Obtuse, Doubled? Thoughts on Dec editorial

[Murphy Siding]

    I'll be the bad guy this time.  Time to move on to trains.

-Norris

[schlimm]

 I wonder if the outrage over deficit spending and burdening the next generation was as strong during the periods 1981-1993 and 2001-2008 as it appears to be now?

[garr]

henry6

When China or some Mid Eastern or European country holds the deeds to every business and factory, every stock certificate issued by every company?  When we wake up one morning sending our hard earned money to the capital of another country?  No one is denying the cost of doing something, but what is the cost if we do nothing?

Exactly how is this going to happen? As I have stated before, China, Japan, and European countries are buying USA GOVERNMENT debt. How does that translate into them owning our free enterprise corporations?

Where the problem comes in for our government is the day other countries decide our government treasuries are no longer a good investment.  

Jay

 

[schlimm]

petitnj

And Europe's system is subsidized and expensive to ride. The per mile cost of a train ticket is typically about 3 times the coach fare of Amtrak.

 

Correction:

"European" coach fare is not 3 times the coach fare on Amtrak.  They are, in fact, quite similar.

Example:

On the DB, Berlin to Munich on an ICE train (the German HSR), 365 miles, $190 = 52 cents/mile

Amtrak, Boston to Washington Acela service (comparable to ICE), 441 miles, $248 = 56 cents/mile

[henry6]

garr

 

As I have stated consistently, I like High Speed Rail, but show me how it can be done without adding to the debt load that we will be handing off to our children and grandchildren. Once that is shown, start the shovels.

If our governments would use this criteria for all non emergency projects/programs, we would all be better off in the long run.

Jay

Reactionary spendingis more costly than planned spending thus waiting for an emergency is too expensive.  Fix a broken rail or prevent a disease before there is a derailment or you contract a life threatening disease is far less costly and time consuming than waiting until there area a dozen hazardous cars strewn through a neighborhoood or you are beddridde for life. 

So, when will the emergency be in this country that we should do something about trains, health care, industry in general?  When China or some Mid Eastern or European country holds the deeds to every business and factory, every stock certificate issued by every company?  When we wake up one morning sending our hard earned money to the capital of another country?  No one is denying the cost of doing something, but what is the cost if we do nothing?

[henry6]

Bucyrus

henry6

Jay, I do think that is a little extreme and uncalled for.

 

Henry, I am not sure if you are talking about Jay’s criticism of Jim Wrinn, or Mr. Wrinn’s contention that those who howl at his civilized view of HSR do not get it.  Could you clarify?

 

Jay's criticism of Jim Wrinn.

[garr]

henry6

Jay, I do think that is a little extreme and uncalled for. ...Therefore there will be no consensus found here.  Am I wrong?  Are you wrong? It depends upon who you ask.  And each of those answers is part of a very long and endless thread.

 

henry6,

I think this has been a civilized thread.

Just saying the initial blow was the strongest. When someone tells me "I don't get it", i.e. Jim Wrinn's last sentence in the editorial "Let's hope that those howling high speed critics finally get it", just because I have a differing view I consider that an attack, at the very least condescending. As if their opinion is the only correct one.

Thus the title of this thread.The eight pages in this thread has proven both sides are obtuse.

As I have stated consistently, I like High Speed Rail, but show me how it can be done without adding to the debt load that we will be handing off to our children and grandchildren. Once that is shown, start the shovels.

If our governments would use this criteria for all non emergency projects/programs, we would all be better off in the long run. Just because we have operated in the red in the past does not mean we should continue doing it. Same as our personal finances, a reckoning day is coming, just on a larger scale and most seem to have the opinion that it is fine as long as it is later. Just give me this one--- now.

Jay

[Anonymous]

henry6

Jay, I do think that is a little extreme and uncalled for.

 

Henry, I am not sure if you are talking about Jay’s criticism of Jim Wrinn, or Mr. Wrinn’s contention that those who howl at his civilized view of HSR do not get it.  Could you clarify?

[blownout cylinder]

garr

greyhounds

Nobody's doing personal attacks (for the most part).  Just give her her head and see where she goes.  Sometimes that's the best option.

 

 

If there have been personal attacks on this thread, none have been stronger than the attack Jim Wrinn put on some of his readers and long time subscribers with the December editorial.

 

Jay

That was an interesting way to deal with the scepticism around HSR --- call them "uncivilized".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyhow, what I would like to toss in here is the notion that some are actually talking about up here. The idea is to encourage local development of mass transit solutions that may, or may not, include certain aspects of HSR. This ties in with the idea of a general local development framework involving industry and commercial initiatives in that local area---growing local markets for locally made goods and services. How would HSR work in this case? Move from passenger traffic to goods traffic? A generally mixed mode? Different possibilities----but developed in/through locally/regionally derived bases.

There are a whole slew of possibilities within a framework of local initiatives developed through each communities needs/potentials which would not necessarily require large scale governmental involvment.

As for the trans continental HSR proponents--can anyone give this little one a timeframe? A set of proposals as to how this is financed? Routes? Other avenues? I'd really like to see some of that---rather than label all the above as "uncivilized", "nostalgic" and all that. Or the infamous variation of a line  I hear from children---"Well, Joey has an iPod, why can't I?"

[henry6]

Jay, I do think that is a little extreme and uncalled for. But why I'm here now: my political views are of course part of my arguement.  But they are not that dirty word liberal that many of you suppose since it does not align with your views.  I actually consider myself moderate and perhaps even independent.  While I am enrolled as a voter of one party...and probably not the one you think...I never vote straight party lines.  I am not a proponent of one form of transportation nor one solution.  I just believe that we...the US as a whole, many here as a group...are stuck in thier own past, thier own thinking, thier own ruts if you will.  Therefore there will be no consensus found here.  Am I wrong?  Are you wrong? It depends upon who you ask.  And each of those answers is part of a very long and endless thread.

[garr]

greyhounds

Nobody's doing personal attacks (for the most part).  Just give her her head and see where she goes.  Sometimes that's the best option.

 

 

If there have been personal attacks on this thread, none have been stronger than the attack Jim Wrinn put on some of his readers and long time subscribers with the December editorial.

 

Jay

[greyhounds]

selector

Fellas, the dynamic fans are howling, but the speedometer warns me of a losing battle.  Please, let's try to keep overt ideology out of our musings in this thread, or the order will go out to bail.

-Crandell

For my two cents, I think almost everyone has kept this pretty well focused on railroad subjects:.

1)  Jim Wrinn's editorial

2) Government involement in transportation

 It's impossible to discuss either of those topics without bringing in economics.  With some levity about Wrinn's "Uncivilized" remark, the discussion has focused on the two cited topics.  Just let it settle itself out.  Choose the "Do Nothing" option.  Let us settle it among ourselves.

Nobody's doing personal attacks (for the most part).  Just give her her head and see where she goes.  Sometimes that's the best option.

[blownout cylinder]

henry6

Jim, yours is a political opinion.  But I'm not sure its pragmatic.  What I am saying is that we must unshackle ourselves from our political opinions and fears and start thinking in new directions.

And you are not making political opinions? And Jims point is not pragmatic? Development of expansion in terms of the adding of RR into areas previously not serviced or adding to the services---not pragmatic. Huh? Some do not think that there needs be a political decision made as to infrastructure every dang time that a situation arises. He stated some facts-----I'm still waiting for some from the side that seems to think that government involvment is needed.

Why are you talking as if others need to unshackle themselves?  And you by dint of your rhetoric imply that you don't? Hmmmm

[selector]

Fellas, the dynamic fans are howling, but the speedometer warns me of a losing battle.  Please, let's try to keep overt ideology out of our musings in this thread, or the order will go out to bail.

-Crandell

[henry6]

Jim, yours is a political opinion.  But I'm not sure its pragmatic.  What I am saying is that we must unshackle ourselves from our political opinions and fears and start thinking in new directions.

[htgguy]

henry6

So much is eluding many here: if the US doesn't have an infrastsructure, a program, a system, or anything else in place, equal to or better than any other nation in the world, then it can't expect to compete!  Or even worse, we will be purchased by foriegn companies and without a shot being fired we will wake up under a different flag!   Sit there and poke at things based on your political, social, or educational postures, but to say we shouldn't do things in the country to stay competitive and independent is our death knell!  All levels of government have been involved in our transportation, industry, and social sectors since 1776, it cannot be denied that land grants, charters, bailouts, tax easments and benefits, loans and other grants, coalitions and consortiums, the absolute building and maintaining of roads, airports, and highways, schools, hospitals, industrial parks, and...I could go on and on...have happened to make the USA a great nation. So to say that we, we as a nation, should not do anything about anythng for fear of being like Europe or Japan or China or anybody else is total bull simply because if we don't do anything we will be one of them!

I'll try to explain why I think you are wrong.

We don't need more government involvement in railroading. Things are being done. Companies that are not directed by the government have made and are making significant investments in infrastructrure. Want some examples? How about three main tracks on the UP across much of Nebraska? 4 main tracks (up from ZERO mains not that many years ago) hauling coal out of the Powder River Basin. Double tracking of much of the former ATSF trans-con to accomodate increased intermodal business. Huge investments in new, more fuel efficient, and "greener" locomotives. Added and updated signaling on routes across the nation to increase capacity. CWR on more routes across the nation.

Are these things acceptable to you? Were they done at the behest of some central planning agency? No. They were done by investors seeking a place to use capital wisely to earn a rate of return. They did it of their own free will-because they saw a demand that could be met-while earning a rate of return on the invested capital. Yes, they did it because they are greedy-just like you and I. But they put THEIR money on the line, not the taxpayer's. They win and lose from the decisions they make.

I really don't care how Japan, or Europe, or China, do it. I care that the scarce capital that investors are able to generate is used efficiently. I acknowledge that there is no perfect method of directing that investment. The free market will make some colossal blunders. But in the long run, it will produce the most good for the most people. Some will get fabulously rich, some will continue to earn a good living, and some will go broke. I wish no one had to go broke, but that is called "creative destruction".

The alternative is to appoint a bunch of government officials (or even worse, congresscritters) to divy out the money. They will be most concerned with #1 keeping their job and #2 making sure no one benefits "unfairly". This will mis-allocate capital and lead to more misery and suffering for the human race.

That's a short course on why I advocate for the position I advocate for. Can you explain how what you advocate for improve the human condition across the board-not just for the small fraction of people who will ride the HSR trains you would build with tax money?

Thanks, Jim

[schlimm]

greyhounds

If they're going to consider me "uncivilized" I might as well enjoy it.

 

Perhaps just a nostalgia fan.

[blownout cylinder]

greyhounds

edblysard

But I have been a barbarian all of my life...why change now?.

Besides, I kinda like wearing animal skins and living in caves, and can't imagine snails as being food....

I think I'll try to form an "Actvist" group. "Barbarian Railfans North America."  "BRNA-considered to be uncivilized by some Europeans and an editor in Waukesha, Wisconsin."

If they're going to consider me "uncivilized" I might as well enjoy it.

Does being cast as a contrarian count?----sounds like a fun group---

[greyhounds]

edblysard

But I have been a barbarian all of my life...why change now?.

Besides, I kinda like wearing animal skins and living in caves, and can't imagine snails as being food....

I think I'll try to form an "Actvist" group. "Barbarian Railfans North America."  "BRNA-considered to be uncivilized by some Europeans and an editor in Waukesha, Wisconsin."

If they're going to consider me "uncivilized" I might as well enjoy it.

[blownout cylinder]

garr

 What will put us at a competitive disadvantage is the trillions of dollars of national debt we will incur if HSR is truly made national.

 

And this is much more likely to be the case. $8 Billion ? Try a figure like $500 Billion, not including cost over runs. Some of the figures that I've seen actually were closer to the 500 figure with one going to over a trillion dollars.

 In order for a true HSR to work many of the lines used in Europe were designated as such/built as such. Wanna bet this thing will fly in the NE corridor? Where they gonna put it? Oh, and HSR has a few proponents who think Mag-Lev might work.

[garr]

Bucyrus

henry6

So much is eluding many here: if the US doesn't have an infrastsructure, a program, a system, or anything else in place, equal to or better than any other nation in the world, then it can't expect to compete! 

 

I think we have adequate infrastructure to compete.  Some of those countries you admire may actually be getting themselves into a less competitive position by allowing their government to dream up and execute expensive things they don’t need just to make more government.

 

Maybe on 1 count, HSR, the Europeans have us beat in the way of infrastructure. But as far as freight railroads, highways, and airlines I will take the ones in the good ol' USA any day of the week. Not as familiar with waterways, but I imagine ours would beat theirs in that category too.

Now how does being second fiddle in 1 out of 4 (possibly 5) areas of infrastructure put us at a competitive disadvantage to them?

How is HSR which moves people intra-country putting us at a global disadvantage when we have speedier alternatives already in place?

 What will put us at a competitive disadvantage is the trillions of dollars of national debt we will incur if HSR is truly made national.

 

Jay

[blownout cylinder]

henry6

. So to say that we, we as a nation, should not do anything about anythng for fear of being like Europe or Japan or China or anybody else is total bull simply because if we don't do anything we will be one of them!

The problem is in how one formulates the issue. I don't think that one has to rip everything apart and rebuild the entire infrastructure from scratch----or fly headlong like panicing Turkeys into a single system like HSR for example. I still have to see a viable plan to make HSR work. From what a few people I've heard from in Europe are telling me, a lot of th hype around HSR is not very useful either. France right now for example is finding that funding the TGV project is starting to tell on some other aspects of their infrastructure too now--

Look, one issue we have up North of London ON in the Huron, Grey and Bruce counties--one of bridges needing upgrading. No sense in dumping those areas just to pile a bunch of infrastructure money into HSR along the Windsor to Montreal corridor. They have to get the food to our tables too. Yet, this is what a lot of urbanites--already caught up in the allure of HSR are saying---who needs those bridges?---D'uh--the people who feed you? Battle lines are drawn between those who want HSR and those who see a need to keep those things we have going.

The whole thing with HSR is that we need more than just HSR----what about LRT services? How about those areas that hav just enough demand for a rapid transit system involving a shuttle train of some sort? Or?

There is a need to get the head away from the billfold enough to see the possibilities of doing a bunch of different things---without necessarily tossing everything into the bit bucket to service one system.

BTW, it is true that it did take some form of government involvment in many ways it was also through the private individuals who had the visions and the wherewithall to stick to it that got things done--sometimes the governments also acted as a millstone too.

[Anonymous]

henry6

So much is eluding many here: if the US doesn't have an infrastsructure, a program, a system, or anything else in place, equal to or better than any other nation in the world, then it can't expect to compete! 

