventually abandoned and states took over the maintenance and building of roads. Canals were bult both by government (NY: Erie Canal) and by private enterprise (NJ: Delaware and Raritan Canal). Railroads were private enterprise, yes, but needed support of the various states and, because of interstate commerce, the Federal government. Charters had to be issued by the states with loans and grants and guarentees, the Right of Eminent Domain had to be legally established by governments. Waterways continue to be under the stewardship of the Federal Governments Army Corps of Engineers. And when air travel came onto the scene, the Federal government spent billions of dollars on research and development for defense aircraft which were converted to commercial planes with ease; and it provided an air traffic control system, too. Municipal governments fell all over themselves to build and operate airports in order that the airplanes didn't just fly over. So, all governments in the US have had a hand in transportation from day one, private enterprise has had hand in it but it was guided and funded by public agencies and needs. Accessable and usabel transportation has helped industries and businesses flourish because employees could get to and from work easily; raw materials and parts could be transported in, and final products could be shipped out. Not because of private carriage and ownership of the rights of way but because of a partnership of private carriage and rights of way with government programs from reasearch and development of products to building and maintaining highways, waterways, and air servcies and with charters, loans, bonding, grants to private enterprise. If we didn't want this type of crossover, then the Founding Fathers should have put in in the Constitution or the Supreme Court should have outlawed it in 1800. I get a kck out of statements that government should not interfere with free enterprise, it should pull out. Yet how many laws, statutes, and court rulings would have to be abandoned and overturned to make it happen...and what would be the real results. NO! It is too late to turn back now...we've got to work with what we've got, withing the bounds of how we've achieved so much since 1776.
Paul, I don't know where you live now nor how familiar you are with today's suburban and urban life. Roads are clogged with traffic and being ripped up at record rates; truckers want to bring on bigger and bigger rigs; it is costly to repair and maintain roads and there really is no room to build more roads and I haven't even mentioned the air pollution and attending health and environmental problems nor the price of and use of gasoline product. A single railorad track probably costs more to build than a single lane of highway but will carry more people per hour than a six lane highway and won't introduce as much pollution to the air and consumes less fuel. Urban planners cannot condone more highway building and have suggested rail as a least expensive, most environmentally friendly using less fuel mode of transit. This is why such services have been so succussful where built. And it has not only been for commuter rail, but also longer distance regional rail services like Maine's Downeaster (which has added trains and is about to open about 25 more miles of service to Brunswick), Californias several corridors, Oregon and Washington's Portland-Seattle-Vancouver services, and Chicago's St. Louis, Milwaukee, and Detroit services in addtition to NY to Albany, to Boston and to D.C.. These are services which have been both successful and are growing!
You are mincing political phrases and clouding the issue with your statement that "the government doesn't pay for any services of infrastructure...The people as taxpayers..." If you mean the government doesn't represent the taxpayer, then in today's climate of big businesses and PAC's running the government, you may be right. But the reality is that the people are the government, choose the Congress and the President and pay taxes to, in part, pay those salaries as well as projects. The Eisenhower Federal HIghway System was built with taxpayer money adminsitered by the Fedral government at the behest of Congress under the concept put forth by President Eisenhower.
In 1776 the Constitution of the US was written and began being adopted by each of the 50 States as they came into the Union. The Constitution allows for the Congress to regulate interstate commerce and provide Postal Roads for the operation of the United States Post Office. Prvate turnpikes were used but eventually abandoned and states took over the maintenance and building of roads. Canals were bult both by government (NY: Erie Canal) and by private enterprise (NJ: Delaware and Raritan Canal). Railroads were private enterprise, yes, but needed support of the various states and, because of interstate commerce, the Federal government. Charters had to be issued by the states with loans and grants and guarentees, the Right of Eminent Domain had to be legally established by governments. Waterways continue to be under the stewardship of the Federal Governments Army Corps of Engineers. And when air travel came onto the scene, the Federal government spent billions of dollars on research and development for defense aircraft which were converted to commercial planes with ease; and it provided an air traffic control system, too. Municipal governments fell all over themselves to build and operate airports in order that the airplanes didn't just fly over. So, all governments in the US have had a hand in transportation from day one, private enterprise has had hand in it but it was guided and funded by public agencies and needs. Accessable and usabel transportation has helped industries and businesses flourish because employees could get to and from work easily; raw materials and parts could be transported in, and final products could be shipped out. Not because of private carriage and ownership of the rights of way but because of a partnership of private carriage and rights of way with government programs from reasearch and development of products to building and maintaining highways, waterways, and air servcies and with charters, loans, bonding, grants to private enterprise. If we didn't want this type of crossover, then the Founding Fathers should have put in in the Constitution or the Supreme Court should have outlawed it in 1800. I get a kck out of statements that government should not interfere with free enterprise, it should pull out. Yet how many laws, statutes, and court rulings would have to be abandoned and overturned to make it happen...and what would be the real results. NO! It is too late to turn back now...we've got to work with what we've got, withing the bounds of how we've achieved so much since 1776.
