BaltACD The biggest project begins with the first dollar and first shovel of earth moved.
The biggest project begins with the first dollar and first shovel of earth moved.
I agree with the second half of that statement, but not the first. It seems like the first dollar gets spent on nothing but really expensive feasibility studies. NIMBYism seems to be so widespread that nothing seems feasible anymore.
One need only look to Denver's FASTracks project to realize that a lot of money can be spent doing virtually nothing.
-ChrisWest Chicago, ILChristopher May Fine Art Photography"In wisdom gathered over time I have found that every experience is a form of exploration." ~Ansel Adams
The standing president is only part of the picture. Congress writes the spending bills. Blame them or praise them as you will.
John Timm
CopCarSS BaltACD The biggest project begins with the first dollar and first shovel of earth moved. I agree with the second half of that statement, but not the first. It seems like the first dollar gets spent on nothing but really expensive feasibility studies. NIMBYism seems to be so widespread that nothing seems feasible anymore. One need only look to Denver's FASTracks project to realize that a lot of money can be spent doing virtually nothing.
Does one wonder why creditors in a bankruptcy receive so little of their claims. Look at the fees paid to the law firm handling the bankruptcy....the lawyers get 1st cut at any assets of the bankrupt firm to settle their fees.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Bucyrus Generally rail is considered green, but generally high speed is considered not green. So HSR presents somewhat of a built-in conflict.
Generally rail is considered green, but generally high speed is considered not green. So HSR presents somewhat of a built-in conflict.
As posed earlier, does it HAVE to be a Bullet Train or MagLev? If you improve speeds to do 110 or higher, it wouldn't take THAT much more infrastructure, would it? Didn't steam engine passenger trains routinely do 100+? I was thinking the Casey Jones saga involved speeds that we don't approach any longer.
DennisHeld As posed earlier, does it HAVE to be a Bullet Train or MagLev? If you improve speeds to do 110 or higher, it wouldn't take THAT much more infrastructure, would it? Didn't steam engine passenger trains routinely do 100+? I was thinking the Casey Jones saga involved speeds that we don't approach any longer.
The necessary infrastructure to operate passenger at 110 on a nice, flat, straight line like the former Alton, provided there are no freight trains out there, consists of:
Assuming no freight trains and a line that was at Class 4 to begin with, and no really bad subgrade issues or a lot of poor rail, and not a lot of grade crossings, you might be able to do this for about $250-$500K per mile before you run your first train. If there are a handful of freight trains out there, $1mm per mile might be required. If there are 40-50 freight trains a day out there, $3-6 million per mile might be more like it because now you will need a whole new main track. This is assuming we're talking about the Alton, which is straight, flat, and in open country, and we are not trying to run 110 mph through Springfield and Bloomington. In heavy urban territory or mountainous terrain, the 110-mph passenger line in a busy freight corridor starts shooting up to $50 million per mile.
Casey Jones and his ilk ran trains at 100+ mph when labor was very cheap and life was very cheap. A literal army of men maintained the track surface and line, and when people got killed, their families were paid out for maybe $600 per life. Assuming they weren't a newly arrived immigrant, black, child, or female. And, sustained 100+ mph runs were few and far between.
RWM
CopCarSSBaltACD The biggest project begins with the first dollar and first shovel of earth moved. I agree with the second half of that statement, but not the first. It seems like the first dollar gets spent on nothing but really expensive feasibility studies. NIMBYism seems to be so widespread that nothing seems feasible anymore. One need only look to Denver's FASTracks project to realize that a lot of money can be spent doing virtually nothing.
Complex projects need complex plans.
At $200/hour, one person rings up $8,000 a week. Four people working for four weeks rings up to $100,000 not including any travel expense, which is easily $500 a day with air fare thrown in. A $100,000 feasibility study seems like a lot of money, but it buys you very little work time. $200 an hour might seem like a lot, but the actual hourly is more like $65, and the rest overhead for dealing with the other 8 work hours of the day that aren't billable. The average senior consulting engineer, operations analyst, or rail expert is working 80-100 hours a week and getting paid for 40.
Think of it this way -- how confident are you in a $1 billion construction project that is based entirely on a $100,000 plan? For every $1 of construction, you have just spent 1/100th of a cent thinking about what it is you're going to build, what it's going to affect, and what it's going to accomplish. That doesn't make me fill me with confidence.