 

I think we have adequate infrastructure to compete.  Some of those countries you admire may actually be getting themselves into a less competitive position by allowing their government to dream up and execute expensive things they don’t need just to make more government.

[henry6]

So much is eluding many here: if the US doesn't have an infrastsructure, a program, a system, or anything else in place, equal to or better than any other nation in the world, then it can't expect to compete!  Or even worse, we will be purchased by foriegn companies and without a shot being fired we will wake up under a different flag!   Sit there and poke at things based on your political, social, or educational postures, but to say we shouldn't do things in the country to stay competitive and independent is our death knell!  All levels of government have been involved in our transportation, industry, and social sectors since 1776, it cannot be denied that land grants, charters, bailouts, tax easments and benefits, loans and other grants, coalitions and consortiums, the absolute building and maintaining of roads, airports, and highways, schools, hospitals, industrial parks, and...I could go on and on...have happened to make the USA a great nation. So to say that we, we as a nation, should not do anything about anythng for fear of being like Europe or Japan or China or anybody else is total bull simply because if we don't do anything we will be one of them!

[blownout cylinder]

schlimm

You really cannot seem to accept the idea that  the building of an improved passenger rail system isn't just doing what other countries do in a childish, aping of others.

I think the issue here is precisely just this. You don't like what the US does else where but you seem to think that you  should have the US follow Europes lead? And you do mention that other countries are doing just this. Now you crab about the fact that others are picking up on this? You wrote these sorts of things yourself.

Still, the issue here is that HSR might work in some areas---but cannot be made to work everywhere. The HSR situation in Europe is still mostly serving those who live in major urban centers and do not include regular working people as part of the clientele. The cost of those tickets is a little out of the reach of many---although the tax dollars came out of their pockets

As long as the rhetoric here continues to come through the filter of the European experience, or others for that matter, then there will be criticisms of that focal point.

Shall those proponents start to come up with a viable business model to sell their "System"?

[schlimm]

htgguy

I frequently see the argument that "all the cool kids have it-why can't I? I want to be cool too!!!"

 

Name calling is not putting forth a very rational case either.  You really cannot seem to accept the idea that  the building of an improved passenger rail system isn't just doing what other countries do in a childish, aping of others.  If you prefer to spend your tax dollars on endless wars, more and more highways and the like, then I guess that is your choice.  But please have the courtesy in a rail forum not to merely belittle others' thoughts.  Or is your only interest a negative one, or just nostalgia for the good old days?

[htgguy]

Bucyrus

And without HSR, our friends overseas consider us to be an uncivilized nation.

Thanks for putting a big smile on my face. That seems to be what a lot of this is about. I never see a business case roughed out, but I frequently see the argument that "all the cool kids have it-why can't I? I want to be cool too!!!"

[edblysard]

But I have been a barbarian all of my life...why change now?.

Besides, I kinda like wearing animal skins and living in caves, and can't imagine snails as being food....

[blownout cylinder]

Bucyrus

blownout cylinder

 We do not need to do it just because others are----again. Lets think OTHER---than the usual follow the bouncing ball

 

But Mr. Wrinn says we need HSR for societal benefits such as less pollution, better land use, reduced congestion, and getting people off of the highway for their own safety.  And without HSR, our friends overseas consider us to be an uncivilized nation.

The coffee just went up my nose!!

HSR as the new "Magic Bullet"

[Anonymous]

blownout cylinder

 We do not need to do it just because others are----again. Lets think OTHER---than the usual follow the bouncing ball

 

But Mr. Wrinn says we need HSR for societal benefits such as less pollution, better land use, reduced congestion, and getting people off of the highway for their own safety.  And without HSR, our friends overseas consider us to be an uncivilized nation.

[blownout cylinder]

schlimm

The proposition that the US has a more individualistic culture  than some of the other countries does not rule out federal investments in infrastructure.  You are only using that as an excuse for continuing what we have done in regard to rails for the past 50 years - nothing - while we collectively and wisely invested (remember, we are talking investment, not just spending money on expenses) many billions in the interstate highway system and the air transport system.  One could just as easily conclude you take a contrarian approach to decisions.

And, I suppose, you would prefer to do this all because the Europeans are doing it therefore they must be right? This is what the argument seems to be revolving around--"Well, the Europeans do that so why can't we?". I'm tempted to reply---"Oh Waaah". Maybe the point is that it appears to me to be more a "want" vs "need" thing.  And, yes, the Interstate highways were an investment--in the sense that the whole thing was thought of in terms of an added military advantage for rapid deployment, but that would be too crude a stick. The problem is that now you have a lot of areas with virtually no customer base in many of the areas in the mid west---yet they will find more tax dollars coming out of their areas to subsidize the tax base in the urban centers.

Again, a regional solution could be as good as any other centralized system.

 

Oh, BTW, there still is an argument going on about how the Interstate system may have been responsible for partially depopulating a lot of areas during the 1960's and after.

Look, I'm not necessarily against HSR as such. It is just that I'm not seeing why this is such a need now. And if my position is as a contrarian than so be it. It beats following the latest trends without thinking about the needs and desires of same.

[schlimm]

blownout cylinder

Chinese traditional culture has always been more communal whereas ours was established along a more individualistic basis. Brazil is doing the same thing but again it has a more or less established culture of its own. Yes, they all have an infrastructural issue. So do we----but we do not necessarily need to follow everyone else's lead. We can do it on our own terms. And if it means that we do not do the HSR route or any other than what we deem necessary than so be it. And as mentioned before---doing what was done before does not constitute doing nothing.

 We do not need to do it just because others are----again. Lets think OTHER---than the usual follow the bouncing ball

The proposition that the US has a more individualistic culture  than some of the other countries does not rule out federal investments in infrastructure.  You are only using that as an excuse for continuing what we have done in regard to rails for the past 50 years - nothing - while we collectively and wisely invested (remember, we are talking investment, not just spending money on expenses) many billions in the interstate highway system and the air transport system.  One could just as easily conclude you take a contrarian approach to decisions.

 

[selector]

Greyhounds and Blownout....thanks.  That works for me.

-Crandell

[blownout cylinder]

selector

Maybe I am making the mistake of interpreting 'doing nothng' as having no active role in a determination.  I take it literally, and in the example cited above, the choices are there, are considered, and the person may elect to continue to use the usual route.  That is not doing nothing.

I think that the phrase "doing nothing" may be a misnomer? The phrase could be more that we continue doing things the way we've done them before---it being a more piecemeal approach that is sensitive to each regions issues. In other words the dreaded " Status Quo ".

The idea that I've seen bandied about more is that there is some kind of all encompassing system/solution---a "magic bullet" as it were. HSR has become precisely that magic bullet. Europe has a much more centralized methodology when it comes to infrastructure. Here not so much.

Some places go for an overarching system. Others go for a more smaller/regional approach. Why there should be an issue over the regional way is something else again

[greyhounds]

selector

I disagree with the statement that doing nothing is always to be considered in a list of alternatives.  While it may be the actual best choice in some circumstances, it is not considerable in dealing with, for example, a dlilemma, especially one of the ethical kind.  Now, this is an academic approach, granted, but when confronted with an ethical dilemma, one is not going to actively consider "doing nothing" because to do nothing would be an indicator of indesiciveness, a lack of a sense of commitment or responsibility, and it wouldn't actually be an active step in choosing the 'correct' or best way ahead..the lesser of two evils, if you will.

Maybe I am making the mistake of interpreting 'doing nothng' as having no active role in a determination.  I take it literally, and in the example cited above, the choices are there, are considered, and the person may elect to continue to use the usual route.  That is not doing nothing.

-Crandell

In this case, what I mean, and what I think some others here mean by "Do Nothing" is to seriously consider it to be one of the options.  As in "Do Nothing" is always an option that should be considered.

We're talking about an investment decision.  Obviously, not making any investment is an option that should be considered.  With your military background you might be familiar with "Anything you do can get you killed, including nothing."  But sometimes "Nothing" is the right choice.  If you try to react to, and control, everything you'll run out of resouces. 

I haven't seen a valid argument for forced Electrification or HSR yet.  It's mostly "Other countries have it".  That's no reason to have it in the US.  We don't have the resources to "Do Everything" so "Do Nothing" will often be the right choice, all things considered.

[blownout cylinder]

schlimm

2.  If one looks at Western Europe, it really isn't so small.

But it is not the same size as the U.S. As well, the Europeans are not all in agreement with the HSR proponents there. There was a discussion on Deutsche Welle about the view that a good chunk of the debate was taken out because a lot of that opposition to HSR was due to many local/rural infrastructure projects were being suppressed in favour of the HSR investments. We also need to remember that a large chunk of this investment went to nationalized RRs, many of which service highly populated centers----there are not too many private railroads in Europe

schlimm

3.  Countries other than the "tiny" ones of Europe or Japan are also developing HSR and fairly fast rail practically from scratch, eg., China.  If you think they are doing it for nostalgia or to be nice to the population, think again.  Everything done in 21st century China is economic pragmatism.  They are investing huge sums because it strengthens their economy by improving the infrastructure.

China is still politically a Communist state. The political/social culture there, again, is a social/communal one. Chinese traditional culture has always been more communal whereas ours was established along a more individualistic basis. Brazil is doing the same thing but again it has a more or less established culture of its own. Yes, they all have an infrastructural issue. So do we----but we do not necessarily need to follow everyone else's lead. We can do it on our own terms. And if it means that we do not do the HSR route or any other than what we deem necessary than so be it. And as mentioned before---doing what was done before does not constitute doing nothing.

 We do not need to do it just because others are----again. Lets think OTHER---than the usual follow the bouncing ball

 

[henry6]

schlimm

[3.  Countries other than the "tiny" ones of Europe or Japan are also developing HSR and fairly fast rail practically from scratch, eg., China.  If you think they are doing it for nostalgia or to be nice to the population, think again.  Everything done in 21st century China is economic pragmatism.  They are investing huge sums because it strengthens their economy by improving the infrastructure.

Another who is hearing some of what I am saying...

[schlimm]

blownout cylinder

Another issue---why is it that we see proponents to this HSR push this as a cross country thing ? This is hilarious. Look at any country in Europe and try to compare the size of that country with ours for pete sake. We are not talking a mere 800km--or 500 mile run here. Many of these proponents are looking at a much larger set up here than there would really need be. There are only 3 areas that you have that could 'use' this HSR.

 

1.  Many people who are suggesting improving passenger rail in the USA are not just talking HSR and think the long distance routes (say CHI to LA or SF or SEA) are dinosaurs.

2.  If one looks at Western Europe, it really isn't so small.

3.  Countries other than the "tiny" ones of Europe or Japan are also developing HSR and fairly fast rail practically from scratch, eg., China.  If you think they are doing it for nostalgia or to be nice to the population, think again.  Everything done in 21st century China is economic pragmatism.  They are investing huge sums because it strengthens their economy by improving the infrastructure.

[henry6]

blownout cylinder

[...why is it that we see proponents to this HSR push this as a cross country thing ?.... Many of these proponents are looking at a much larger set up here than there would really need be. ...The only thing I see here is that we need to change the way we think about some things----not just throw European solutions to their issues at this issue thinking that they have the answer----it HAS TO COME FROM/THROUGH OUR OWN culture.

[

At least one person gets some of what I've been saying!!!!

[htgguy]

henry6

Proving my point, garr says that whenever he sees my moniker I will say "government is great, etc" .  That is far from the truth and just goes to show how much I am (mis)understood.  I am a strong believer in private enterprise,  However, it is as plain as the nose on your face that private enterprise has not and cannot provide all that is needed in society and that the government, since its day one, has had to nurture, prime, loan, grant, legislate or otherwise assist and support private enterprise.  It's undeniable that that has been our history. 

Henry, I don't agree. Private enterprise (the free market) has led to the world's most innovative pharmacutical industry (introducing new drugs to much of the world from research done right here in the good old USA), high technology that is unmatched, and the most vibrant freight railroad system in the world. In fact, freight railroads did not begin to flourish until government got out of the way.

Certainly, there is a place for government, but it is not to "nurture, prime, loan", etc. It needs to provide a level playing field and then get out of the way.

What do you believe about private enterprise, specifically? Give me some examples of the good things you think private enterprise has accomplished. Myself, I believe that free markets do the most efficient job of allocating scarce capital to its best use-many times more efficient than central planning by government, or markets distorted by subsidies or tax breaks.

henry6

As for doing nothing.  I agree that it should be a considered alternative.  But also the cost and consquences of that alternative has to be weighed.  We have done nothing for years about health care and rail transportation and see where we are today.  Ask why other countries are ahead of us and the answer is because they did do something years and years ago.  Not for the people but for business and industry.  Here we are discussing  status quo railroading in this country while the rest of the world is zipping along at speeds up to 250 MPH.  Do more of nothing and we will be hit by the train and fall under the wheels of the high speed rest of the world.  

I'm not sure I understand who the "we" in the paragraph above is. Many people and companies have done a lot regarding both health care and rail transportation. You may not feel they have done what you wanted, and I understand that, but it's not really fair to say "we" have done nothing. I am a heart attack survivor-when I had my heart attack a relatively new procedure allowed the cardioligist to retrieve the clot from my heart in one piece rather than dissolve it with the attendant risk of it floating through the body in little chunks.

I don't belong to the "do something, even if it's wrong" school. If you can't demonstrate how a change will measurably improve things, it's not worth doing. Cost/benefit analysis is important and needs to be taken seriously.

And "we" are making changes. Freight transportation by rail is improving continuously-not as a result of government mandates, but as the competing railroads and equipment suppliers strive to gain competitive advantages. If they were regulated, there would be much less drive to innovate and improve. See the Southern Railway's "Big John" case from the early 60's when freight railroading was heavily regulated for the effect government regulation can have on innovation.

We are not doing nothing. Lots of people are doing lots of things. Some will work and some won't.

henry6

I am not espousing anything that isn't apparent to an educated person as long as the past is not an anchor nor political and economic philosophies handcuffs on thier minds.  Stop calling me names and calling me out. Instead discuss how to change the world. Oh, that may be too serious.  Especially for me.

I guess you can call me uneducated then. I don't agree that the free market needs the government to nurture, prime, etc. I strongly believe in free markets and the economic philosophy that goes along with them, and I try to use examples to point out why I think I am right. Please, do the same. Show me specific examples of what you think should be done, how it will be paid for, by whom, and who will benefit. That's how to try and win people over to your view.