Those are nice sentiments, but the folks in my local bricks-and-morter advocacy group don't believe one single word of it.
How do I know this? When the Governor of Wisconsin, the WisDOT Secretary of Transportation, and the Mayor of Madison stood shoulder to shoulder to announce the plan in early 2010 to build the ARRA-funded Madison, WI train station in the Madison Downtown instead of by Dane County Regional Airport, the membership of said advocacy group went ballistic.
I gently in e-mails suggested that our group should put our gripe about the train station aside because I could see the storm clouds brewing for the 2010 election. I suggested that the most important thing was for the group to exercise political solidarity with the political leaders who were for trains and to "close ranks" in my words.
I also suggested that Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewitz wanted the train station downtown and his fellow Democrats at the State of Wisconsin level stood with him because if the train was supposed to be about not just an alternative mode of transportation but about downtown condos and density and unrolling the last 50-100 years of automotive sprawl, Mayor Dave was right and the station ought to be Downtown.
The past president of our advocacy group replied in e-mail, metaphorically looking down at his feet and scuffing his shoe soles on the pavement, "Well that density thing is fine and good, but I kind of like my house where it is and I need to drive to the train station, and the Downtown location is congested and won't have enough parking." Our then president sent out an e-mail, "Looks as if Sun Prairie (an exurban locale to Madison) will get the station that Brookfield (a very right-wing affluent Milwaukee suburb) doesn't want. Our people could probably use Sun Prairie station to park their car and use the train."
Yeah, we have folks travelling to a Midwest High-speed Rail Association meeting featuring the potty-mouthed James Howard Kunstler -- I checked his Web site, and I don't know what he says before public groups, but his Web site is not workplace-safe or family-safe. But for some advocacy people this business of the war on cars and war on suburbia is all feel-good -- they want to access Amtrak with park-and-ride, and the purpose of spending 810 million dollars to get train service to Madison, WI is that a handful of wealthy people with time to take long trips are put out that they have to use the motorcoach bus to get to Chicago Union Station to take the trips on Amtrak long distance trains that they enjoy.
This Web post started as a gripe against some Republican in Congress who wants to shut Amtrak down by "privatizing" it. The problem is not with the private-enterprise spouting tax-hating Republican/Conservative/Libertarian far right wing because those folks will always be reflexively against transit, trains, and public transportation options. The problem is with people in the advocacy community who did not take seriously the challenge that the 8 billion in ARRA (Stimulus) money was likely a one-shot deal and that the money had to spent in a wise and effective manner, to get the biggest impact of demonstrating to the public what trains could do and to build political momentum for trains.
Save the Sunset Limited!
Paul Milenkovic I also remember in recent times corresponding by e-mail with Randall O'Toole, who has famously opposed trains and transit spending, and who is claiming that it is the rare transit system that is replacing integer multiples of highway lanes and hence relieving traffic congestion in any meaningful way. I had e-mailed him about a recent tour of Metra I had been invited on, and how Metra serves about 300,000 passengers per day, and taking into account the round-trip nature of the commute, serves to bring 150,000 workers to their jobs in the heart of Chicago. I also allowed that maybe his capacity of highway estimates and comparisons with transit ridership were off, and that Metra was subsituting for as many as 30 Expressway lanes into the Chicago downtown -- in each direction. Mr. O'Toole was gracious enough to reply to my e-mail, and maybe he didn't "play fair" and respond directly to my critique of his critique of the putative congestion-relieving properties of transit, or by admitting that Chicago with its Metra may be a special case where commuter rail is a big part of the work travel-to-job picture. His response was interesting, however. He suggested to me that over some period of time Metra was supporting 150,000 jobs in the Chicago downtown by providing rides, 600,000 jobs were added to "Chicago" in the form of suburban auto commutes to suburban jobs.