I agree that public involvement has really jacked up the costs. But what's our alternative? Elect someone king? If we exiled everyone who disagreed with anything, this would be a 100% empty country. Until the public decides that its private property rights don't much matter any more, or we all become renters and there's only one property owner left (who we call "Mr. King"), there's not much of an out. In my very uninformed opinion environmental permitting has gone off the deep end of the ridiculous, but a majority of the public wants that to happen, too. They get what they ask for.
Union Pacific announced late last year that the number of freight trains running on their line through Springfield would increase from an average of 5 to 15 per day. It's unclear if the increase will come solely from rerouted traffic/new business* on the East St. Louis - Joliet Line or in combination with rerouted traffic to the Peoria Subdivision/IMRR trackage rights/Springfield Subdivision routing. Whatever the case, it will most certainly mean triple the number of freight trains south of Ridgley.
*Global 4 is under construction near Logistics Park, and will apparently have access to both the UP line to St. Louis and also BNSF's Chillicothe Sub. Also, United States Cold Storage is nearing completion of a large freezer plant near Wilmington. I can't imagine these generating enough traffic for ten additional trains, so existing business will have toshift to this line.
Has there been an increase in traffic on the line yet? I was at Ridgely last year and there was only the 5 or so freights daily, plus the Amtrakers. It seems the line should have some strategic value, particularly with the new Logistics Park.
What would really work well for UP would be to gather trackage rights on the NS from KC to Springfield and run some of the stack trains out of Southern California on this line. Well, at least it looks good on my 36 x 48 wall map.
Also, not exactly sure how much intermodal is currently run on the ex CEI line south from Chicago to Texas, but that could be transfered over.
ed
DennisHeldPoppa_Zit Illinois better hope Dickie Durbin can deliver I know better than to get into a spitting match on a rail forum on a political topic with someone who has to use demeaning names for people. I'm surprised you didn't call Sen Reid 'Dingy Harry'. I wasn't disrespectful of either Rush or Pres. Bush. I don't expect the LA to Las Vegas line to get any funding from the stimulus package. I suspect the Republican in charge will send it elsewhere. (that would be Sec of Transp. LaHood). I'd expect the bulk of funding to go to the existing high speed rail corridors
Poppa_Zit Illinois better hope Dickie Durbin can deliver
I don't expect the LA to Las Vegas line to get any funding from the stimulus package. I suspect the Republican in charge will send it elsewhere. (that would be Sec of Transp. LaHood). I'd expect the bulk of funding to go to the existing high speed rail corridors
Strong comeback, there. "Dickie Durbin" is hardly demeaning.
But then, it's OK for you to disrespect me by claiming "At least I don't parrot Rush" in your response to me.
selector A caution, please....no political discussions.
A caution, please....no political discussions.
How is it possible to discuss $8 billion in railroad spending that was so hotly contested without mentioning politics? This is a stand-alone discussion on that expenditure, which is wrapped in politics. I thought Bergie said the "No Political Discussions" fiat was to prevent verbal wars on political issues not related to railroads.
Railway Man Complex projects need complex plans. At $200/hour, one person rings up $8,000 a week. Four people working for four weeks rings up to $100,000 not including any travel expense, which is easily $500 a day with air fare thrown in. A $100,000 feasibility study seems like a lot of money, but it buys you very little work time. $200 an hour might seem like a lot, but the actual hourly is more like $65, and the rest overhead for dealing with the other 8 work hours of the day that aren't billable. The average senior consulting engineer, operations analyst, or rail expert is working 80-100 hours a week and getting paid for 40. Think of it this way -- how confident are you in a $1 billion construction project that is based entirely on a $100,000 plan? For every $1 of construction, you have just spent 1/100th of a cent thinking about what it is you're going to build, what it's going to affect, and what it's going to accomplish. That doesn't make me fill me with confidence. I agree that public involvement has really jacked up the costs. But what's our alternative? Elect someone king? If we exiled everyone who disagreed with anything, this would be a 100% empty country. Until the public decides that its private property rights don't much matter any more, or we all become renters and there's only one property owner left (who we call "Mr. King"), there's not much of an out. In my very uninformed opinion environmental permitting has gone off the deep end of the ridiculous, but a majority of the public wants that to happen, too. They get what they ask for. RWM
Oh no...I'm not arguing the need for quality engineering at all. I realize that's expensive. I was referring more about the escalation of costs based on public input especially in regards to environmental studies and permitting and NIMBYism. Why anyone would try to build anything in the political atmosphere right now is beyond me. But, as you said, the public gets what they ask for.
