Victrola1 Hauling passengers for hire has largely depended on subsidy since the demise of the stage coach. Mail, express, fuel taxes and other taxes for roads, the F. A. A., the list goes on. How many public resources do you direct where for what number and clientele of passenger. Is the passenger rail subsidy better spent expanding conventional speed rail? It serves intermediate points high speed rail and air do not. Do you open new routes? Do you expand service on existing routes. If doing so creates a greater market share, where next from there? As more passengers feed into a hub such as Chicago, will the will and justification be sufficient for speed increases to Indianapolis? Once to Indianapolis, will going from there to Louisville and Cincinnati become the next extensions of higher speed. As with route structure, do you build speed increases in increments? There is no way to avoid working with private freight railroads. Will taking that partnership in steps make expanding services easier? Just because the technology exists does not mean a massive commitment is wise, let alone rational.
Hauling passengers for hire has largely depended on subsidy since the demise of the stage coach. Mail, express, fuel taxes and other taxes for roads, the F. A. A., the list goes on. How many public resources do you direct where for what number and clientele of passenger.
Is the passenger rail subsidy better spent expanding conventional speed rail? It serves intermediate points high speed rail and air do not. Do you open new routes? Do you expand service on existing routes. If doing so creates a greater market share, where next from there?
As more passengers feed into a hub such as Chicago, will the will and justification be sufficient for speed increases to Indianapolis? Once to Indianapolis, will going from there to Louisville and Cincinnati become the next extensions of higher speed.
As with route structure, do you build speed increases in increments? There is no way to avoid working with private freight railroads. Will taking that partnership in steps make expanding services easier?
Just because the technology exists does not mean a massive commitment is wise, let alone rational.
Quick question? Where is it that high speed rail services do not stop at intermediate points?
"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
htgguy schlimm htgguy Can you provide a link to the data on how many people travel the NE Corridor by various modes? I wonder about the lion's share statement. I don't know how many people travel by train, plane, and automobile. Just curious. Thanks, Jim I found this article, but not the original data source, although the figures sound trustworthy. "Despite the fact that trains average only about 80 mph along the corridor today, Amtrak has managed to snag 63% of combined air and rail travel between New York and Washington, compared to 37% before Acela’s implementation. But the rail company only represents about 6% of total corridor travel ridership, so it could see a lot of growth with faster services." http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/10/26/amtrak-contemplates-a-renewed-northeast-corridor-and-lays-out-the-stakes/ Thanks for the link. I read some of the comments as well-do you think this is accurate? "presently Amtrak would charge you $330 for that round trip… would you actually ever pay that much? Airtran charges $99 on that route, counting fees and taxes (read it and weep on Kayak). I like trains but I’m not a sucker, I’m not paying an extra $230 to be a bleeding heart, even if it was almost as fast (which is all it will ever be). Acela only covers 6% of the market because it’s so expensive, not because it’s not fast enough." Not sure if this was for the NYC-Washington leg or all the way from Boston to DC. This site found round trip airfares between NYC and DC starting at $118, and one way Acela Express at $146, or $292 round trip for the same cities. So there is a cost issue, for sure.
schlimm htgguy Can you provide a link to the data on how many people travel the NE Corridor by various modes? I wonder about the lion's share statement. I don't know how many people travel by train, plane, and automobile. Just curious. Thanks, Jim I found this article, but not the original data source, although the figures sound trustworthy. "Despite the fact that trains average only about 80 mph along the corridor today, Amtrak has managed to snag 63% of combined air and rail travel between New York and Washington, compared to 37% before Acela’s implementation. But the rail company only represents about 6% of total corridor travel ridership, so it could see a lot of growth with faster services." http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/10/26/amtrak-contemplates-a-renewed-northeast-corridor-and-lays-out-the-stakes/
htgguy Can you provide a link to the data on how many people travel the NE Corridor by various modes? I wonder about the lion's share statement. I don't know how many people travel by train, plane, and automobile. Just curious. Thanks, Jim
Can you provide a link to the data on how many people travel the NE Corridor by various modes? I wonder about the lion's share statement. I don't know how many people travel by train, plane, and automobile. Just curious.