If I have called you names, I apoligize. I tend to get too fired up in online forums. I will call you out, though, when I disagree with you.

You want the world to change? Give people the freedom to try new things and make mistakes. Let them reap the rewards when they are right. The innovation and progress will amaze you, as will the trail of destruction left in the wake. It's all part of change.

[blownout cylinder]

schlimm

But I do not really understand the strong anti-passenger, anti-HSR, anti-government sentiments by individuals one would suppose have an interest in railroading.

I'm not so sure that it is Anti-passenger as it is that I see more of a particular cultural phenomenon. I just love it when everyone gets into a tizzy when your government gets into something elsewhere and says that we should not impose something on another culture---yet seems to think nothing about trying to push something that 'Works' in Europe. European culture--in terms of its political/social structure--not to mention its geographical structure is different from N.American forms. Historically we can see that----sheeesh---even hard nosed Leftists ask---Why didn't the Revolution occur in the West?---for that same reason-----Difference.

Another issue---why is it that we see proponents to this HSR push this as a cross country thing ? This is hilarious. Look at any country in Europe and try to compare the size of that country with ours for pete sake. We are not talking a mere 800km--or 500 mile run here. Many of these proponents are looking at a much larger set up here than there would really need be. There are only 3 areas that you have that could 'use' this HSR. Does Harry down in Broken Jawbone KS need this? But he will be paying for it through his taxes. Taxes='Funding'=issues.

The tickets that get sold for HSR service are higher--hence Jane Doe and Joe Plebe won't afford them--unless they save for the rare special trip. Europe generally has had a longer tradition of socialized commerce than here. The way of doing business is different in kind. The average work week is shorter than here for one thing---

The only thing I see here is that we need to change the way we think about some things----not just throw European solutions to their issues at this issue thinking that they have the answer----it HAS TO COME FROM/THROUGH OUR OWN culture.

 

[schlimm]

henry6

I am a strong believer in private enterprise,  However, it is as plain as the nose on your face that private enterprise has not and cannot provide all that is needed in society and that the government, since its day one, has had to nurture, prime, loan, grant, legislate or otherwise assist and support private enterprise.  It's undeniable that that has been our history. 

 

henry6: I've never looked at posts in the "General Discussion" section before.  There certainly is a lot of heat with relatively little light. I did notice your efforts here, as well as as on the "Passenger" section, and they seem quite thoughtful.  Also several others' comments - oltmanns, wwhitby, etc. are really helpful.  But I do not really understand the strong anti-passenger, anti-HSR, anti-government sentiments by individuals one would suppose have an interest in railroading. 

Anyone familiar with history and economics  (and reality) would agree with you that the market and private enterprise are not the only means or always the best means of asset allocation.  Otherwise we would "privatize" many other important components of the national economy: police, fire, defense, and on and on.  And we would stop subsidizing roads, air travel, the banks, etc.  Of course, that would largely be foolish.  Clearly, there must be sound economic reasons why other nations are upgrading their transportation systems (not just HSR). 

[henry6]

Proving my point, garr says that whenever he sees my moniker I will say "government is great, etc" .  That is far from the truth and just goes to show how much I am (mis)understood.  I am a strong believer in private enterprise,  However, it is as plain as the nose on your face that private enterprise has not and cannot provide all that is needed in society and that the government, since its day one, has had to nurture, prime, loan, grant, legislate or otherwise assist and support private enterprise.  It's undeniable that that has been our history. 

As for doing nothing.  I agree that it should be a considered alternative.  But also the cost and consquences of that alternative has to be weighed.  We have done nothing for years about health care and rail transportation and see where we are today.  Ask why other countries are ahead of us and the answer is because they did do something years and years ago.  Not for the people but for business and industry.  Here we are discussing  status quo railroading in this country while the rest of the world is zipping along at speeds up to 250 MPH.  Do more of nothing and we will be hit by the train and fall under the wheels of the high speed rest of the world.  

I am not espousing anything that isn't apparent to an educated person as long as the past is not an anchor nor political and economic philosophies handcuffs on thier minds.  Stop calling me names and calling me out. Instead discuss how to change the world. Oh, that may be too serious.  Especially for me.

[selector]

I disagree with the statement that doing nothing is always to be considered in a list of alternatives.  While it may be the actual best choice in some circumstances, it is not considerable in dealing with, for example, a dlilemma, especially one of the ethical kind.  Now, this is an academic approach, granted, but when confronted with an ethical dilemma, one is not going to actively consider "doing nothing" because to do nothing would be an indicator of indesiciveness, a lack of a sense of commitment or responsibility, and it wouldn't actually be an active step in choosing the 'correct' or best way ahead..the lesser of two evils, if you will.

Maybe I am making the mistake of interpreting 'doing nothng' as having no active role in a determination.  I take it literally, and in the example cited above, the choices are there, are considered, and the person may elect to continue to use the usual route.  That is not doing nothing.

-Crandell

[oltmannd]

htgguy

henry6

We have a saying in advertising sales for customers who say they won't advertise: If you don't advertise, then nothing will happen.  And that is a mindset that a lot of Americans, too many Americans, seem to have: don't do anything and nothing will happen.  The problem of course is that nothing happening eliminates maintaining the status quo as well as not allowing for any growth.  Doing something, anything, is better than doing nothing.  If it doesn't work, then at least you should have learned what not to do.

I don't agree that because you have a "saying" in advertising sales that it should dictate our national policy on how to allocate scarce capital. You are going to have to bring a little better case than that if you expect to be taken seriously.

"Doing nothing" ALWAYS needs to be included in a study of alternatives. Every one of us does this sort of thing every day. Example. You drive a certain route to work every day. They start construction on your route, which slows your trip. You look at a map to study alternative routes. You don't automatically reject your current route, do you?

[garr]

henry6

...Sometimes I feel that when talking with so called educated and experienced brains here, I can't take them seriously simpley because they can't think beyond there experience or education or learned political  mantra, immediately put down anything and anyone with a thought that isn't in thier books, is practiced at the moment,or part of thier political or academic pursuasion.  Seriously now!

 

henry6,

This point is mutual. Everyone wants the other side to come to their veiwpoint. However, each has his own ingrained thought process. For example, nothing personal, but when I see henry6 in a thread, I always expect to see a response with a "government is  right or great" angle, while with my responses others expect some form of "government financial responsibility" angle.

I could be promised me a lifetime USA HSRpass on the system we have talked about in this thread, but it would not change my opinion that right now is not the time for our government to spend its citizens' hard earned tax dollars on it. Too many unwise choices in spending our tax dollars currently and in the past has tempered our ability to consider what some think is a needed project today.

 

Jay   

[henry6]

If I wanted to be taken seriously, I seriously wonder why I keep posting here!   The point is a good one for advertising and in the discussion here:  if nothing is done, then nothing happens and if nothing happens noting gets done; there is no growth, no change, not even maintenance of the status quo but rather an eroding of what is.  Sometimes I feel that when talking with so called educated and experienced brains here, I can't take them seriously simpley because they can't think beyond there experience or education or learned political  mantra, immediately put down anything and anyone with a thought that isn't in thier books, is practiced at the moment,or part of thier political or academic pursuasion.  Seriously now!

[htgguy]

henry6

We have a saying in advertising sales for customers who say they won't advertise: If you don't advertise, then nothing will happen.  And that is a mindset that a lot of Americans, too many Americans, seem to have: don't do anything and nothing will happen.  The problem of course is that nothing happening eliminates maintaining the status quo as well as not allowing for any growth.  Doing something, anything, is better than doing nothing.  If it doesn't work, then at least you should have learned what not to do.

I don't agree that because you have a "saying" in advertising sales that it should dictate our national policy on how to allocate scarce capital. You are going to have to bring a little better case than that if you expect to be taken seriously.

[henry6]

We've got to stop thinking railraod train or highway truck or airplane or automobile and start thinking
transportration system. And we've got to stop thinking what's in it for me and start thinking what in it for our country and economy.  United we stand, divided we fall.

[carnej1]

greyhounds

daveklepper

Left out of this discussion is WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DO NOT SPEND THE MONEY AND JUST SEE WHAT HAPPENS?

1.  Transportation grid lock?   Food extremely costly in inner cities because of highways becoming slowly moving parking lots and innability to deliver?  Farmers unable to sell produce because of lack of transport?

 

2.   Or trememdous investment in highway expansion with loss of tax and job producing land and ditto for airports, with money far exceeding the billions necessary to provide the capacity increase for rail?

Well, "Do Nothing" is always an option that should be considered.  Especially when the other options involve spending hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have.

What bothers me is when people create impossibly dark unrealistic scenarios to "Justify" their desired outcome.  In this case the spector of not being able to distribute food if "High Speed Rail" is not built.  This is fear mongering.  And I don't like it.

The food distribution companies, Wal Mart, Kroger, Safeway, SuperValu, etc. are not run by stupid people.  If they've got problems with congestion they can easily enough schedule their deliveries to stores in congested areas during non congested hours.  Delivering to the inner city stores at 2:00 AM would be an example.  The delivery trucks could do that easy enough, then make deliveries to stores in less congested areas during the daylight hours.  That sounds like a less expensive solution than spending hundreds of billions on a "High Speed Rail" network that will do little or nothing to reduce acute urban traffic congestion. 

I see it as a total bankruptcy of the entire "HIgh Speed Rail" concept that people have to use totally unrealistic doomsday scenarios in an attempt to justify it. 

I also see that the rail passenger network in the US is developing as needed.  Reasonable, adequate service is being provided in areas where it makes sense.  The Northeast and Amtrak California are examples.  I don't like the fact that these servces are subsidized, but transportation is not about what I like.

Just as it's not about what the proponents of "High Speed Rail" like.  And I wish they'd quit making up unrealistic doomsday scenarios to justify what they want. 

 

 

Greyhounds is 100% correct about the grocery distribution business (the industry I work in). Whether or not the regional distribution centers/warehouses are receiving freight by rail or not the "last miles" to a supermarket are going to be in a trailer pulled by a tractor.

We can talk about some futuristic "capsule pipeline"(google the term for a description) or the like but for the foreseeable future it's all truck for local deliveries. Deliveries in urban areas are mostly done overnight and the stores employ "night crews" that unload the trailers and stock out product...

[greyhounds]

daveklepper

Left out of this discussion is WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DO NOT SPEND THE MONEY AND JUST SEE WHAT HAPPENS?

1.  Transportation grid lock?   Food extremely costly in inner cities because of highways becoming slowly moving parking lots and innability to deliver?  Farmers unable to sell produce because of lack of transport?

 

2.   Or trememdous investment in highway expansion with loss of tax and job producing land and ditto for airports, with money far exceeding the billions necessary to provide the capacity increase for rail?

Well, "Do Nothing" is always an option that should be considered.  Especially when the other options involve spending hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have.

What bothers me is when people create impossibly dark unrealistic scenarios to "Justify" their desired outcome.  In this case the spector of not being able to distribute food if "High Speed Rail" is not built.  This is fear mongering.  And I don't like it.

The food distribution companies, Wal Mart, Kroger, Safeway, SuperValu, etc. are not run by stupid people.  If they've got problems with congestion they can easily enough schedule their deliveries to stores in congested areas during non congested hours.  Delivering to the inner city stores at 2:00 AM would be an example.  The delivery trucks could do that easy enough, then make deliveries to stores in less congested areas during the daylight hours.  That sounds like a less expensive solution than spending hundreds of billions on a "High Speed Rail" network that will do little or nothing to reduce acute urban traffic congestion. 

I see it as a total bankruptcy of the entire "HIgh Speed Rail" concept that people have to use totally unrealistic doomsday scenarios in an attempt to justify it. 

I also see that the rail passenger network in the US is developing as needed.  Reasonable, adequate service is being provided in areas where it makes sense.  The Northeast and Amtrak California are examples.  I don't like the fact that these servces are subsidized, but transportation is not about what I like.

Just as it's not about what the proponents of "High Speed Rail" like.  And I wish they'd quit making up unrealistic doomsday scenarios to justify what they want. 

 

 

[selector]

solzrules

selector

For the record, I did receive a complaint about your terminology, but not one about PV's.  Also, it was not he who posted the complaint.

Regardless, it was a subjective application of your duties.  I stand by my previous comments.

What else could it be, and from whom?

-Crandell

[garr]

henry6

...see what the Chinese are spending today on high speed rail lines (not line, lines) and what Japan and Europe have done...

 

 

Do you have any idea what China's and Japan's national debt levels(if any) are? I honestly don't.

Also, I imagine the US is helping/has helped both countries with their HSR indirectly thru the trading deficits we carry with both of them.

Jay

[solzrules]

selector

For the record, I did receive a complaint about your terminology, but not one about PV's.  Also, it was not he who posted the complaint.

Regardless, it was a subjective application of your duties.  I stand by my previous comments.

[henry6]

garr

henry6

...Doing something, anything, is better than doing nothing.  If it doesn't work, then at least you should have learned what not to do.

 

Can we as a nation truly afford this approach on national HSR today?

Jay 

 A quick answer is: or can we not?  But lets face it, see what the Chinese are spending today on high speed rail lines (not line, lines) and what Japan and Europe have done.  It is no longer an experiment. America's way of life, now matter what, is the result of someone marketing his product or service or philosophy better than the others.  It may not be the best for all or for any, but his marketing worked better.

[Murphy Siding]

     Fellas- can we steer this toward a discussion concerning trains please?

[Anonymous]

blownout cylinder

Also---who gets the payments on that debt?

 

Uncle Sam gets the payments on that debt, and he will pass them on to the citizens of the United States through higher taxes.  And if the citizens refuse the higher taxes, Uncle Sam will print money, or monetize the debt as it is called.  This is a marvelous procedure that allows Uncle Sam to withdraw money from all of the citizens’ savings and retirement pensions while those citizens are not paying attention.

[garr]

henry6

...Doing something, anything, is better than doing nothing.  If it doesn't work, then at least you should have learned what not to do.

 

Can we as a nation truly afford this approach on national HSR today?

Jay 

[garr]

daveklepper

...Food extremely costly in inner cities because of highways becoming slowly moving parking lots and innability to deliver?  Farmers unable to sell produce because of lack of transport?

 

2.   Or trememdous investment in highway expansion with loss of tax and job producing land and ditto for airports, with money far exceeding the billions necessary to provide the capacity increase for rail?

 

I don't think High-Speed Rail will solve either of these problems for the vast majority of the US. The ones you point out would be solved with improved commuter rail and increased capacity of the freight railroads once the previous levels of freight, plus some, return.