I also remember in recent times corresponding by e-mail with Randall O'Toole, who has famously opposed trains and transit spending, and who is claiming that it is the rare transit system that is replacing integer multiples of highway lanes and hence relieving traffic congestion in any meaningful way.
I had e-mailed him about a recent tour of Metra I had been invited on, and how Metra serves about 300,000 passengers per day, and taking into account the round-trip nature of the commute, serves to bring 150,000 workers to their jobs in the heart of Chicago. I also allowed that maybe his capacity of highway estimates and comparisons with transit ridership were off, and that Metra was subsituting for as many as 30 Expressway lanes into the Chicago downtown -- in each direction.
Mr. O'Toole was gracious enough to reply to my e-mail, and maybe he didn't "play fair" and respond directly to my critique of his critique of the putative congestion-relieving properties of transit, or by admitting that Chicago with its Metra may be a special case where commuter rail is a big part of the work travel-to-job picture. His response was interesting, however. He suggested to me that over some period of time Metra was supporting 150,000 jobs in the Chicago downtown by providing rides, 600,000 jobs were added to "Chicago" in the form of suburban auto commutes to suburban jobs.
First thought is that it may be a lot cheaper to build the roads in the suburbs than in the heart of Chicago. Second thought is that many of the Chicago employers (both public and private) are benefiting by not having to provide parking for the employees.
Now for my two data points worth. Taking the train to work has not been an option for me in the 22 years that I've been working for the same company (which has had 5 different owners in that time), though for two years I could have driven 25 to 30 minutes to get to Oceanside, to catch the Coaster for a 30 minute ride, when it took 35 to 40 minutes to drive directly to work. The office has been moved twice since then, each further away from the SDNRR line, so I've been doing the suburban to suburban commute despite my moving much closer to Coaster lne. The Coaster was useful for jury duty in downtown SD, where the court saved money by NOT providing parking for jurors.
Taking the train to work will very likely become an option in a few months as the San Diego office is slated to move in with the newly acquired Orange County office, with the company seriously considering a location close to the Irvine Amtrak/Metrolink station. The trip via train will probably take a few minutes longer than by car, but is likely to be a lot less stressful and I probably will be able to do some e-mail on board. BTW, this will be on the Pacific Surfliner.
- Erik
henry6 What would be nice is for governments to understand that while they have to pay for some services and infrastructures they should no micormanage but leave it to experts but with a knowledgable overseer at hand. From school boards on up the chain.
What would be nice is for governments to understand that while they have to pay for some services and infrastructures they should no micormanage but leave it to experts but with a knowledgable overseer at hand. From school boards on up the chain.
The last statement has me perplexed. Government doesn't pay for any services of infrastructure. The people as taxpayers and ratepayers and purchasers of services do. At some level there is not such thing as "government", there is only Henry6 or whoever uses that "handle" and Paul Milenkovic, which is how I am legally identified, and Sam1, and so on. You, and me, and you, and you pay for those services and infrastructure.
The thing where I agree is that no, we are not in a pure free-market economy and yes, some things are decided by markets and other things are decided that votes resulting in the levy and distribution of tax revenues. But just because something is not decided by a market process but by a political process does not mean that the political process is going to break your way, that is, more public transportation and more trains.
In other words, the political process is another kind of market, but instead of a market in exchange of money for goods and services, it is a market for ideas. But then we have some people saying, "Oh yeah, you are against subsidies for trains, I suppose you are against government spending for expeditionary wars, against government spending for police, and so on."
That repeated argument really needs to be retired. If you take something, say, funding of trains out of the pure market and into the political realm, that trains live and die by their politics. That other people don't share the belief that trains have such intrinsic goodness doesn't mean that there are some dark, dark political forces to fight. It might mean that trains cannot compete in the private market, and they are also having difficulty competing in the political market. Part of democracy is accepting that the political system may diverge from one's personal system of beliefs.