Not to my knowledge - UP's late 2008 announcement suggested some urgency, but no timeline. Only the alternate-day MASBN/MBNAS, daily MNLDM/MDMAS, seasonal grain extras, occasional potash trains for Mid-State Warehouse, coal trains (fewer now that coal trains for AmerenCILCO's Duck Creek station, handed off to the KJRY at Sommer [near Peoria], are not running now) and also the local that works south from Bloomington, operate through Springfield.
I figure that will be a reason for the traffic increase.
CopCarSSOh no...I'm not arguing the need for quality engineering at all. I realize that's expensive. I was referring more about the escalation of costs based on public input especially in regards to environmental studies and permitting and NIMBYism. Why anyone would try to build anything in the political atmosphere right now is beyond me. But, as you said, the public gets what they ask for.
But you have to know what you're going to engineer. That's what the studies determine. Just saying "we want a commuter rail line between X and Y, go build it," isn't nearly enough. How many people do you want to move? How fast? Where do they get on and off? At what construction cost? At what disruption to neighborhoods and backyards and roadways? This stuff is not very easy to figure out. I participate in a lot of these studies, and most of them make my head spin because the questions are difficult to answer and the tradeoffs very hard to calculate.
Now the permitting, that's a different game. That's the one that makes me unhappy.
Poppa_ZitHow is it possible to discuss $8 billion in railroad spending that was so hotly contested without mentioning politics? This is a stand-alone discussion on that expenditure, which is wrapped in politics. I thought Bergie said the "No Political Discussions" fiat was to prevent verbal wars on political issues not related to railroads.
I try to keep it to the effects of politics on railways, not whether the politics themselves are right or wrong. In other words, if someone says, "Premise: the Government is going to spend $8 billion. Question: Should it be on high-speed rail or highways?" I see debating the question as fair game. Backing up and discussing the premise, if the government should spend any money whatsoever, to me has nothing directly to do with railways. That's purely a political question. In other words, I'm not going to discuss here whether we should have a stimulus bill.
Railway Man Poppa_Zit How is it possible to discuss $8 billion in railroad spending that was so hotly contested without mentioning politics? This is a stand-alone discussion on that expenditure, which is wrapped in politics. I thought Bergie said the "No Political Discussions" fiat was to prevent verbal wars on political issues not related to railroads. I try to keep it to the effects of politics on railways, not whether the politics themselves are right or wrong. In other words, if someone says, "Premise: the Government is going to spend $8 billion. Question: Should it be on high-speed rail or highways?" I see debating the question as fair game. Backing up and discussing the premise, if the government should spend any money whatsoever, to me has nothing directly to do with railways. That's purely a political question. In other words, I'm not going to discuss here whether we should have a stimulus bill. RWM
Poppa_Zit How is it possible to discuss $8 billion in railroad spending that was so hotly contested without mentioning politics? This is a stand-alone discussion on that expenditure, which is wrapped in politics. I thought Bergie said the "No Political Discussions" fiat was to prevent verbal wars on political issues not related to railroads.
What about discussing whether politics are right or wrong if the effects of politics on railroads are right or wrong? For instance when the stimulus benefits rail by building new systems, but hurts the rail industry by raising taxes and slowing down the economy.
BucyrusRailway Man Poppa_Zit How is it possible to discuss $8 billion in railroad spending that was so hotly contested without mentioning politics? This is a stand-alone discussion on that expenditure, which is wrapped in politics. I thought Bergie said the "No Political Discussions" fiat was to prevent verbal wars on political issues not related to railroads. I try to keep it to the effects of politics on railways, not whether the politics themselves are right or wrong. In other words, if someone says, "Premise: the Government is going to spend $8 billion. Question: Should it be on high-speed rail or highways?" I see debating the question as fair game. Backing up and discussing the premise, if the government should spend any money whatsoever, to me has nothing directly to do with railways. That's purely a political question. In other words, I'm not going to discuss here whether we should have a stimulus bill. RWM What about discussing whether politics are right or wrong if the effects of politics on railroads are right or wrong? For instance when the stimulus benefits rail by building new systems, but hurts the rail industry by raising taxes and slowing down the economy.
Sure -- a statement such as, "Policy X will hurt railways." Or, "Policy X will hurt traffic on the railways." Those are effects statements. Where I think we get into trouble is when we back up and say "Policy X is bad for the country." Then, we're going from the specific (railways) to the general (the country).