Jay

 

[garr]

blownout cylinder

garr

The USA has an "advertised" national debt of $10+ trillion, however if you throw in the unfunded programs such as the proverbial social security trust fund(if found, it would be a pile of IOU notes, not cash) the true national debt is $60+ trillion plus. How is this able to happen? By foreign countries buying our treasury notes. So far China, Germany, and Japan have been large purchasers. But what happens if they decide not to buy? What country(ies) will step up to replace them? Not too many choices out there.

Does that total include total consumer debt? If not then ---- Also---who gets the payments on that debt?

Consumer debt is not included in these figures.

This is Uncle Sam's debt--even though he is overextended on his credit there are willing accomplices willing to keep his merry ways rolling.

 

Jay

[henry6]

We have a saying in advertising sales for customers who say they won't advertise: If you don't advertise, then nothing will happen.  And that is a mindset that a lot of Americans, too many Americans, seem to have: don't do anything and nothing will happen.  The problem of course is that nothing happening eliminates maintaining the status quo as well as not allowing for any growth.  Doing something, anything, is better than doing nothing.  If it doesn't work, then at least you should have learned what not to do.

[daveklepper]

Left out of this discussion is WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DO NOT SPEND THE MONEY AND JUST SEE WHAT HAPPENS?

1.  Transportation grid lock?   Food extremely costly in inner cities because of highways becoming slowly moving parking lots and innability to deliver?  Farmers unable to sell produce because of lack of transport?

 

2.   Or trememdous investment in highway expansion with loss of tax and job producing land and ditto for airports, with money far exceeding the billions necessary to provide the capacity increase for rail?

 

 

[selector]

Solz, just so's were clear:  I will only ever use my judgement to alter anything you say if a case for it is made to me by someone with some credibility, including myself.  But I will exercise my duty and judgement...of that you can always be sure.

For the record, I did receive a complaint about your terminology, but not one about PV's.  Also, it was not he who posted the complaint.

-Crandell

[solzrules]

Phoebe Vet

Actually there is a difference between you and me.  I typed one phrase, which I realized after the fact was not appropriate.

You, on the other hand, continue aggressive abusive posts loudly proclaiming your right to be as obnoxious as you please.

With that, I am through with this discussion.

 

Good.

[Phoebe Vet]

Actually there is a difference between you and me.  I typed one phrase, which I realized after the fact was not appropriate.

You, on the other hand, continue aggressive abusive posts loudly proclaiming your right to be as obnoxious as you please.

With that, I am through with this discussion.

[solzrules]

selector

Your choices of words are sometimes going to fall in a grey area where some of the readership here find the term sufficiently ambiguous or offensive to submit an objection. 

For the record, the term you used, starting with a "k" and ending with "...olisher" is not offensive to me, personally, since I think I took it as I you claim you intended...merely as a pejorative and not as an indication of sexual orientation.  I would have used the term 'sycophant', but that's just me.  Yet, if people at various points in the country complain because your words have a more objectionable connotation locally, it is a small thing to alter what you wrote to make it more acceptable.  After all, your first intent is to get some sort of a point across, no?  The alternative was to delete your remarks entirely, sans alteration.

Which would you prefer?  I'll keep it in mind for the next time.

-Crandell

I would prefer that you use common sense in lieu of mindless political correctness (and I here note that this wasn't even an option).  Debate will by definition offend one side or the other in the current times that we live in.  You know very well that my language was not profane, and therefore I do not agree with the deletions.  I suppose I should be thankful that you guys didn't delete the post outright.  The fact is that Phoebe Vet used the term 'teabag' which is not what you think it is in the context within which it was used.  The fact that my post was edited while his was allowed to stand tells me two things, either of which could be true:  You agree with his use of language (or have no idea what the term refers to in the context used) or you agree with his reasoning and will taint any opposing viewpoints by deleting colorful yet clean language that you do not agree with - thereby giving the impression that I responded to his juvenile post with a profanity loaded diatribe.  In either case I know what I said and that I didn't do anything wrong.  So for what it's worth, I would have you do nothing, which is what should have been done in the first place. 

[solzrules]

henry6

I take it you don't subscribe to any airline magazines.  Or highway construction magazines.  Probably not contractor magazines either.  Certainly you have your model magazine deliverd by UPS and not by the government owned and operated US Postal Service.  Drink water from the tap or bottled water from the store?   Do you even drive a car?

 

Nope.  I don't drive a car, drink tap water, or read.  In fact, I think I might be illiterate.  As for how my magazine gets here, I just go out to the little rectangle on my front gate and it magically shows up there every month.  I don't understand it, but just assume that it is heaven sent.  Besides - it has pictures.  Big pictures with few words (my favorite kind). 

[solzrules]

Phoebe Vet

Words get auto censored in the program, not because they are dirty or curses, but rather because people with aggressive personality disorders use them to intentionally offend or insult people.

And thank goodness you've diagnosed my problem.  I have no problem offending you, since your intial comment offended me.  Interesting also to note that the term 'teabag' when used in conjunction with the tea parties (I'm assuming that is what you were referring to) last summer was meant to be sexually deragatory.  But, since you hold with the majority opinion here, you of course are free to comment at will but I need to be lectured to for my use of profane and obscene language (neither of which it was).

Again, go pound sand.

 

[GN_Fan]

petitnj

 And Europe's system is subsidized and expensive to ride. The per mile cost of a train ticket is typically about 3 times the coach fare of Amtrak.

First for subsides -- typical symantics at it's worst.  The FAA employes aircraft controllers -- subsidy or just gov't employees?  Cities fund airports thru bond issues -- subsidy or just part of gov't debt?  The Army Corps of Engineers build locks and dams, dredge canals and the like -- subsidy for barge lines or just part of their budget ??  Ditto for the Coast Guard who uses ice breakers to open up Lake Superior for the ore boats -- subsidy or just their duty to perform??  The whole subsidy issue is a pretty lame excuse to me.

I used to live in Reno, NV but now enjoy my retirement in Trieste, Italy where I make frequent trips to Venice -- by rail of course.  I also have made many rail trips over Donner on my way to visit my son in San Jose.  I will make a quick comparison of the two routes as in some ways they are similar.  Neither route is high speed, with the first 20 or so miles out of Trieste resembling Donner in respect to the curvature, where the line hugs steep limestone cliffs along the coast, using several long stone arch bridges and several tunnels in the process.  There are 32 trains each way to Venice (half via Udine, which is a longer, less direct route), Amtrak has 1 each way to Sacramento and there is only one route.

Trieste to Venice is 71 miles for a ride that lasts 2 hours 6 minutes.  There are 9 intermediate stops and the trip costs $13.62 at present exchange rates.  The whole thing equates to 19.18 cents per mile with an average speed of  33.8 MPH.  The first 20 minutes is slow running as the limit in this portion is 30 to 60 MPH due to curves.  There is a 90 MPH limit on the plains and this is normal for everyday trains.  I estimate the speeds thru the curves to be 25 MPH faster than in the US and you can definetely feel the centifigal force, something you do not experience on Amtrak.  Most trains are Regional work-a-day trains, altho we do get one Eurostar to Rome, a few EuroStar City trains, and several CisAlpina trains bound for Switzerland, but they do not go into Vencie Santa Lucia Station but stop in Venice Mestre on the mainland.  On time arrival within 2 minutes -- 100 %, with most arrivals within 30 seconds or so.

Reno to Sacramento is 111 miles for a ride that lasts 3 hours 50 minutes. There are 3 intermediate stops and the trip costs $42.00.  The whole thing equates to 37.84 cents per mile at an average speed of 28.93 MPH.  The speed over Donner is 30 MPH due to grade and curvature, and except for a short stretch of 79 MPH running, the max speed allowed anywhere is 50 MPH.  You do not feel the curves at all.  On time arrival within 30 minutes -- ZERO.  One trip was 8 hours late, with several more in the 4-6 hour range.  One guy quipped once in this forum that you don't need a watch for the CZ, you need a calendar. 

 It's obvious that Amtrak is way more expensive and a lot slower.  Amtrak's equipment is top notch compared to FS, but their frequency and on-time arrival is near zero.  Once I didn't even get to my destination the same day!  Amtrak's cost per mile is almost double that of FS, and altho the overall speed is roughly equal, FS generally makes a stop every 14 minutes on average, which severely restricts overall speed.  Amtrak averages 1 hour 16 minutes between stops, so that is not much of an issue.

As for freight, the tunnel linking Trieste's port to the mainline passes almost directly under our building, and although I live on the 9th floor, you can still hear the rumble.  I think there's about one every 1 or 2 hours, but they are short and light -- about 30 cars.  But fast!  Their track speed is about 10-15 MPH slower than passenger, which puts them in the 60-70 MPH range.  They do not interfere with the passenger trains at all.

 

 

 

[blownout cylinder]

garr

How? As I stated in one of the earlier posts on this thread, maybe a change in voter psychology to elect, i.e. value, candidates for what they DON'T spend. Yeah right!

That may work---key being "May" I'd extend that psychology a bit further though. At this point not only is government debt important but we all are in the same bucket in terms of consumer debt as well. Being something of a miserly cuss at times, I've suggested to some that one could indenture all of us into a type of slavery and dump all the money that would have been paid out to the debt instead. HOWEVER, that being said, it ain't gonna happen because----you already know what would happen with the money----in the hands of a bureaucracy? My thing now is to ask ---"how is it that we ccan forgive all kinds of debt everywhere else but here? Kinda odd don't you think?

I've also been known to ask really odd questions---like---whence money? Where did the idea: Money come from? Out of a cocked hat? Did it fall--unbidden--from the sky? I say this---it was an idea that stemmed from man--from humans. The fact that we can influence the value--as in a herd mentality--does indicate to me that there is something to the arguement that a market comprises a herd. And that we as humans have left our brains elsewhere-----

garr

The USA has an "advertised" national debt of $10+ trillion, however if you throw in the unfunded programs such as the proverbial social security trust fund(if found, it would be a pile of IOU notes, not cash) the true national debt is $60+ trillion plus. How is this able to happen? By foreign countries buying our treasury notes. So far China, Germany, and Japan have been large purchasers. But what happens if they decide not to buy? What country(ies) will step up to replace them? Not too many choices out there.

Does that total include total consumer debt? If not then ---- Also---who gets the payments on that debt?

garr

BTW, a detached observer from Pluto might be more appropriate since our politicians are so Goofy (I would have said Uranus but someone could take that personally)

----same up here----

[garr]

blownout cylinder

Couple of questions---get the countries finances in order? How? ....one was to just stop paying for anything and putting all that $$$ into the debt. Problem---social issues and what all else

The other soluton would be to do the second part of what you said here----that may be a hard row to hoe but the alternative is not a pleasent one---

The second question ties in with the first in that one has to find exactly WHICH projects are needed and WHICH projects are pet projects and ---WHO decides this? I tend to favour a detached observor from Mars---perhaps 

How? As I stated in one of the earlier posts on this thread, maybe a change in voter psychology to elect, i.e. value, candidates for what they DON'T spend. Yeah right!

I do not know the financial situation north of the border, but the USA has reached the point where only 55% of the workforce pays federal taxes. This puts us close to the tail wagging the dog scenario--the ones who don't pay taxes dictating, via the ballot box, how our taxes are spent.

The USA has an "advertised" national debt of $10+ trillion, however if you throw in the unfunded programs such as the proverbial social security trust fund(if found, it would be a pile of IOU notes, not cash) the true national debt is $60+ trillion plus. How is this able to happen? By foreign countries buying our treasury notes. So far China, Germany, and Japan have been large purchasers. But what happens if they decide not to buy? What country(ies) will step up to replace them? Not too many choices out there.

This sets the American dollar up for devaluing. Thus inflation.

As far as your second question, the President could easily have this authority if the line item veto was allowed.  However this is not allowed on a national level yet most, if not all, of our 50 states give their governor this power.

Jay

 

BTW, a detached observer from Pluto might be more appropriate since our politicians are so Goofy (I would have said Uranus but someone could take that personally)

 

 

[blownout cylinder]

solzrules

  The US government has no money, no surplus, no budget gimmick, that can produce the amount of money this will require.  Raising taxes when the unemployment rate is at 10% in an economy that gets most of its strength from consumer spending takes money away from the consumer and puts it in the pocket of government.  People can't afford this anymore.

Since the government has no money, no surplus---one could argue here that there is no income either as it all has to satisfy a humungous debt---and all else then how does one even get the day to day stuff done? Here is where these rhetorical responses trip us up ---NO money? Then explain all the government duties still being accomplished--you still have a military force do you not? they are still being paid? Or is it done through pretend money? Like scrip?

As for the consumer spending? When they do not have the cash themselves? Don't forget there is a huge consumer debt load sitting over them too. We have Ford now saying that a local plant--Ford Talbotville will be closing---1,500 people out there in a year---so much for taxpayers there---so much for a consumer market---can't buy too many iPods here can you? If the consumer really started to choke up on the debt market (some call it credit but there we go) the way the banks recently did there would be even more of an issue here----

I think we need to think other than the usual way here---do we wait until that magic time when the money will be around so things can be done then?

[blownout cylinder]

garr

Get the country's finances in order, then talk national high speed rail. Infrastructure is important, but our elected officials need to have the discipline to say no to pet projects that take the money away from needed ones.

Couple of questions---get the countries finances in order? How? I got into a discussion on this kind of thing awhile back and came up with an interesting issue---in order to get out of a pickle one had to do something radical---this could take one of several routes---one was to just stop paying for anything and putting all that $$$ into the debt. Problem---social issues and what all else

The other soluton would be to do the second part of what you said here----that may be a hard row to hoe but the alternative is not a pleasent one---

The second question ties in with the first in that one has to find exactly WHICH projects are needed and WHICH projects are pet projects and ---WHO decides this? I tend to favour a detached observor from Mars---perhaps 

[blownout cylinder]

NKP guy

  Does America compete in the 21st century or quit the race because it costs money to make up for the lost time of the last 40 or 50 years?  I'm glad to pay more taxes to keep my country competitive and strong.  

I don't even think you would need to go with MORE taxes as much as TARGETTED. Or rather, prioritized.

This argument seems to be more centered on what type of a vision do you have for your country? I'd love to see a country centered on its possibilities or potentials than the ever popular cry---But it Costs $$$ !!! WAAAH!!  Waiting for the dollar bill to suddenly show up and LEAD the way is not going to work here.

This is what our collective mindset has given us----we have become afraid to spend any kind of money on doing what would give us what our collective forefathers have worked so hard on---they had the vision------we have the billfold

Maybe a way looking at this is to see all of us as a type of investor---why do we not invest in our own countries? In our local innovators? Local businesses? GROW our markets? MMM?