Two data points. In the late 1970's, I had the opportunity of working a summer job as a computer programmer for a Fortune 500 company located in proximity to Northwestern Station (now Ogilvie Center) in Chicago. I remember paying something like $40/month to ride the then C&NW commuter train in the pre-Metra subsidy days. I remember being paid $600/month, and I kinda remember after paying for my commute pass and the Federal FICA and income tax burden on that level of pay, of maybe taking home about 60 percent of that to apply to my living expenses and the cost of going to college at that time. Maybe the big bite out of that paycheck when I wasn't making all that much at a skilled technology job influenced my political beliefs in a Conservative direction and towards skepticism of government subsidies and government-is-the-solution.
I am also thinking I was offered about twice that level of pay to work as an engineer in the Detroit area after graduation. I am also thinking that the starting salary of a BSEE in industry today is about 5 times that amount.
So tell me, I don't know how much certain things cost. Does a monthly Metra commute pass run about $200/year? If it does and Metra receives subsidy that C&NW did not receive, that suggests that the costs have grown much more than inflation. Is a monthly Metra pass (on average, I realize it varies with destination) run less? That suggests that commuters could pony up the money -- I considered it worth it to pay $40/month to get to a $600/month skilled technical job.
I have ridden to Chicago with friends recently as part of my model train hobby to attend various model train shows and swap meets, and "Chicago" these days is this vast exurban sprawl covering much of Northeastern Illinois, so maybe when Randall O'Toole claims that the Chicago Downtown and by extension Metra has become economically irrelevant, maybe he is on to something, bless his black-little-heart. Maybe we can put the genie back in the bottle and wind back the sprawl and the destruction of farmland and return to denser living arrangements. But currently, transit and whatever large amount of sales tax they pay in Illinois to support transit is largely an irrelevancy with respect to supporting jobs and all of the miriad of externalities that justify transit subsidies.
Yeah, trains rule and rubber-tire modes drool, but maybe a person should look into the reality "on the ground" rather than wishing it were otherwise. In many respects, trains are a solution in search of a problem?
Japan also had the advantage of having recently been obliterated in a major war. Having a free hand to build where you please helps.
With the government when all is said and done much more will be said than done.
Japan's railroads are mostly 3' 6" gauge. No standard gauge (4' 8-1/2") lines were in existence.
BaltACD The Japanese began their discussions on construction of the Tōkaidō Shinkansen line in 1940 and began construction of the line in 1959 and began it's operation in 1964...a mere 24 years with a 'slight interruption' for WW II and it's aftermath. In the US we have yet to turn the first shovel of dirt or even let the first contract for ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION of ANY HSR line - 48 years after the Tōkaidō Shinkansen began operation...
The Japanese began their discussions on construction of the Tōkaidō Shinkansen line in 1940 and began construction of the line in 1959 and began it's operation in 1964...a mere 24 years with a 'slight interruption' for WW II and it's aftermath. In the US we have yet to turn the first shovel of dirt or even let the first contract for ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION of ANY HSR line - 48 years after the Tōkaidō Shinkansen began operation...
When Japan decided to build the Shinkansen line from scratch, was there a standard gauge line available they could have used instead? I understand much of the island rails were 3'6" narrow gauge.
BaltACD Problem is - in the NEC there is no land that is cheap.
Problem is - in the NEC there is no land that is cheap.
And the reason is because of the value and success of PRR and B&O railroads and properties from NYC to D.C.!
Land in Germany and France isn't cheap, either. The French built totally new routes; the Germans mostly use existing routes, with a few new ones, and connect into major cities over existing trackage. But even there, they can run a pretty good clips.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD The Acela project is a matter of putting high speed train sets on railroad that was designed as a mid 19th Century freight railroad. Yes, up grades have been made, however, the basic line and resulting restrictions that were designed in the 1850's remain - Baltimore with it's curvature and tunnels, the various bridge restrictions over the multiple waterways the lines cross. While most of the line has been upgraded to 125 MPH running there is only 10 miles or so in Rhode Island where 150 MPH running is permitted. This is better than nothing - but not that much. When we can get to the point of having Washington to Boston trip times in the neighborhood of 4 1/2 hours for the approximately 450 mile trip, we will be on the cusp of attaining HSR - when that run time is in the neighborhood of 3 hours we will have attained HSR. Neither of these goals will be attained within my remaining lifetime they will be talked to death.