I don't know if this will be useful here as an example, but I go to a lot of railway, shipper, government, and supplier conferences, where there's a mixture of people there who have political views all over the spectrum, including people who I know are righter-wing than Mussolini and others who are lefter-wing than Ken Livingston. We're all scrupulous about staying out of politics and keeping the discussions to railways and the affects of politics on railways, and not making catty comments about this or that politician, because that way we can get something done and remain friends and colleagues. And when people do slip and make a snide comment about some politician or liberals or conservatives or whatever, we try to be good about it and let it go. There's no percentage in talking about politics, because politics is fundamentally ideology, and ideology is personal preference, and our goal is to talk about railways. I was at one yesterday where five of us representing shippers, railways, a state DOT, and consultants got into a discussion after the meeting about regulation, and I know for a fact that two of the people there donated $$ to Obama and two of them donated $$ to McCain, and we all parted friends, even though we had fairly different politics.
What can be the results
One thing not mentioned very often is the effect of incremental improvements and the results thereof. The examples I will cite (probably others) are NCDOT and California. Both of these examples show as the transit times are reduced and service increased then ridership increases. Now the devil is in the details. Somehow a very complicated algorhythm has to be devised to give projections. Items: population density, population naturally going to rail during different economic times( fewer cars, finances, gas prices, etc); what past incremental improvements have done, supplemental transportation interfaces, special passenger draws (colleges, sports venues, airports, etc), projected future parking at origins and destinations, present on time operation percentages, predicted future on time,, effects of major improvement slow orders (ie telling passengers that there will be planned delays for a certain time like what has been done lately). One example of the on time factor is the example of the recovery in traffic of the Missouri Flyers. The AMTRAK figures for January are a good example.
The above is on the results side. As Paul and RWM points out the implementation side has many problems. By improving several routes simultaneously the results can predict where the most bang for the buck will occur. Until the traffic results from the present improvements of CHI - STL then how can we say it is either a waste or a good investment.
When the state and federal governments invested in canals and railroads during the early days of the Republic, they expected the operators would be able to cover the cost of the investments through user rates. For the most part they did, i.e. the B&O was a profitable railroad for more than a century.
Unfortunately, no passenger train in the U.S. covers its fully attributed costs. In fact, with the exception of the NEC, plus three state supported and other short distance trains, none of them covered their operating costs in FY 2008.
Those who supported the SST and Super Collider, amongst other projects, claimed that the folks who opposed them lacked vision. It's a matter of perspective. The SST, which was operated only by British Airways and Air France, never made a dime. In fact, they were a heavy drain on both airlines. And even the spendthrift U.S. Congress finally realized that the Super Collider was a bottomless money pit.
If the proponents of high speed rail, which admittedly has many definitions, really believe that they are visionaries, they would find a way to fund it with private capital. Of course, to attract private capital, they would have to show the investors that there is a reasonable chance of making money on their investments. But they can't. So they take a tin cup to the federal government and claim that transportation Armageddon is just around the corner unless the U.S. builds high speed rail.
Concorde was written off by HMG which assisted BA no end. However what a plane...no it never made a penny but the sheer publicity value of that aircraft was worth its weight in gold. I used to watch it as my gaff was under one of the Heathrow paths.....
Ken Livingstone......? That man is a bizarre mix of Trotsky and Thatcher.......
The question is will business travelers use high speed rail; I have my doubts. Today many business travelers are going to suburban locations not downtown. This makes air travel much more appelling. In Minneapolis/St.Paul debate is just where do we build the new high speed rail terminal.The elected officials all of a sudden are aware that our infrastucture is on life supports.I have to laugh that our political know it alls think nothing of about what high speed rail might cost. I know that Chicago to St Louis would be easier to engineer than say Chicago to Minneapolis. The cost of engineering that line would be staggering; Wisconsin is not Illinois prairie. Some of these political jerks want high speed rail to share tracks with freight trains.Do they live in reality.
aricatThe question is will business travelers use high speed rail; I have my doubts. Today many business travelers are going to suburban locations not downtown. This makes air travel much more appelling. In Minneapolis/St.Paul debate is just where do we build the new high speed rail terminal.The elected officials all of a sudden are aware that our infrastucture is on life supports.I have to laugh that our political know it alls think nothing of about what high speed rail might cost. I know that Chicago to St Louis would be easier to engineer than say Chicago to Minneapolis. The cost of engineering that line would be staggering; Wisconsin is not Illinois prairie. Some of these political jerks want high speed rail to share tracks with freight trains.Do they live in reality.