[selector]

solzrules

...I am glad to see that the moderators here have now taken censorship to an entirely new level and censored out words that aren't even curse words.  Apparently, the use of colorful but curse free language to describe the idiocy (can I use that one?) here is just too much for some...

Your choices of words are sometimes going to fall in a grey area where some of the readership here find the term sufficiently ambiguous or offensive to submit an objection. 

For the record, the term you used, starting with a "k" and ending with "...olisher" is not offensive to me, personally, since I think I took it as I you claim you intended...merely as a pejorative and not as an indication of sexual orientation.  I would have used the term 'sycophant', but that's just me.  Yet, if people at various points in the country complain because your words have a more objectionable connotation locally, it is a small thing to alter what you wrote to make it more acceptable.  After all, your first intent is to get some sort of a point across, no?  The alternative was to delete your remarks entirely, sans alteration.

Which would you prefer?  I'll keep it in mind for the next time.

-Crandell

[carnej1]

I find one of the arguments being made by some of the posters here rather odd: some seem to be trying to imply that TRAINS did not advocate for public investment in Amtrak and commuter rail until Mr. Wrinn's becoming editor.  I have read trains consistently since the late 70's/early 80's and can only recall a few contributors who were contrarians on that subject (John Kneilling being perhaps the prime example)...

[Phoebe Vet]

solzrules

Fortunately for all of you fine folks I have't cancelled ALL of the subscriptions I had with Kalmbach - just the one that was screaming about how we need more taxes to have a really fancy high speed rail network that will do nothing other than give some people on this forum more things to talk mindlessly about. 

I am glad to see that the moderators here have now taken censorship to an entirely new level and censored out words that aren't even curse words.  Apparently, the use of colorful but curse free language to describe the idiocy (can I use that one?) here is just too much for some.

 In any case, don't worry.  As long as Kalmbach keeps Tom Murray and Jim Wrinn from writing their 'tax us for the trains' garbage out of Model Railroader I'll do just fine.  To everyone's delight I will continue to offer my two cents for the immediate future.  

Cheers.

 

Words get auto censored in the program, not because they are dirty or curses, but rather because people with aggressive personality disorders use them to intentionally offend or insult people.

Since this thread has degenerated into a childish name calling fest it will probably soon be locked.

Too bad, there are a lot of interesting points being made in the debate.

[henry6]

I take it you don't subscribe to any airline magazines.  Or highway construction magazines.  Probably not contractor magazines either.  Certainly you have your model magazine deliverd by UPS and not by the government owned and operated US Postal Service.  Drink water from the tap or bottled water from the store?   Do you even drive a car?

[solzrules]

henry6

Participation here is a perk of subscribing to the magazines.  His subscription has evidently not run out and he is just saying that he does not plan to renew.  Until the delivery of his final issue he is free to post.

Fortunately for all of you fine folks I have't cancelled ALL of the subscriptions I had with Kalmbach - just the one that was screaming about how we need more taxes to have a really fancy high speed rail network that will do nothing other than give some people on this forum more things to talk mindlessly about. 

I am glad to see that the moderators here have now taken censorship to an entirely new level and censored out words that aren't even curse words.  Apparently, the use of colorful but curse free language to describe the idiocy (can I use that one?) here is just too much for some.

 In any case, don't worry.  As long as Kalmbach keeps Tom Murray and Jim Wrinn from writing their 'tax us for the trains' garbage out of Model Railroader I'll do just fine.  To everyone's delight I will continue to offer my two cents for the immediate future.  

Cheers.

 

[PNWRMNM]

NKP

As a famous Illinois politician once said "A billion here, a billion there.  After a while it adds up to real money."

Mac

[Anonymous]

NKP guy

You are entirely right about passenger service being "a minute part of it."  That is exactly my point.  Don't sweat the small stuff when we're talking about the national debt

 

I agree that growing the economy is the best way to pay down the debt, but I don’t see how deficit spending on HSR is going grow the economy.  But to your point about HSR being chump change compared to the national debt.  I am not sure what minimalist number you are referring to, but we now have $8-billion on the table. 

Most HSR advocates won’t be satisfied with anything less than a national system of lines and trains connecting most major cities.  $8-billion is not going to even pay for the meetings that will be necessary to build that national system.  The Hiawatha LRT in Minneapolis ran about $3/4-billion, and that system is a drop in the bucket compared to a national system of HSR.  So don’t see how you can characterize the price tag for HSR as being inconsequential.

[NKP guy]

 I do appreciate your ideas but I disagree.  You are entirely right about passenger service being "a minute part of it."  That is exactly my point.  Don't sweat the small stuff when we're talking about the national debt (cue to PhoebeVet).

Also, I'm older than you (61!) and I have thousands of children to worry about...they're my former students who need a competitive transportation system for their, and their children's, future.  Growing the economy is the best way to pay down our national debt. 

[PNWRMNM]

NKP guy

I will say, again, that it always dismays me to read here comments from "railfans" who seemingly dislike passenger trains for financial reasons. 

Oh those pesky financial reasons.  The Government says I can have a big house, even though I can not make the payments.  That worked so well we are ratcheting up the debt machine and passenger service is a minute part of it.  When the rest of the world figures out that US government paper is no better than derivitaves of mortgaged backed securities we will see a depression the likes of which this country has never seen while the Government raises taxes ever higher to try to cover all the entitlements.  Who do you think is going to pay for it?  A few years ago I read "Atlas Shrugged" and thought it was quite fancifull.  Today I think it is a prophecy.

A few of us are trying to point out the financial consequences of government decisions.  It seems to be a lost cause both here and in general.  I hope to die before the economy really collapses, but I am not optimistic since I am only 60 years old.  Thank God I do not have any kids to worry about.

Mac

[Anonymous]

NKP guy

I will say, again, that it always dismays me to read here comments from "railfans" who seemingly dislike passenger trains for financial reasons. 

 

What dismays me is railfans who are willing to overlook financial irresponsibility and ruinous public spending if they get new trains in the deal. 

[NKP guy]

Perhaps the editorial direction of Trains is changing because of the current harsh realities of the publishing industry.  Is it possible that the magazine management believes they have more to gain from going in this (new?) direction than they do from being a magazine of statistics and information with a neutral editorial content?

Secondly, perhaps the aging demographics of the magazine's readership tell us that "new ocassions teach new duties; time makes ancient good uncouth."  I'd rather that Trains not only survives, but flourishes, and that may well mean a new editorial direction.  I don't know.

I will say, again, that it always dismays me to read here comments from "railfans" who seemingly dislike passenger trains for financial reasons.  So if the magazine wishes to promote high speed rail, and doing so helps it survive the very dismal state of magazine publishing today, then so be it.

[Anonymous]

henry6

Participation here is a perk of subscribing to the magazines.  His subscription has evidently not run out and he is just saying that he does not plan to renew.  Until the delivery of his final issue he is free to post.

You do not need to subscribe to any of the magazines in order to post here.

[henry6]

Participation here is a perk of subscribing to the magazines.  His subscription has evidently not run out and he is just saying that he does not plan to renew.  Until the delivery of his final issue he is free to post.

[Anonymous]

carnej1

greyhounds

solzrules

This is the exact reason why I did not renew my subscription to Trains magazine and will not.  I got real sick of paying for a magazine that kept demanding that we pay even more taxes to fund an enormous investment in high speed rail for reasons that are just plain stupid. 

Yeah.

Jim Wrinn has taken the magazine in a direction that I don't like.  It's been a part of my life for almost half a century.  I first subscribed when I was 12 (using my father's name.) with my paper route money.  I'll be 59 in November and I wonder if I'll renew.  My EX used to say that it was always a good day when the Trains Magazine arrived.  No more. 

Wrinn supports High Speed Rail in the US.  He's got a perfect platform to do the supporting.  But instead of publishing articles that present solid, reasoned arguments in favor of HSR, he chooses to basically denigrate those of his readers who think differently.  I'm "Howling"?

I believe Wrinn doesn't provide such articles because he can't.  1)  I don't believe a solid, reasoned argument in support of HSR is possible, and 2) he's not an analytical kind of guy.  In the November 2009 issue he tried to present an argument for forced, taxpayer funded, electrification of the US rail network.  The resultant article was an inane joke that claimed electrification would divert 83% of truck business to rail and add 175 million jobs in the US.  How he could possibly read that nonsense and publish it is beyond reason.  This leads him to lash out at those of us who disagree with him.  I respect people who disagree with me as long as they stick to facts and don't lie.  I don't respect those who can't deal with my disagreement and choose to denigrate me personally.  I'm "Howling"?

If he tried to do the same for HSR I think the result would be the same.  Another inane joke of an article. He simply doesn't focus on the "analytical aspect" of things.  He goes more with emotion and the artistic side of things.  If that's the way they want to go, that's fine.  It's their magazine.  But they might just wind up doing it without me sending them some money.

I think the December issue is decent.  But it's largely about taking pictures of trains rather than about the trains themselves.  Again, Wrinn is focused on the art, not the trains.

Check page 33.  The top photo.  There are two very interesting pieces of rail equipment in that consist.  That rotary snow plow was obviously fabricated by the BN (or a contract job shop) from a locomotive.  It would be nice to learn something about it.  But there's nothing written at all about the machine.  It's a nice photo.  And if you're interested in the photos instead of the trains I guess that will do. But I subscribe to Trains, not Photos.  (The other interesting piece of equipment is that Jordan on the rear of the train.  No mention of that either.)

The article on page 38 - well let's see, that's about taking pictures of trains instead of trains too.  We've got photos of the outside of a bar, the inside of a bar, a bed, some blured trains, a tale about getting stuck in a snow drift, etc.  The photo on pages 42-43 is nice.  But there's more information about the church than the train.  The train is incidental.  What train is it? Where is it going?  What is it hauling? What locomotives are powering it?  I want to know about the train.  That's why I subscribe to Trains Magazine.  (I did like the article, but it was only remotely about trains.)

The article on Page 46 is flat out about photography, not trains.

I could live with this artistic focus (if I must) if Wrinn and company would acknowledge legitimate opposing points of view.  His December editorial indicates he doesn't.  And I will not subscribe to a publication that prints outright lies such as forced electrification of the US rail net would add 175 million jobs. 

 

 

 

Points noted..Yet, you will continue to post on a free forum provided by that publication?..interesting

 

I am looking forward to reading Wrinn’s editorial, but I can’t find the magazine yet on the newsstands.  I happen to agree with most of Greyounds' views on the direction of the magazine, but I don’t see how that is inconsistent with posting in their free forums.  In fact, if I were publishing a magazine, I would sure want feedback, both positive and negative to help me match the market preference as well as possible.    

[carnej1]

greyhounds

solzrules

This is the exact reason why I did not renew my subscription to Trains magazine and will not.  I got real sick of paying for a magazine that kept demanding that we pay even more taxes to fund an enormous investment in high speed rail for reasons that are just plain stupid. 

Yeah.

Jim Wrinn has taken the magazine in a direction that I don't like.  It's been a part of my life for almost half a century.  I first subscribed when I was 12 (using my father's name.) with my paper route money.  I'll be 59 in November and I wonder if I'll renew.  My EX used to say that it was always a good day when the Trains Magazine arrived.  No more. 

Wrinn supports High Speed Rail in the US.  He's got a perfect platform to do the supporting.  But instead of publishing articles that present solid, reasoned arguments in favor of HSR, he chooses to basically denigrate those of his readers who think differently.  I'm "Howling"?

I believe Wrinn doesn't provide such articles because he can't.  1)  I don't believe a solid, reasoned argument in support of HSR is possible, and 2) he's not an analytical kind of guy.  In the November 2009 issue he tried to present an argument for forced, taxpayer funded, electrification of the US rail network.  The resultant article was an inane joke that claimed electrification would divert 83% of truck business to rail and add 175 million jobs in the US.  How he could possibly read that nonsense and publish it is beyond reason.  This leads him to lash out at those of us who disagree with him.  I respect people who disagree with me as long as they stick to facts and don't lie.  I don't respect those who can't deal with my disagreement and choose to denigrate me personally.  I'm "Howling"?

If he tried to do the same for HSR I think the result would be the same.  Another inane joke of an article. He simply doesn't focus on the "analytical aspect" of things.  He goes more with emotion and the artistic side of things.  If that's the way they want to go, that's fine.  It's their magazine.  But they might just wind up doing it without me sending them some money.

I think the December issue is decent.  But it's largely about taking pictures of trains rather than about the trains themselves.  Again, Wrinn is focused on the art, not the trains.

Check page 33.  The top photo.  There are two very interesting pieces of rail equipment in that consist.  That rotary snow plow was obviously fabricated by the BN (or a contract job shop) from a locomotive.  It would be nice to learn something about it.  But there's nothing written at all about the machine.  It's a nice photo.  And if you're interested in the photos instead of the trains I guess that will do. But I subscribe to Trains, not Photos.  (The other interesting piece of equipment is that Jordan on the rear of the train.  No mention of that either.)

The article on page 38 - well let's see, that's about taking pictures of trains instead of trains too.  We've got photos of the outside of a bar, the inside of a bar, a bed, some blured trains, a tale about getting stuck in a snow drift, etc.  The photo on pages 42-43 is nice.  But there's more information about the church than the train.  The train is incidental.  What train is it? Where is it going?  What is it hauling? What locomotives are powering it?  I want to know about the train.  That's why I subscribe to Trains Magazine.  (I did like the article, but it was only remotely about trains.)

The article on Page 46 is flat out about photography, not trains.

I could live with this artistic focus (if I must) if Wrinn and company would acknowledge legitimate opposing points of view.  His December editorial indicates he doesn't.  And I will not subscribe to a publication that prints outright lies such as forced electrification of the US rail net would add 175 million jobs. 

 

 

 

Points noted..Yet, you will continue to post on a free forum provided by that publication?..interesting

[PNWRMNM]

henry6

We don't have good passenger service, let alone High Speed Rail, in this country because big business did not see a return on investment worth going after in the mid part of the 20th Century! 

Henry, your statement is true but you need to ask why the railroads did not see any possibility of a return on investment in passenger trains after WWII.  First you should note that there WAS substantial investment in the immediate post war period, say 1946-1957.  I think that management made an error in making that investment, but pre war they had a modest operating profit on main line passenger service so perhaps they can be excused for not seeing the Interstate Highway Act of 1958.  Not sure of the date but the last new passenger equipment was ordered within months of that bill passing.