The Acela project is a matter of putting high speed train sets on railroad that was designed as a mid 19th Century freight railroad. Yes, up grades have been made, however, the basic line and resulting restrictions that were designed in the 1850's remain - Baltimore with it's curvature and tunnels, the various bridge restrictions over the multiple waterways the lines cross. While most of the line has been upgraded to 125 MPH running there is only 10 miles or so in Rhode Island where 150 MPH running is permitted.
This is better than nothing - but not that much. When we can get to the point of having Washington to Boston trip times in the neighborhood of 4 1/2 hours for the approximately 450 mile trip, we will be on the cusp of attaining HSR - when that run time is in the neighborhood of 3 hours we will have attained HSR.
Neither of these goals will be attained within my remaining lifetime they will be talked to death.
If we follow the French/German model, we keep the expensive to build terminal area track and build cheaper to design and build high speed links out in the countryside, where land is cheap in areas where the existing track is slow - and existing capacity is tight. Most bang for your HSR buck that way.
Amtrak has outlined a mucho dinero plan to do some of this. Badly needed is route from Shell to New Haven (or east of New Haven). Hang some new catenary and patch up the rest of the NEC to the south and you'd have "pretty good".
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
BaltACD The Japanese began their discussions on construction of the Tōkaidō Shinkansen line in 1940 and began construction of the line in 1959 and began it's operation in 1964...a mere 24 years with a 'slight interruption' for WW II and it's aftermath. In the US we have yet to turn the first shovel of dirt or even let the first contract for ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION of ANY HSR line - 48 years after the Tōkaidō Shinkansen began operation. You can characterize what is and has been taking place as anything you want. I gauge anything other than hard construction as posturing, because you can do all the talking you want - there are no results than can be touched and/or ridden.
The Japanese began their discussions on construction of the Tōkaidō Shinkansen line in 1940 and began construction of the line in 1959 and began it's operation in 1964...a mere 24 years with a 'slight interruption' for WW II and it's aftermath. In the US we have yet to turn the first shovel of dirt or even let the first contract for ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION of ANY HSR line - 48 years after the Tōkaidō Shinkansen began operation. You can characterize what is and has been taking place as anything you want. I gauge anything other than hard construction as posturing, because you can do all the talking you want - there are no results than can be touched and/or ridden.
I take strenous exception to everything you are saying.
We have the Northeast Corridor, which had gone through three phases of upgrade. The first was the pre-Amtrak Pell Plan or Northeast Corridor Demonstration Project, where the Federal government performed some engineering studies and funded the construction of the TurboTrain and the Metroliner MU cars. The second phase was Amtrak taking over the NEC in the aftermath of the Penn Central bankruptcy along with that of other major Northeast railroads, where the freight operations went to ConRail and the NEC became essentially a passenger intercity railroad line owned and operated by Amtrak. The third phase was the Acela project involving the purchase of the Acela train sets and the full electrification out to Boston. Perhaps a fourth phase is to integrate the old Pennsy electrification out to Scranton, PA or wherever, maybe the Empire Corridor, and perhaps service to Richmond, VA into a kind of extended NEC rail network.
In other words, we have preserved as well as extended a passenger rail service in the most densely populated and urbanized section of the U.S. to the point where it is a serious competitor for market share with airlines over some route segments. It is not HSR as they have in Japan and other places, but it is a functioning passenger network with at least hourly departures, and it has undergone steady improvement over time.
As part of the ARRA "Stimulus Bill", about 8 billion dollars was allocated to capital improvements in trains. A lot of people regarded this as just seed money or just a start of more-to-come. My political instincts regarding the political realities was then and still is that Amtrak and its supporters in the advocacy community had to maximize the bang-for-the-buck of the 8 billion as the political window that had enabled the 8 billion would soon shut as part of back and forth between political factions and elections.
But 8 billion dollars is a lot of money to many people, and if you think that 8 billion spent on the next round of improvements to passenger rail is "mere posturing" because people won't do what you want and loosen the purse strings to build full-fledged HSR lines, well, it is a free country and you are entitled to your opinions. I am just saying that what you call "posturing" can and will advance the cause of passenger rail because what Amtrak should do with the limited amount of money coming its way is an important matter, not something to be brushed aside because the money is not on the scale that you have deemed to matter.