Oh, I think they will! I'm one of them.
Have you actually flown lately? Unless you have a lot of status, it's middle-seat, no legroom, cattle-class fun. Even with my 100,000+ mileage status on two carriers, I still have no choice but the middle seat sometimes, because a lot of my flights I am scheduling last-minute. For example, last week, SFO-IAD, 5.5 hours in a middle seat between two goombahs. The economic downturn has collapsed the number of flights and size of aircraft -- legs that I used to have 8x daily service on my preferred carriers, all 733 or larger, are now 4X or 5X daily and two of those are CR7s, ugh. You are not going to get anything done on an RJ except just put up with it.
But on Acela or a European high-speed train, I always have a good seat, I always have room for my laptop, I can send and receive e-mail freely, I can sleep comfortably, I can eat without being a contortionist.
The station location is a non-issue. If it's downtown, great, I'll connect to the subway or take a taxi. If it's suburban I'll rent a car. Mox nix to me. Either works just fine. We're not all going to the same place every time anyway, so what does it matter?
High-speed rail is an alternative to flying, not to driving. I am not going to drive more than 200 miles for business unless there's no air service. It's too slow, it's too much effort, it's not cheap, and I have to pay attention to it. If I fly I have no responsibility to operate the vehicle safely, and if I get a decent seat I can take a nap, do some work, think through problems, at least for a portion of the flight in between the two chimes for 10,000', the put-it-all-away, and the other mandatory distractions. On high-speed rail, I can pull out the laptop the moment I sit down, and work to my heart's content without disruption until I need to get off the train. No queuing in lines, no you can't bring your coffee through security, no worries about rushing onto the plane as soon as possible so you can be sure to have overhead room, no turning off the cell phone. Tell me again why anyone would want to fly?
All that high-speed rail has to do to get my business is get me from city to city on about the same schedule -- parking lot to parking lot -- as flying. It doesn't have to do better. Boston-Washington-D.C. alreadly does that, and that's why it has half the market.
The sweet spot for high-speed rail for the business traveler is the 100-500 mile corridor with frequent service. Doesn't matter where the station is, as long as it's either center-city with subway or taxis or both, or suburban with a rental car lot next to a beltway. That will 100% nail my business everytime. Hopefully TSA won't ruin it too. At the bottom end of that range it beats driving. At the top end it beats flying. There's some significant market for the business traveler in the 1,000-mile corridor, too, because often the airline schedules are so poor that the "time savings" doesn't exist.
I flew more than 150 times last year. The convenience, cost, and comfort is not going to improve. Just get worse. No one I know who flies a lot thinks it's wonderful. It's just a cost of doing business. We're grateful to have air service, but if something better comes along, we'll gladly take it.
I am willing to pay higher taxes to get high-speed rail. The economic trade-off is worth it to me. If I have to pay $1,000 a year more taxes, all I have to do is get 5 productive hours or 5 hours saved, total, and it's a break-even proposition.
Finally, a voice of reason! Thanks, RWM!
I guess Chicago to Milwaukee is at the short end of feasibility for this. What would really be spectacular is a Milwaukee-to-Chicago run that makes its suburban stop at O'Hare! I must be dreaming--just lost the "reason"!
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Carl, for me Milwaukee-Chicago is already a business-travel corridor if the "away terminal" is downtown Chicago. The Milwaukee end is the problem -- it's very weak. Milwaukee doesn't have much of a city center, there is no integrated subway or light-rail, there is no rental car at the rail station. To be an effective station it has to be integrated or full-service -- the Starbucks, the cafe, the bar, the rental-car counters, the hotel. Like an airport. The Chicago end has all that either in the station or within walking or L distance. So does Boston, New York, Washington, Philadelphia.
THe best use of the money may be to buy the CN/IC SCAL & get a new higher speed route from CUS to the Indiana state line. Branches make connections to the CN/IC CONO route, the CSX Cardinal route, Michigan trains & east LD trains. This may be a better route with no freight interference.
THe big bucks would go for new bridges over the Chicago & Calumet rivers.
Aricat again; Railwayman I do fly and just got off a UAL A320. I occupied the a middle seat. I would love to see high speed rail BUT in America we would be starting at square one in the Midwest.In Europe they had the infrastructure already. I was in Britain in 2006 and saw most business travelers use standard class which can be crowded. It is amazing that the Brits are using lines that were engineered in Victorian times.
