henry6We 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
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?
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6And 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.
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?
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
oltmanndjeatonIf 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
oltmanndjeatonIf 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.
jeatonIf the difference was only 25 cents per gallon, the savings to the driving public would more than offset the cost of building the railroads.
cx500While 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].
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?
jeaton Don't forget to add $30 to check one bag each way.
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.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
solzrulesPhoebe 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.
Phoebe Vet Solzrules: Did you get a bad teabag?
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 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.
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.
jeatonDon't forget to add $30 to check one bag each way.
Or wear what won't fit in the carry-on
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
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.
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.
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.
The Butler oltmanndjeatonIf 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?
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?
James
I would love to comment on this, but am currently reading the 1900 + pages of the House of Representatives bill on health care.
ed
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.
Phoebe VetWhile 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.
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.
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.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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.
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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.