BaltACD ..... In the US we have yet to turn the first shovel of dirt or even let the first contract for ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION of ANY HSR line - 48 years after the Tōkaidō Shinkansen began operation. . Today, he is still talking about going racing. I have been racing for the past 24 years. Posturing vs. real action. Apologist can always justify more talk.
..... In the US we have yet to turn the first shovel of dirt or even let the first contract for ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION of ANY HSR line - 48 years after the Tōkaidō Shinkansen began operation. . Today, he is still talking about going racing. I have been racing for the past 24 years. Posturing vs. real action. Apologist can always justify more talk.
We don't progress in America nor turn a shovel of dirt; we mass debate and throw mud.
If all the caveats and questions about HSR had been implemented on the building of the B&O beginning in 1827 - we would still be waiting for the laying of the first stone. The only thing the anti-HSR proponents have to do is keep on talking - so long as there is talking there is no action. As long as there is no action it is all posturing.
25 years ago my roommate at the time and I had the idea that we wanted to go sports car racing. Today, he is still talking about going racing. I have been racing for the past 24 years. Posturing vs. real action. Apologist can always justify more talk.
Paul Milenkovic BaltACD: So the consensus of all this back and forth posturing is Everybody pays for everything and nobody pays for nothing! If anybody or anything had a viable idea and the resources to pull it off to make rail passenger service in the US a profit producing entity - it would have already been done. As a research engineer by profession, I take exception to the blanket characterization of my opinions or the opinions of others on this forum as posturing.
BaltACD: So the consensus of all this back and forth posturing is Everybody pays for everything and nobody pays for nothing! If anybody or anything had a viable idea and the resources to pull it off to make rail passenger service in the US a profit producing entity - it would have already been done.
So the consensus of all this back and forth posturing is
Everybody pays for everything and nobody pays for nothing!
If anybody or anything had a viable idea and the resources to pull it off to make rail passenger service in the US a profit producing entity - it would have already been done.
As a research engineer by profession, I take exception to the blanket characterization of my opinions or the opinions of others on this forum as posturing.
henry6 So, Sam1, are you saying you see my point and may even agree with me that it is a question that we must agree on in order to find agreement of how to tackle the future of transportation in our country?
So, Sam1, are you saying you see my point and may even agree with me that it is a question that we must agree on in order to find agreement of how to tackle the future of transportation in our country?
A little bit!
The United States has a transport framework. Otherwise, how did we get to where we are now, which for all of its flaws is a transport system that works pretty well. And one that appears to reflect the wishes of the people. Having said that, the system can and should be tweaked from time to time as circumstances dictate.
If one believes that Washington or Austin bureaucrats know more about planting cotton on the high plains of Texas than the cotton farmers, then they are inclined to favor highly centralized, top down centralized planning. On the other hand, if like me they believe that the high plains cotton farmers know more about planting the cotton, then the role of the central planners should be to develop a framework to help bring about better cotton yields. But they should not attempt to micromanage the outcomes because every time they do so they mess it up.
Sam1 henry6: If a business can operate or a town can exist because there is a train seat to the factory or in and out of town and they benefit by the rider coming into town, then the final value is not in the cost of the ticket paid by the rider but at the point of benefit to the business or municipality. Which is impossible to calculate! And is an argument used by those who want a service that the users cannot or will not pay for.
henry6: If a business can operate or a town can exist because there is a train seat to the factory or in and out of town and they benefit by the rider coming into town, then the final value is not in the cost of the ticket paid by the rider but at the point of benefit to the business or municipality. Which is impossible to calculate! And is an argument used by those who want a service that the users cannot or will not pay for.
If a business can operate or a town can exist because there is a train seat to the factory or in and out of town and they benefit by the rider coming into town, then the final value is not in the cost of the ticket paid by the rider but at the point of benefit to the business or municipality. Which is impossible to calculate! And is an argument used by those who want a service that the users cannot or will not pay for.