Americans, however, have allowed our passenger system to become quite a sorry state unless you live in the Northeast corridor. I rode Amtrak from Chicago to Milwaukee recently.It was act one scene one of Tobacco Road. I sadly feel that flying is as good as it gets. I will put up with the TSA and the middle seat. Amtrak has been around for almost 40 years.Vice President Biden has a viable passenger rail system to ride, I do not.
Railway Man [snip] I flew more than 150 times last year. . . . [snip] I am willing to pay higher taxes to get high-speed rail. The economic trade-off is worth it to me. If I have to pay $1,000 a year more taxes, all I have to do is get 5 productive hours or 5 hours saved, total, and it's a break-even proposition. RWM
RWM's previous posts (from one of which the above is excerpted) is excellent. It's too good to be limited to this audience - it ought to be essentially reprinted as an Op-Ed piece in the major newspapers where High-Speed Rail is being actively considered, is an alternative, or is already running but at less than its potential.
A couple of further thoughts:
Say that 50 of those 150 flights were on HSR. The $1,000 that RWM is willing to pay would be an average of $20 per ticket. The fiscal conservatives (Bucyrus - you paying attention here ?) and likely non-users (Murphy Siding ?) here should ask, "Why should the government be used as the hidden ticket agent ? RWM is the one who is using it, he should pay for it directly, and leave the general taxes alone. No difference to RWM - he's still paying the $1,000 more - but there is a difference to those of us who can't use the service - we're not paying for it also." I know that this argument ignores the indirect benefits that the non-users receive from the improvement in mobility of the users and society in general, and reduced congestion and energy use, etc., etc. for the general good, but I don't want to rely on that at the moment. I also know that if the $20 is added to each ticket, that's usually a reimburseable travel expense to RWM's clients, whereas if it is buried into the taxes there's no way he can bill them directly for that added cost.
And, at RWM's billing rate of $200 per hour, he and his company recoup that $20 added cost in 0.1 hour = 6 minutes of either saved time, or additional billable time from being able to work more on the train than on the plane. Yeah, that'll do it, easy. As I often say about these kinds of trade-offs: "I'll take all of that action I can get !" That's the main reason I take the train (SEPTA) to Philly or to New York City (NJ Transit) or Washington, D.C. (Amtrak). The savings in parking and tolls usually covers most of the cost of the ticket, but the big money is in the couple of billable hours I can usually get in during the ride - reviewing documents, meeting prep., editing drafts, etc. - that are just impossible while having to drive. Plus, it's also usually faster door to door, since I walk right past the coffee shop, the restrooms, the cafe for lunch, etc. - no additional stops needed for that.
John Kneling used to make a point that bears noting in the discussion of "suburbs vs. center city stops" here: The train has the special advantage over the airplane in that the train can easily stop on both sides of the city as well as downtown, whereas the airplane is limited to a single point well outside of the downtown. Now I'll acknowledge that may not be the best for fast schedules - but if the top speeds are going to be limited in urban areas anyway due to curvature, interlockings, freight traffic, etc., then "let's make lemonade out of those lemons" and add the stops where they don't slow the trains down much more and make economic sense, etc.
Finally, the funny thing here is, RWM is also echoing some of what John Kneiling wrote about the same kind of travel 40 years ago. In a column written around a business trip to and within California, John complained about how dysfunctional all of the available transport methods were, bemoaned the lost opportunity of the lack of good train schedules and services, and felt that for the costs involved with rental cars, you should get more than "do-it-yourself". I think that was also the column where he recalled during or just after WW II the PRR sending trains out of Penn Station through the Hudson River tunnels as "standing room only", and "seemingly all the P70s in captivity going up Horse Shoe curve with 2 teakettles on each end", but the PRR got people where they wanted to go while others (NYC) were turning them away from the nice shiny new train (the 20th Century Limited ?).
Good discussion again, anyway. Thanks, everyone.
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_Jr A couple of further thoughts: Say that 50 of those 150 flights were on HSR. The $1,000 that RWM is willing to pay would be an average of $20 per ticket. The fiscal conservatives (Bucyrus - you paying attention here ?) and likely non-users (Murphy Siding ?) here should ask, "Why should the government be used as the hidden ticket agent ?