By the end of the war management could see almost 30 years of public investment in the highway system.  That investment decimated the short haul and branch line passenger service.  Passenger miles sold fell off a clif in the 1920's due to paved roads and the Model T.  Management knew this in 1945 and they should have been able to predict that highway investment would baloon after the war putting more pressure on passenger, and freight traffic.

The war did wonders for aviation technonogy due to the forced draft of defense purchases of bombers and cargo planes.  The pattern of governments at all levels investing in airports was well established by 1945.  Boeing introduced the 707 about 1957.

Management has a fiduciary duty to its stockholders and bondholders.  In plain language that means they have an obligation not to invest in things they believe will not make money.  Their decision to invest no more in passenger equipment and services, and then to get out as quickly as they could was correct.  The government could have chosen to subsidize privately operated passenger service.  In fact, they began a program to remove mail from the trains in the mid to late 1960's.  That was the death knell to some passenger trains and hurt all to which it happened, which was the vast majority.

The public left the passenger trains as soon as they had a better alternative.  The government did much to provide those altermatives by providing "free" rights of way.  Those rights of way were far from free in an economic sense, massive resources were committed to build them, but they were perceived, as intended by the proponents, to be free.  What are you complaining about??

Mac

[henry6]

So then where is the line, the decision point, that a bridge or highway or airport or rail line need be provided?   If we know the value of each of those things, why is the railroad the only one we say has to be with private funds while the others might be publicly funded? 

I am of the opinion that there has to be a meeting of the minds as to what is good of the entire community, both business and people. So there has to be a point where government action is deemed necessary so that business can flourish which in turns allows people to flourish. 

This arguement that if I don't use it then I don't want to pay for it doesn't work anymore.  I don't use I80 west of Mt. Pocono, so why should I pay for it all the way to the West Coast?  Or I don't use airplanes, so why should I pay for the airports?  The list goes on and on.  But in the larger picture, those questions don't make sense.  Because I do, somehow, somewhere along the line, get the benefit, as does everybody.  Maybe it allows a certain manufacturer to exist in my community or to bring his product to me from another. The manufacturer in my community creates jobs and fuels the local economy; the manufacturer in another community has done the same there.  And the question here is how much is too much an investment in railroads...frieght and passenger...to no longer be a universal benefit?  Or in air ports and air traffic control?  Or highways?

[Anonymous]

henry6

And Bucyrus, are you saying that if something doesn't make a financial profit, it shouldn't be done? 

 

More or less, but profit is not the issue.  The issue is whether the users will pay for the project, or whether the cost will be spread out to people who have no need for the project.  The profit component is just the necessary indicator that someone in the private sector has recognized that there was enough need by people willing to pay to have their need satisfied. 

 

I use the criteria of whether or not some endeavor will provide a profit if it is done as being the qualification of whether the endeavor is needed.  In other words, if the people who want to use the bridge are not sufficient in number or unwilling to pay for the bridge through their use, then the bridge is not worth building. 

 

Anybody can make the argument that their want is shared by others, and therefore it should rise to the level of a societal need that must be fulfilled.  But under that criteria, there is no limit to the societal needs, and yet there are limits to society’s funds.

[henry6]

And Bucyrus, are you saying that if something doesn't make a financial profit, it shouldn't be done?  That's exactly one of my points.  If a bridge needs to be built across a body of water and building it won't provide a profit to the owner/operator, then are you saying it need not be built?  I don't buy that.  If commerce can be conducted by private business and industry which would both create jobs, enhance an economy and social structure, and make a profit for those businesses and industry, then why not have a consortium build it.  The consortium in place is government.  Should we keep inventing  new levels of bureaucies ( Authorities like NJ-NYPort Authory, et al.) and should they be private for profit companies or non profit government agencies? 

[selector]

I will add my own limited two cents at this point:  unless we look seriously at human behaviour, including economic behaviour, but also general commuting and moving for convenience and recreation behaviour, and use systems thinking in attempting to find a way to incorporate some considerable passenger rails that actually come partway toward paying for themselves, we might as well be counting waves on the shore.

As long as people can afford to buy cars, and replace them at times, and can afford a few liters of gas to get them within five blocks of their intended destination, there is zero incentive to use passenger rails.  Who wants to be forced to take what amounts to a two hour investment in rail service, but then have to deal with the time of local transit in order to actually get out to where they need to be?  And with the associated expense?

-Crandell

[henry6]

Greyhounds, I am just stating what I see.  If you never heard of it before, so what?  If it bothers you, so what?   If its a different way of looking at things, so what?. As you point out, it doesn't seem to be some accepted acadamic or political theory, so what?  Why not look at things differently than everyone else has, why not start thinking 'outside of the box'?  Is it because it clashes with your learned theories and adopted political views?   If it raises questions, makes people think, or gets answers,.all the better. And if no one else ever asked the questions or thought the thoughts, so what?  Does that mean I am wrong?  Or is it just that it bothers you?

To follow your commuter train theory.  Federal aid does play a part in its existance.  And it was public monies spent on highway construction, at the expense of private enterprise, that did it.  What we have refered to as "the highway lobby" (and I'm not judging them here) helped make it happen.  It was marketed to the public while taking away the alternative.  And the East is not the only place such transit commitments have been made...stop blaming the east coast.  

You have attacked me and my integrity but you have not really corrected my thinking with concrete answers and rebuttle.  Show me where and why my questions are not legitimate?  I am not "changing by force an outcome" I don't like.  And I am not fabricating any "new economic" theory.  I do have to agree with your insinuation that I am apparently not bright nor intellegent, at least not enough to invent new economic theories!  If it came through my mind, someone else, somewhere, sometime, had to have planted it there.

[greyhounds]

henry6

We don't have good passenger service, let alone High Speed Rail, in this country because big business did not see a return on investment worth going after in the mid part of the 20th Century!  Unlike other countries which have figured out that a well planned, built and operated transportation network is good for the the overall economy of the country (i.e., private business as well as traveling public), we rely on stockholders needs to determine what we can and cannot have and do.  If you can't make a million for yourself, then it ain't worth the effort.  The public (and the economy and business prosperity[ current needs, and future existance]) be damned!   Even the Robber Barrons of Yore understood that a lot of what they were doing was aimed at the larger picture of industrial and social development of the Country as a whole.   Wait a minute, am I talking transportation or health care here?

You're not sure what you're talking about?  Well, that makes at least two of us.

You've made up an entirely new therory of economics that is unlike anything I ever studied.  I know I shouldn't let this stuff bother me, but it does.

I don't like it when people just make stuff up to support their own desires.  We can have good discussions on this forum when people are polite and stick to the truth.  Trouble happens when they resort to making stuff up, and IMHO you're sure doing that.

With exceptions, such as the Northeast and local commuter services where there are significant externalities that justify state/local (but not Federal) government funding, we don't have a significant passenger train network because the people largely decided they would rather drive and/or fly.  They had the trains as a good option and decided not to use that option.

This isn't your personal desired outcome, so I see you as fabricating a whole new wierd economic therory to justify changing by force an outcome you don't like.

To me, that's not honest.  And that bothers me.

[Anonymous]

henry6

...we rely on stockholders needs to determine what we can and cannot have and do.

 

That usually works to separate the things worth doing from the things that are made up by central planners just to expand the empire of central planning.

[henry6]

We don't have good passenger service, let alone High Speed Rail, in this country because big business did not see a return on investment worth going after in the mid part of the 20th Century!  Unlike other countries which have figured out that a well planned, built and operated transportation network is good for the the overall economy of the country (i.e., private business as well as traveling public), we rely on stockholders needs to determine what we can and cannot have and do.  If you can't make a million for yourself, then it ain't worth the effort.  The public (and the economy and business prosperity[ current needs, and future existance]) be damned!   Even the Robber Barrons of Yore understood that a lot of what they were doing was aimed at the larger picture of industrial and social development of the Country as a whole.   Wait a minute, am I talking transportation or health care here?

[wwhitby]

 

oltmannd

jeaton

If the difference was only 25 cents per gallon, the savings to the driving public would more than offset the cost of building the railroads.

This is an excellent point, but local mobility is more important, and more miles are driven, than intercity mobility. (e.g. getting to work and the grocery store). We'd get more bang for the buck investing in urban/suburban transit than HSR. In fact, doing that first might actually pave the way for HSR later by providing first/last mile service. I think the current relatively modest investments in improved intercity rail are a more than reasonable - for now.

This is what i've been saying for years!  We can build HS rail, or even increase our intercity trains, but until we have good intracity transportation networks, no one is going to be using rail between cities.  Why use the train when you can't get to the part of the city where you want to go?  If you can't get to where you want to go by train, you'll still use your car. 

We're really at a point with rail where we were back in the 19 teens and '20s with roads.  Back then, the local road network really didn't exist.  It wouldn't have made much sense to build an interstate or US highway back then, without the local road network already in place.  If we take the road network analogy further, the interstates are HS rail, and US highways are regular passenger routes. Local roads are then the light rail/bus/subway equivalent. 

What we need to do is 1) build up our intracity transportation system (bus/light rail/subway) and encourage its use.  2)  Build up a network of transportation between the suburbs and the metro areas.  3)  Enlarge our current passenger train network between metro areas and larger cities.  4)  Build HS rail.  Obviously, this won't happen overnight, but it took 40-60 years to build up the highway system and airline network we have today. 

Warren

 

[solzrules]

cx500

While perhaps he should not have made that jab, the rest of his post made reasoned comments  Don't be so thin-skinned. If you wish to close your eyes to reasoned debate that's your choice, but I tend to ignore folks displaying childish temper tantrums. But I do not fully agree completely with him either.

Thin-skinned?  I'm way past that point.  This attitude in general I am sick of.  What people are not getting is that a lot of people lost their jobs this last summer.  A lot.  The job market in the future is weak, actually deplorable.  Our economy is suffering terribly.  We need to focus on fixing the economy before anything else.  Raising billions of dollars in taxes to build a high speed rail network just because some people might ride it, it might be competitive in some strange scenario where airplanes are run by losers, Europe has it, and the fact that we just need to have it in general to show off to the world are not good reasons to increase taxes right now.  I would ask the question:  How is this going to help the economy when the government takes money out of the hands of taxpayers and invests it in technology that is not new? 

I can hear the chorus now:  It will create jobs you fool, just like the stimulus package did from February!  Wrong answer.  The money spent on that stimulus package was money taken from future taxes.  In essence, we took wealth from generations that aren't even born yet and spent it now to claim that we are creating jobs.  Our children will be paying for this now.  John McCain had it right when he called it 'generational theft'.

Not only that, but this isn't the 1930's folks.  We don't hire 4000 people to excavate out a freeway anymore.  How many people will be employed in the construction of this high speed rail network (assuming that it isn't held up for decades by environmental lawsuits)?  4 million?  3 million?  Dare I even ask how many jobs this will 'save'?  Honestly does anyone want to take a guess here?  I've seen plenty of numbers thrown around already but nothing that actually sounds serious.

To build our fast little choo choo, we would have to raise taxes.  Plain and simple.  The US government has no money, no surplus, no budget gimmick, that can produce the amount of money this will require.  Raising taxes when the unemployment rate is at 10% in an economy that gets most of its strength from consumer spending takes money away from the consumer and puts it in the pocket of government.  People can't afford this anymore.  You have to be blind deaf and dumb to think otherwise.  Governments cannot, and never have been able to, create wealth through taxes.   

So for being thin-skinned, I'm not.  I just completely write off these nuts who think that this all some sort of right wing conspiracy that is propogated by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk.  I don't try to reason with [term removed], and after seeing how this economy has affected honest people trying to make an honest wage for their families, I have no time for some [obscenity removed] that thinks we need to pay more for some cadillac railroad that takes people semi-quickly from one city with high unemplyment to another. 

It's the economy [term removed]. 

[jeaton]

greyhounds

jeaton

Don't forget to add $30 to check one bag each way.

It's $15 for one bag each way.

So two of you can fly round trip for $440 with one bag each.  Over Thanksgiving when air fares are higher.

So just why do we need that high speed rail network?

Sorry, I didn't spell it out correctly.

I guess that if we can count on an endless supply of cheap petroleum then we probably don't need high speed rail. 

What I personaly want is a service that provides speed and comfort, the latter being something that is certainly not provided with the air transport experience.

In so far as the $billions to be spent, I have suggested in previous posts that the cost may be offset by a reduction in personal expenditures, specifically, the cost of the gasoline we will still be buying when an automobile is required for our transportation needs.  I am not concerned about the billions of total cost mainly because I don't expect to get a bill for anything more than my share, even though my share would likely be a good bit more than that of the average taxpayer. 

 

[cx500]

solzrules

Phoebe Vet

Solzrules:

Did you get a bad teabag?

And with this statement I will now disregard everything in your post.  If this is the best way you can get your point across, then go pound sand, brother.  You are more than welcome to jack the taxes of your grandkids through the roof so that you can have choo choo trains the no one can ride when we're out of work.  Keep the denegrating up.  It's gonna work miracles for me at the ballot box in 2010. 

 

While perhaps he should not have made that jab, the rest of his post made reasoned comments  Don't be so thin-skinned. If you wish to close your eyes to reasoned debate that's your choice, but I tend to ignore folks displaying childish temper tantrums. But I do not fully agree completely with him either.

My belief is that High Speed Rail is premature for most corridors at the present time.  As Phoebe Vet states, at the moment Amtrak (and VIA in Canada) are spread too thin to provide the level of service that is actually convenient for most people to use.  There are, however, a few corridors where current use has risen very substantially, simply by providing more schedule options (more trains).  The trains run fast enough to provide competitive travel times while still servicing a number of on-line communities to permit very flexible use.  Finally you can get back home the same day, or catch the train at a more civilized hour than 5am. 

This is the service level Europe and elsewhere provided before building HSR.  You may find that HSR was, once all costs were factored in, the cheapest way to expand travel capacity.  Unfortunately for one part of PV's comments, HSR will probably not stop at many intermediate places since that defeats its speed mandate.

And I could take issue with lots of things the government "wastes" my tax money on.  If I don't have children, why do I have to pay those high education taxes? Or help build fancy stadiums for teams I never watch. Not to mention that real waste, the post 9/11 busywork to give the illusion that they can actually make our countries completely secure from terrorists.  Other threads in this forum have pointed out the stupidity of some of those measures.

John

[solzrules]

Phoebe Vet

Solzrules:

Did you get a bad teabag?

And with this statement I will now disregard everything in your post.  If this is the best way you can get your point across, then go pound sand, brother.  You are more than welcome to jack the taxes of your grandkids through the roof so that you can have choo choo trains the no one can ride when we're out of work.  Keep the denegrating up.  It's gonna work miracles for me at the ballot box in 2010. 