A datum that is perhaps more appriate to commuter rail than LD passenger rail:
The county courthouse in downtown San Diego does not provide parking for jurors even though they are required by law to show up for jury duty. The court does recommend use of public transit for travel to/from the court (and it is convenient for both the "Trolley" and the Coaster). I would argue that the court benefits from not having to provide parking space for jurors and thus should contribute to operating costs of the various public transit agencies.
henry6 But priced properly for who and by who? If the rider is not the main beneficiary of the service, what is his share compared to a town that wouldn't exist if there were no riders or businesses who benefit because employees can use rail or bus to commute to and from work...(benefit to business: not have to maintain huge parking lots which are taxed; commuters can get to and from place of employment with little or no hassel from service with integrety and reliablity. Towns benefit because they don't need to take property off tax roles for parking spaces and the attended need for patroling; retailers and other besinesses benefit by customers using public transportation, etc.). Again, where do we draw the line where there is a cash benefit...to the rider, to the business or manufacturing facility, or to the municipallit(ies?) which it serves. We are so far along, admittedly, that this is an answer which is unfathomable to most people, and may be more rhetorical than anything. Maybe what I am saying is that we've got to attach values and not just costs to public transportation.
But priced properly for who and by who? If the rider is not the main beneficiary of the service, what is his share compared to a town that wouldn't exist if there were no riders or businesses who benefit because employees can use rail or bus to commute to and from work...(benefit to business: not have to maintain huge parking lots which are taxed; commuters can get to and from place of employment with little or no hassel from service with integrety and reliablity. Towns benefit because they don't need to take property off tax roles for parking spaces and the attended need for patroling; retailers and other besinesses benefit by customers using public transportation, etc.). Again, where do we draw the line where there is a cash benefit...to the rider, to the business or manufacturing facility, or to the municipallit(ies?) which it serves. We are so far along, admittedly, that this is an answer which is unfathomable to most people, and may be more rhetorical than anything. Maybe what I am saying is that we've got to attach values and not just costs to public transportation.
The rider in the case of public transport or the motorists in the case of the highways totes the full note. If public transit adds value for the community or a business or whatever, they can help defer the cost of the note with voucher subsidies. That is exactly what my corporate employer did. It bought bus and train passes from Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and sold them to employees at a discount because it believed it was in the interest of the business to do so. I was one of seven managers out of more than 750 who rode public transit.
However, neither my employer or most riders had any idea of what the service really cost. And therein lies the problem. Because no one fully understands the cost, i.e. it is not reflected at the price point, all sorts of bad decisions were made about its construction and operation. And the drum beat goes on, unfortunately, and always will as long as people mask the cost of goods, services, government, etc.
henry6 If a business can operate or a town can exist because there is a train seat to the factory or in and out of town and they benefit by the rider coming into town, then the final value is not in the cost of the ticket paid by the rider but at the point of benefit to the business or municipality. Which is impossible to calculate! And is an argument used by those who want a service that the users cannot or will not pay for. As for more government or socialism, it is too late to argue that because it has been going on in transportation since th Post Roads were deemed important by our Founding Fathers and part of our practice of government since. Most of the early transport infrastructure was supported in part by a government, although not always the federal government, with the expectation that the users would pay for it. But not all of it. Many of the early toll roads and bridges in Texas at least were built by private interests that hoped to earn a return on their investment. And in most instances they have. The one glaring exception is passenger rail since the private carriers gave up on it. This is true for public transit as well as intercity rail. I and not saying that government should not be involved nor am I saying that it should not help people use it if it is in the national interest. I am saying, however, that it should be priced properly.
As for more government or socialism, it is too late to argue that because it has been going on in transportation since th Post Roads were deemed important by our Founding Fathers and part of our practice of government since.
Most of the early transport infrastructure was supported in part by a government, although not always the federal government, with the expectation that the users would pay for it. But not all of it. Many of the early toll roads and bridges in Texas at least were built by private interests that hoped to earn a return on their investment. And in most instances they have.
The one glaring exception is passenger rail since the private carriers gave up on it. This is true for public transit as well as intercity rail. I and not saying that government should not be involved nor am I saying that it should not help people use it if it is in the national interest. I am saying, however, that it should be priced properly.
I am saying that the guy who rides the train may not be the sole benificiary of the ride....that businesses and towns may actually benefit as much or more. If a business can operate or a town can exist because there is a train seat to the factory or in and out of town and they benefit by the rider coming into town, then the final value is not in the cost of the ticket paid by the rider but at the point of benefit to the business or municipality. As for more government or socialism, it is too late to argue that because it has been going on in transportation since th Post Roads were deemed important by our Founding Fathers and part of our practice of government since.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.