Say that 50 of those 150 flights were on HSR. The $1,000 that RWM is willing to pay would be an average of $20 per ticket. The fiscal conservatives (Bucyrus - you paying attention here ?) and likely non-users (Murphy Siding ?) here should ask, "Why should the government be used as the hidden ticket agent ?
So, here I am, just toodling along, minding my own business, reading about high-speed rail, and BAM!!!
I am a somewhat fiscal conservative as well, but there are a lot of things that I'm willing to help finance, even though I may never use them. From my viewpoint, this is a lot like every other thing that governments and interest groups try to get tax financing to pay for. It boils down to this: convince people that the idea is good for society as a whole, even if it may not be beneficial to each citizen, and you have a workable plan. Ambulances, for example, I hope to never use one, but I'm quite alright with helping pay for their operation.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
aricatThe question is will business travelers use high speed rail;
I am not sure who is asking that question or what the question means. Of course business travelers will use HRS. Every conceivable type of traveler will use it for every conceivable purpose. Cats and dogs will use it. But the question and the answer, in that context, are meaningless.
I suspect the question is a response to an assertion put forth by the proponents of HSR saying that HSR is justified by the assumption that it will attract a substantial number of business travelers who would otherwise fly or drive.
The question should be this: Will HSR attract a large enough number of business travelers who would otherwise fly or drive, to make HSR profitable or be able to be built and operated without a public subsidy?
But I suspect that the proponents’ assertion that begs the question does not go that far. The assertion probably stops at attracting a substantial number, and argues that even if HSR does not turn a profit, it is justified by taking a substantial number of cars off of the roads. Moreover, nobody can argue whether a number is substantial or not.
Bucyrus The question should be this: Will HSR attract a large enough number of business travelers who would otherwise fly or drive, to make HSR profitable or be able to be built and operated without a public subsidy? But I suspect that the proponents’ assertion that begs the question does not go that far. The assertion probably stops at attracting a substantial number, and argues that even if HSR does not turn a profit, it is justified by taking a substantial number of cars off of the roads. Moreover, nobody can argue whether a number is substantial or not.
The question is not whether HSR can be built and operated without public subsidy. The question is higher level: "What is the best value that can be delivered for the input?" Take all the dollars spent on all the cars, highways, airplanes, airports, railways, etc., and the benefits delivered, and the future growth rates, and the discounted value of money, and run the spreadsheet to show which has delivers the best cost-benefit ratio. This is a lot of work, but it's not impossible or impractical, especially in a defined corridor such as Los Angeles-San Francisco or Chicago-Minneapolis.
It's not only possible to argue how many cars will be taken off the roads, it's possible to demonstrate a highly reliable estimate using data that has been collected from a broad variety of different examples. It's also possible to demonstrate the reductions in accidents, air emissions, pavement maintenance cost, new highway capacity cost, wasted time in traffic cost, reductions in property values, inventory carrying cost losses, excess warehousing charges, and lost tax revenues. I and the people that work for and with me do this on a regular basis (though not yet with HSR specifically).
I haven't yet seen in this forum a link to a convincing, sober, honest, alternatives analysis, not prepared by an ideological advocacy group, that compares investing XX dollars into HSR vs. XX dollars into more airports, airplanes, highways, and cars. It could be done. Maybe someone's already done it, AASHTO perhaps.
aricatAricat again; Railwayman I do fly and just got off a UAL A320. I occupied the a middle seat. I would love to see high speed rail BUT in America we would be starting at square one in the Midwest.In Europe they had the infrastructure already. I was in Britain in 2006 and saw most business travelers use standard class which can be crowded. It is amazing that the Brits are using lines that were engineered in Victorian times. Americans, however, have allowed our passenger system to become quite a sorry state unless you live in the Northeast corridor. I rode Amtrak from Chicago to Milwaukee recently.It was act one scene one of Tobacco Road. I sadly feel that flying is as good as it gets. I will put up with the TSA and the middle seat. Amtrak has been around for almost 40 years.Vice President Biden has a viable passenger rail system to ride, I do not.
Starting at Square 1 is not a bad thing -- it enables not being stuck with sunk cost in a not-so-good infrastructure such as Britain's small loading gauge.
But the point prior was, "will the business traveler actually use high-speed rail?" I think if there was
that for business travel in the 100-500 mile O-D pairs there would be 50% or better market share vs. airplanes, and even in the 1000-mile O-D pairs there might be 25% or better market share vs. airplanes.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.