[greyhounds]

solzrules

This is the exact reason why I did not renew my subscription to Trains magazine and will not.  I got real sick of paying for a magazine that kept demanding that we pay even more taxes to fund an enormous investment in high speed rail for reasons that are just plain stupid. 

Yeah.

Jim Wrinn has taken the magazine in a direction that I don't like.  It's been a part of my life for almost half a century.  I first subscribed when I was 12 (using my father's name.) with my paper route money.  I'll be 59 in November and I wonder if I'll renew.  My EX used to say that it was always a good day when the Trains Magazine arrived.  No more. 

Wrinn supports High Speed Rail in the US.  He's got a perfect platform to do the supporting.  But instead of publishing articles that present solid, reasoned arguments in favor of HSR, he chooses to basically denigrate those of his readers who think differently.  I'm "Howling"?

I believe Wrinn doesn't provide such articles because he can't.  1)  I don't believe a solid, reasoned argument in support of HSR is possible, and 2) he's not an analytical kind of guy.  In the November 2009 issue he tried to present an argument for forced, taxpayer funded, electrification of the US rail network.  The resultant article was an inane joke that claimed electrification would divert 83% of truck business to rail and add 175 million jobs in the US.  How he could possibly read that nonsense and publish it is beyond reason.  This leads him to lash out at those of us who disagree with him.  I respect people who disagree with me as long as they stick to facts and don't lie.  I don't respect those who can't deal with my disagreement and choose to denigrate me personally.  I'm "Howling"?

If he tried to do the same for HSR I think the result would be the same.  Another inane joke of an article. He simply doesn't focus on the "analytical aspect" of things.  He goes more with emotion and the artistic side of things.  If that's the way they want to go, that's fine.  It's their magazine.  But they might just wind up doing it without me sending them some money.

I think the December issue is decent.  But it's largely about taking pictures of trains rather than about the trains themselves.  Again, Wrinn is focused on the art, not the trains.

Check page 33.  The top photo.  There are two very interesting pieces of rail equipment in that consist.  That rotary snow plow was obviously fabricated by the BN (or a contract job shop) from a locomotive.  It would be nice to learn something about it.  But there's nothing written at all about the machine.  It's a nice photo.  And if you're interested in the photos instead of the trains I guess that will do. But I subscribe to Trains, not Photos.  (The other interesting piece of equipment is that Jordan on the rear of the train.  No mention of that either.)

The article on page 38 - well let's see, that's about taking pictures of trains instead of trains too.  We've got photos of the outside of a bar, the inside of a bar, a bed, some blured trains, a tale about getting stuck in a snow drift, etc.  The photo on pages 42-43 is nice.  But there's more information about the church than the train.  The train is incidental.  What train is it? Where is it going?  What is it hauling? What locomotives are powering it?  I want to know about the train.  That's why I subscribe to Trains Magazine.  (I did like the article, but it was only remotely about trains.)

The article on Page 46 is flat out about photography, not trains.

I could live with this artistic focus (if I must) if Wrinn and company would acknowledge legitimate opposing points of view.  His December editorial indicates he doesn't.  And I will not subscribe to a publication that prints outright lies such as forced electrification of the US rail net would add 175 million jobs. 

 

 

 

[greyhounds]

jeaton

Don't forget to add $30 to check one bag each way.

It's $15 for one bag each way.

So two of you can fly round trip for $440 with one bag each.  Over Thanksgiving when air fares are higher.

So just why do we need that high speed rail network?

[garr]

jeaton

Don't forget to add $30 to check one bag each way.

 

Or wear what won't fit in the carry-on 

[jeaton]

greyhounds

jeaton

How about maybe.

About 4 to 6 times a year we make a 400 mile drive from here to Cincinnati to visit family.  Even though we would have to drive to get to a rail line-Fox Lake or perhaps Milwaukee to make a connection to a Chicago-Cincinnati high speed train, I have no doubt that a 2 hour Chicago-Cincinnati service would get me to leave my car behind.  Driving, we have little option but to go through Chicago and then deal with a very congested I-65 between Gary and Indianapolis.  It is a fairly stressful run and and even though we will drive at or little over the speed limit it still takes us at least six and a half hours to make the trip.  That would be the greater factor of my decision to take the train. 

Comparative cost might be a factor.  While the train fare is an unknown at this point, I do expect it will exceed the cost of the 40 gallons of gas I use to make the drive.  On the other hand, if I figure my total cost per mile for using the car at 50 cents, then I have $400 to work with.

Guess we could say that HSR might work for me, but maybe not for you. 

Delta will fly you round trip Milwaukee-Cincinnati for $190/person. (Check Orbitz) And that's leaving Milwaukee on November 23 and returning on November 28.   So it's Thanksgiving travel when air fares are higher.

So just why do we need to spend $billions that we don't have to do what Delta does just fine right now?  Other than to make "Editor Grumpy" less grumpy.

 

Don't forget to add $30 to check one bag each way.

[greyhounds]

jeaton

How about maybe.

About 4 to 6 times a year we make a 400 mile drive from here to Cincinnati to visit family.  Even though we would have to drive to get to a rail line-Fox Lake or perhaps Milwaukee to make a connection to a Chicago-Cincinnati high speed train, I have no doubt that a 2 hour Chicago-Cincinnati service would get me to leave my car behind.  Driving, we have little option but to go through Chicago and then deal with a very congested I-65 between Gary and Indianapolis.  It is a fairly stressful run and and even though we will drive at or little over the speed limit it still takes us at least six and a half hours to make the trip.  That would be the greater factor of my decision to take the train. 

Comparative cost might be a factor.  While the train fare is an unknown at this point, I do expect it will exceed the cost of the 40 gallons of gas I use to make the drive.  On the other hand, if I figure my total cost per mile for using the car at 50 cents, then I have $400 to work with.

Guess we could say that HSR might work for me, but maybe not for you. 

Delta will fly you round trip Milwaukee-Cincinnati for $190/person. (Check Orbitz) And that's leaving Milwaukee on November 23 and returning on November 28.   So it's Thanksgiving travel when air fares are higher.

So just why do we need to spend $billions that we don't have to do what Delta does just fine right now?  Other than to make "Editor Grumpy" less grumpy.

 

[Phoebe Vet]

Solzrules:

Did you get a bad teabag?

The fact is that where rail is relatively fast, frequent, and on time, people do use it.  In the Northeast corridor, trains move more people than the airlines.

If you look at NYC to DC you can say that airplanes are faster.  But the trains stop at all the smaller cities in between.  The airlines don't  If you want to go between two of those intermediate cities you have to drive to another city to arrive at the origin airport early enough to go through the prison visitor type security to fly to the destination city then drive to your actual destination.  Have that airliner stop at all the cities that the train stops at and see which one is faster.

Amtrak's problem is that they are spread too thin.  One train a day, or even less between two cities is not convenient to anyone's schedule.

[solzrules]

garr

I love railroading. Always have.

Some of my earliest recollections are of walks as a four year old back in '66 with my great-grandfather to see the Georgia Railroad passenger train roll through Thomson. The first issue of Trains I purchased was back in the early '70s, the one with a night shot of an EL unit at Bison Yard on the cover. Since then I have collected every issue--Vol 1, No. 1 to present and plan on reading Trains till I no longer exist.

However, I must be one the "howling high-speed critics" Mr. Wrinn editorializes in the December issue. His criticisms fit me to a tee, except the anti-government part. I am more a anti-tax increase, anti-deficit spending type.

In an ideal world, I would love for America to have a high speed rail network. However, in the real world our governments have chosen to spend our tax dollars like a gambler with a fresh cashed paycheck(and an unlimited credit card) in a casino.

The 55% of working Americans who pay income taxes already have to work 4 months of the year just to pay their annual tax burden--not even considering the deficit spending of the past 12 months. How long will we be working in a decade or two to pay the current burden? Not to mention our children and their children.

What will our standard of living be when that tax burden becomes 6 months or more? To me, that is when we can really start batting the "uncivilized" word around.

I have been to Europe. I have ridden the TGV between Paris and Lyon. It is a wonderful experience to ride a train traveling smoothly along at 180+ mph but not wonderful enough to put my childrens' future at stake.

As far as less pollution, better land use, and less congestion, what load factor will the high speed trains have to attain to make these benefits true? What service level? What user fee(in today's term, operating subsidy)? What propulsion?

Safety? We already have a high speed passenger network with a better safety record than railroading--the commercial airlines.

Call me obtuse, but this "howling high-speed critic" wants to know when the "high-speed supporters" truly get it.

Jay 

BTW--How many of the Europeans calling us "uncivilized" know the geography of the US? $8 billion is not even a downhill roll toward creating a network in America. By the time a truly national network is completed, $8 trillion would probably be closer to the truth. It is always easier to be a critic when the critic has nothing at risk. 

Very well said.

This is the exact reason why I did not renew my subscription to Trains magazine and will not.  I got real sick of paying for a magazine that kept demanding that we pay even more taxes to fund an enormous investment in high speed rail for reasons that are just plain stupid.  I really think that the only reason people want high speed rail is because Europe does and the 'boy wouldn't that be neat' factor.  All this talk about being green and how it is better than flying long distances is just unbelievable.  Do you really think that people would rather take the train at 200 MPH when they can fly there at 600?  It's as if we are trying to invest in a really expensive version of the horse and carriage. 

I've got to laugh, though.  I remember reading Tom Murray's articles right before the election.  He was tickled pink over the fact that Joe Biden actually rode Amtrak.  To quote one of our unbiased news commentators Tom must have had that 'tingle up his leg' that everyone had when they saw the president elect on TV.  Oh things were going to change.  Amtrak was going to be funded.  The administration would push high speed rail.  All the bad nasty experiences of the last eight years would disappear and we could go back to the good old days where transportation policy was the number one crisis in this country.  Since then, these people have spent so much taxpayer money on useless make work and 'save government jobs' programs that they can't even afford to buy off the seniors with a 250 $ check to shut them up for their next gigantic expenditure - healthcare. 

Rest assured,  the articles from Trains will only get more bitter as they realize that high speed rail is going to be paid lip service while sucking hind teat for the next 4 -8 years.  High speed rail is not, and should not be, a priority.  We have 10 % unemplyment ( some argue the real number is around 16), and those who are employed are working reduced hours.  The LAST thing that I need is another tax to fund a project I will never use, and never will be employed by. 

[jeaton]

The Butler

oltmannd

jeaton

If the difference was only 25 cents per gallon, the savings to the driving public would more than offset the cost of building the railroads.

This is an excellent point, but local mobility is more important, and more miles are driven, than intercity mobility. (e.g. getting to work and the grocery store). We'd get more bang for the buck investing in urban/suburban transit than HSR. In fact, doing that first might actually pave the way for HSR later by providing first/last mile service. I think the current relatively modest investments in improved intercity rail are a more than reasonable - for now.

 

What market is HSR really going after?  In the less than 500 mile range, is it the automobile or the airplane?

I live an hour and a half South of St. Louis.  My family is in suburban Chicago.  I think it would be great to travel from here to there in three hours, but once I am there I will need a car.  That is why I will continue to drive to the Chicago metropolitan area even if HSR between those two cities happens.

I think that is why HSR will affect airlines more than Interstates.  Yes, no? 

   

How about maybe.

About 4 to 6 times a year we make a 400 mile drive from here to Cincinnati to visit family.  Even though we would have to drive to get to a rail line-Fox Lake or perhaps Milwaukee to make a connection to a Chicago-Cincinnati high speed train, I have no doubt that a 2 hour Chicago-Cincinnati service would get me to leave my car behind.  Driving, we have little option but to go through Chicago and then deal with a very congested I-65 between Gary and Indianapolis.  It is a fairly stressful run and and even though we will drive at or little over the speed limit it still takes us at least six and a half hours to make the trip.  That would be the greater factor of my decision to take the train. 

Comparative cost might be a factor.  While the train fare is an unknown at this point, I do expect it will exceed the cost of the 40 gallons of gas I use to make the drive.  On the other hand, if I figure my total cost per mile for using the car at 50 cents, then I have $400 to work with.

Guess we could say that HSR might work for me, but maybe not for you. 

[The Butler]

oltmannd

jeaton

If the difference was only 25 cents per gallon, the savings to the driving public would more than offset the cost of building the railroads.

This is an excellent point, but local mobility is more important, and more miles are driven, than intercity mobility. (e.g. getting to work and the grocery store). We'd get more bang for the buck investing in urban/suburban transit than HSR. In fact, doing that first might actually pave the way for HSR later by providing first/last mile service. I think the current relatively modest investments in improved intercity rail are a more than reasonable - for now.

 

What market is HSR really going after?  In the less than 500 mile range, is it the automobile or the airplane?

I live an hour and a half South of St. Louis.  My family is in suburban Chicago.  I think it would be great to travel from here to there in three hours, but once I am there I will need a car.  That is why I will continue to drive to the Chicago metropolitan area even if HSR between those two cities happens.

I think that is why HSR will affect airlines more than Interstates.  Yes, no? 

   

[MP173]

I would love to comment on this, but am currently reading the 1900 + pages of the House of Representatives bill on health care.

ed

[jeaton]

oltmannd

jeaton

If the difference was only 25 cents per gallon, the savings to the driving public would more than offset the cost of building the railroads.

This is an excellent point, but local mobility is more important, and more miles are driven, than intercity mobility. (e.g. getting to work and the grocery store). We'd get more bang for the buck investing in urban/suburban transit than HSR. In fact, doing that first might actually pave the way for HSR later by providing first/last mile service. I think the current relatively modest investments in improved intercity rail are a more than reasonable - for now.

That is a good point and I certainly won't argue.  Interesting that in terms of ridership, recent installations of local rail services have, for the most part, done better than expected.  While none of them provide me a service that I can use and some of my tax dollars may have been used to build those services, they do have something in common.  For every person riding those trains, we can assume a few less gallons of gasoline burned.  Remote, but perhaps the slightly reduced demand for gas has let me purchase my gasoline for a few pennies less.  Could I actually be ahead of the game?

Frankly, I do not see any single part of the entire energy/transportation environment as a magic bullet.  On transportation we are, and will probably forever be in a multi-modal environment.  Accordingly, I think we ought to be doing a better job of trying to get the best return for all the money we spend for transportation.  While I think there is a place for high speed rail service, I don't think it would make much sense to build a coast to coast line when airplanes do a fine job of providing that kind of service. 

Also, I don't think it would make much sense to build any rail passenger service to serve my little town of 8,000.  Thanks, but I think we will just have to do with using our cars to get to a rail terminal at a central population point. 

 

[garr]

Phoebe Vet

While the original post purports to be about high speed rail, it appears to me that it is really about deficit spending which the OP seems to think the current administration dreamed up.

In reality it is about priorities.  We could have built a great high speed rail network with the money we threw down the rat hole in Iraq.  We have lost track of more money in the CIA and defense budgets than Amtrak needs.  The 8 billion dollar crumbs currently promised to begin high speed rail is 50% LESS money than the cost of the replacement presidential helicopter program that the last administration tried to buy and that the current administration has canceled.  Congressman Hinchey is still trying to reinstate it.

If the money used to bail out the investment houses and banks had been used to build a high speed rail network there would be a lot of people with jobs building it, and I bet none of them would be getting multi million dollar bonuses.

 

 

It is about deficit spending--however show me where I have singled out the current administration? All have been proficient in this regard.

Every dollar that the government receives in taxes represents somebody's hard earned dollar which that individual no longer has to spend on his/her needs. Our elected officials should realize what that money represents and spend it wisely. 

Get the country's finances in order, then talk national high speed rail. Infrastructure is important, but our elected officials need to have the discipline to say no to pet projects that take the money away from needed ones.

Maybe one day elected officials will be reelected for what they don't spend instead of what they do.

Jay

[garr]

oltmannd

jeaton

If the difference was only 25 cents per gallon, the savings to the driving public would more than offset the cost of building the railroads.

This is an excellent point, but local mobility is more important, and more miles are driven, than intercity mobility. (e.g. getting to work and the grocery store). We'd get more bang for the buck investing in urban/suburban transit than HSR. In fact, doing that first might actually pave the way for HSR later by providing first/last mile service. I think the current relatively modest investments in improved intercity rail are a more than reasonable - for now.

 

Don,

Excellent point.  Start small to see if the public's habits change. It does no good to have a jewel of a rail system that the public admires from their automobile.

The local regional lines could feed the true high speed routes. Otherwise, people a more apt to decide to continue their trip in their cars if they have to drive an hour to a train station. IIRC, the first stop out of Paris on the TGV was Lyon, approximately 2 hours at over 150 mph for most of the route. 

Also, it was earlier stated that the national high speed rail system mileage projection is 5,000 miles.  That seems a bit low to be truly national. What is that 1 east-west transcontinental route and 2 north-south routes on each coast? Is the transcontinental route going to so far north it is useless to the people in the southern half of the country(and vice-versa) or will it be located in the middle so that it is inconvenient to most in both the northern and southern halves. Where is the mileage for the north south route in the midsection?

Plus, I do not believe 5,000 miles for the national system would be enough to garner the support to in Congress for the legislation to pass. Not enough congressional districts benefiting. And we wonder how our deficits occur.

Jay

 

 

[oltmannd]

jeaton

If the difference was only 25 cents per gallon, the savings to the driving public would more than offset the cost of building the railroads.

This is an excellent point, but local mobility is more important, and more miles are driven, than intercity mobility. (e.g. getting to work and the grocery store). We'd get more bang for the buck investing in urban/suburban transit than HSR. In fact, doing that first might actually pave the way for HSR later by providing first/last mile service. I think the current relatively modest investments in improved intercity rail are a more than reasonable - for now.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

jeaton

[snip] Those of us who support high speed rail tend to be rather vague with the benefit side.  I would like to suggest a real potential benefit that would accrue to almost anyone.  In the US, we are currently using over 130 billion [gallons] of gasoline each year.  As you know, gasoline prices dropped from a high in 2008 of over $4.00 a gallon to about $2.70 today.  Unless you believe that the price dropped because petroleum companies thought they were making too much money, you have to figure that the price drop was due to the recession causing a drop in demand.  I pose this:  Is it possible that high speed rail could cause a sufficient shift from the use of automobiles to reduce demand for gasoline to a level that would impact gasoline prices?  If the difference was only 25 cents per gallon, the savings to the driving public would more than offset the cost of boilding the railroads.  [snip; emphasis added - PDN]

The 'external benefit' that is highlighted above is too important to be buried undifferentiated in the rest of a paragraph and a post which also makes a lot of sense.  To do the math - that 25 cents per gallon savings would be $32 Billion per year in savings.  See also this related article - ''Oil Industry Braces for Drop in U.S. Thirst for Gasoline'' by Russell Gold and Ana Campoy from page A-1 of the April 13, 2009  Wall Street Journal at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123957686061311925.html 

That principle and effect is also applicable to such similar aspects as:

- diesel fuel that can be saved by switching more freight to rail; and,

- airport costs and congestion that can be eliminated by instituting and use of high speed rail systems for trips of - say, less than 500 miles.

- Paul North.

[desertdog]

Extremely well said.  As to the response concerning the price of gasoline, if we were to start drilling our own oil we would (1) have a stable supply at lower cost, (2) stop funding international terrorism, (3) create high paying jobs here in the U.S. and (4) allow ourselves sufficient time to develop alternative energy sources.

John Timm

garr

I love railroading. Always have.

Some of my earliest recollections are of walks as a four year old back in '66 with my great-grandfather to see the Georgia Railroad passenger train roll through Thomson. The first issue of Trains I purchased was back in the early '70s, the one with a night shot of an EL unit at Bison Yard on the cover. Since then I have collected every issue--Vol 1, No. 1 to present and plan on reading Trains till I no longer exist.

However, I must be one the "howling high-speed critics" Mr. Wrinn editorializes in the December issue. His criticisms fit me to a tee, except the anti-government part. I am more a anti-tax increase, anti-deficit spending type.

In an ideal world, I would love for America to have a high speed rail network. However, in the real world our governments have chosen to spend our tax dollars like a gambler with a fresh cashed paycheck(and an unlimited credit card) in a casino.

The 55% of working Americans who pay income taxes already have to work 4 months of the year just to pay their annual tax burden--not even considering the deficit spending of the past 12 months. How long will we be working in a decade or two to pay the current burden? Not to mention our children and their children.

What will our standard of living be when that tax burden becomes 6 months or more? To me, that is when we can really start batting the "uncivilized" word around.

I have been to Europe. I have ridden the TGV between Paris and Lyon. It is a wonderful experience to ride a train traveling smoothly along at 180+ mph but not wonderful enough to put my childrens' future at stake.

As far as less pollution, better land use, and less congestion, what load factor will the high speed trains have to attain to make these benefits true? What service level? What user fee(in today's term, operating subsidy)? What propulsion?

Safety? We already have a high speed passenger network with a better safety record than railroading--the commercial airlines.

Call me obtuse, but this "howling high-speed critic" wants to know when the "high-speed supporters" truly get it.

Jay 

BTW--How many of the Europeans calling us "uncivilized" know the geography of the US? $8 billion is not even a downhill roll toward creating a network in America. By the time a truly national network is completed, $8 trillion would probably be closer to the truth. It is always easier to be a critic when the critic has nothing at risk. 

[Phoebe Vet]

While the original post purports to be about high speed rail, it appears to me that it is really about deficit spending which the OP seems to think the current administration dreamed up.

In reality it is about priorities.  We could have built a great high speed rail network with the money we threw down the rat hole in Iraq.  We have lost track of more money in the CIA and defense budgets than Amtrak needs.  The 8 billion dollar crumbs currently promised to begin high speed rail is 50% LESS money than the cost of the replacement presidential helicopter program that the last administration tried to buy and that the current administration has canceled.  Congressman Hinchey is still trying to reinstate it.

If the money used to bail out the investment houses and banks had been used to build a high speed rail network there would be a lot of people with jobs building it, and I bet none of them would be getting multi million dollar bonuses.

[garr]

jeaton

Just as it was with the IH system, the building of a high speed rail system would probably take a couple of decades.  If you figure 20 years, the annual expenditure for the project would run about $25 billion.  Obvioulsy, the $8 billion plus a few extra proposed for the next few years is far short of what would be required, even for something just to demonstrate the concept. 

So at this point it is clear that we have put up little more than enough money to provide for talking points.  If we decide to proceed with the project, we are first going to have to decide on funding.  The only choices are shifting money from other government programs, borrowing the money or raising taxes.  I hear where you stand on two of those options.

 

jeaton,

Don't get me wrong, as I stated, I would love to have a high speed rail system in the US.

I just believe that our governments have spent our tax dollars in a very unwise manner over the years. With our quoted deficit in the $10+ trillion range and the unfunded figure (which some economists claim as the true figure) in the $60+ trillion range, I just don't see how a massive project such as high speed rail is in our best interest today.

No different than my personal finances. If I choose to spend my money on whims and luxuries where is the money for the basics going to come from? Credit? How sound is that. 

I guess I can best put my thoughts this way--what billion dollar expenditure is the breaking point for the US financially? If everyone keeps wanting and getting for their favorite project, the day we teeter over that cliff will be here sooner than we expect. Sometimes the answer needs to be No--it could be argued that the answer should always be No when we as a country is in so much debt.

I would love for the US to be free of Mid East, Russian, Mexican, and other oil interest. But a few of those billions/trillions spent sent the mid '70s should have put us further along that road than where we are today.

Just because the federal government has survived during our lifetimes living on credit doesn't mean the reckoning day for these unsound principles will never come.    

 

Jay

 

BTW--I didn't say the cost would be $8 trillion, just closer to it than $8 billion if the system is ever completed. Say 20 years, as you stated, for a true national high speed system(180+mph) with inflation added in for good measure and the annual operating deficits. 

[NKP guy]

 Well, if we don't build high speed rail, how will we as a nation and economy travel in the 21st century?  By airplanes?  If so, will one of the "howling critics" compare the full costs of air travel with high speed rail?  Please include all the costs, as your crowd loves to do for passenger train proponents.

   Advanced railroads and high speed rail are things we must have if the national economy is to compete and grow within the modern world.  I think we have to see this as a required investment, not a toy, a luxury, or a plaything that benefits a very few and is unnecessary.  

   I also recall many people of this ilk ridiculing Los Angeles some years ago for building their rail transit system.  "It's too late, people will never forsake their cars."  Well, in the words of Ira Gershwin, "Who's got the last laugh now?"

   Does America compete in the 21st century or quit the race because it costs money to make up for the lost time of the last 40 or 50 years?  I'm glad to pay more taxes to keep my country competitive and strong.  

[aricat]

I read Jim Wrinn's editorial in December 2009 Trains; and 50 years ago read David P Morgan's Who Shot The Passenger Train. We all know what happened to the American passenger train. Even as late as 1959,many trains that ran on US railroads were superior to trains in Europe. I lived in Britain in 1959 and 1960 and would say the Burlington's Zephyrs,Milwaukee's Hiawathas and the C&NW's 400s were better trains than anything running on British Railways except the Golden Arrow and Bornemouth Belle. While our trains got worse, theirs got better. On Britain's West Coast Main Line they completely rebuilt it. Steam was replaced by electric and faster trains and new rolling stock.Deltic class diesels appeared on the East Coast main line and decreased running times. Britain in 1959 opened its first stretch of Motorway (Freeway).The taxpayers money was hard at work. Today the inter city trains are excellent but other trains have become crowded and expensive.It cost me $7.00 to go from Worcester England to Great Malvern England, a distance of 8 miles. Here in Minnesota we have the good people of Big Lake Minnesota complaining that they must pay $8.00 to travel the 42 miles between Big Lake and downtown Minneapolis on the new Northstar commuter trains. It's all about money and how you want to spend it. You cannot have high speed rail service and ride it for Greyhound prices.The real miracle of Britain's high speed rail is that the right of way was engineered in the reign of Queen Victoria, the American taxpayer will not get by that cheap.

[jeaton]

garr

Jay 

BTW--How many of the Europeans calling us "uncivilized" know the geography of the US? $8 billion is not even a downhill roll toward creating a network in America. By the time a truly national network is completed, $8 trillion would probably be closer to the truth. It is always easier to be a critic when the critic has nothing at risk. 

If you are going to make an  argument against high speed rail, you might at least want to suggest a a somewhat less exagerated cost number.  The operating cost estimate for electrified double track 200MPH passenger rail is 50 to 60 million dollars per mile.  $8 trillion would build something on the order of 150,000 miles of lines.  Given that the Interstate Highway system is about 48,000 miles, perhaps that would be a bit more than we really need.  (BTW, the inflation adjusted total cost of the construction of the Interstate System has been pegged at about $500 billion).

In fact, no serious high speed rail porposals suggest much  more than 5000 miles or so.  For the sake of illustration, let's double that.  A 10,000 mile system would cost something on the order of $500 billion and I guess would be more than necessary to provide service between all the heavier traveled under 500 mile markets in the US.  Just for comparison,  $500 billion is on the order of what we spend annually for each of for what is currently our highest government spending priorities, i.e., defense, social security and government paid health care. 

Just as it was with the IH system, the building of a high speed rail system would probably take a couple of decades.  If you figure 20 years, the annual expenditure for the project would run about $25 billion.  Obvioulsy, the $8 billion plus a few extra proposed for the next few years is far short of what would be required, even for something just to demonstrate the concept. 

So at this point it is clear that we have put up little more than enough money to provide for talking points.  If we decide to proceed with the project, we are first going to have to decide on funding.  The only choices are shifting money from other government programs, borrowing the money or raising taxes.  I hear where you stand on two of those options.

Those of us who support high speed rail tend to be rather vague with the benefit side.  I would like to suggest a real potential benefit that would accrue to almost anyone.  In the US, we are currently using over 130 billion of gasoline each year.  As you know, gasoline prices dropped from a high in 2008 of over $4.00 a gallon to about $2.70 today.  Unless you believe that the price dropped because petroleum companies thought they were making too much money, you have to figure that the price drop was due to the recession causing a drop in demand.  I pose this:  Is it possible that high speed rail could cause a sufficient shift from the use of automobiles to reduce demand for gasoline to a level that would impact gasoline prices?  If the difference was only 25 cents per gallon, the savings to the driving public would more than offset the cost of boilding the railroads.

I too am concerned about the future of my children and grand children, but I must say that I am more concerned by the prospect of a future where their mobility is severly limited by the availability and cost of petroleum fuels.  There have been federal deficits for all but two years of my life and for a couple of war years, the debt as a percentage of GDP was actually higher.  We are still here.

[petitnj]

 And Europe's system is subsidized and expensive to ride. The per mile cost of a train ticket is typically about 3 times the coach fare of Amtrak.

 The government has carefully chosen which national problems to throw money at: all of them. This is the housing bubble shifted to the government borrowing bubble -- it too will burst!