Thanks, Jim
I found this article, but not the original data source, although the figures sound trustworthy.
"Despite the fact that trains average only about 80 mph along the corridor today, Amtrak has managed to snag 63% of combined air and rail travel between New York and Washington, compared to 37% before Acela’s implementation. But the rail company only represents about 6% of total corridor travel ridership, so it could see a lot of growth with faster services."
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/10/26/amtrak-contemplates-a-renewed-northeast-corridor-and-lays-out-the-stakes/
Thanks for the link. I read some of the comments as well-do you think this is accurate?
"presently Amtrak would charge you $330 for that round trip… would you actually ever pay that much? Airtran charges $99 on that route, counting fees and taxes (read it and weep on Kayak). I like trains but I’m not a sucker, I’m not paying an extra $230 to be a bleeding heart, even if it was almost as fast (which is all it will ever be).
Acela only covers 6% of the market because it’s so expensive, not because it’s not fast enough."
Not sure if this was for the NYC-Washington leg or all the way from Boston to DC. This site found round trip airfares between NYC and DC starting at $118, and one way Acela Express at $146, or $292 round trip for the same cities. So there is a cost issue, for sure.
Acella: $266.00. Amtrak Regional service: $142.00 Jet Blue (Reagan to JFK) $207.00 And just for laughs, driving car $61.00 for gas at 20MPG or about $225.00 figuring full cost to own and operate the average car plus parking (if on Manhatten Island-Priceless).
Looking at some days further out, I did find round trip air at $119.
Given the travel stats cited above, it should be obvious that the station/airport to station/airport fares aren't the controling issue.
Just because the technology exists does not mean a massive commitment is wise, let alone rational. The super sonic passenger planes promised 50 years ago, where are they now?
htgguy"presently Amtrak would charge you $330 for that round trip… would you actually ever pay that much? Airtran charges $99 on that route, counting fees and taxes (read it and weep on Kayak). I like trains but I’m not a sucker, I’m not paying an extra $230 to be a bleeding heart, even if it was almost as fast (which is all it will ever be).
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
A program on the History Channel about American Airlines showed a couple of interesting points. First on a full 737-800 flight from Dallas to Hartford the airline made a profit of $4800.Second,former American Airlines CEO Robert Crandall said he would never invest in any airline. My point is that can high speed passenger rail make a profit and will any investors take a huge risk to get this off the ground.My concern is that HSR will be nothing more than a highly subsidised US Government ward who will depend on Congress and you; the American taxpayer.
The issue I had with the editorial which began all this hand wringing, was that it painted a wistful opinion in an enormous broad strokes using opaque generalities as critical assumptions. The responses in this thread are evidence of this fact. No one in his right mind thinks anyone is going to flip a switch and all lines are instantaneously electrified.
Frankly, I don't give a fig what Europe is or isn't doing as a measuring stick, as any comparison is like fitting a round peg into a square hole. Any change will be slowly incremental, as history proves. I dont know what country Mr Wrinn lives in, but bad timing oddly comes to mind. This dream as well as electrification is about four decades too late.
The only end run I could even remotely imagine is BNSF with a new shrewd investor like Berkshire Hathaway with deep pockets, but this flies in the face of an old campaign slogan. "It's the economy stupid," Whats going to run under wire? Hobos looking for jobs? Even a subscription to Trains is a comparative, non essential expenditure that is under pressure.
A new Hoover Dam project in the midst of two wars, a declining tax base, and a world record national debt, Mr Wrinn? Lets be realistic. Although I share your advocacy for improving the industry.. railroads are not in possession of an existential reality.of their own. The contraction of Amtrak travel times does not correlate to where these passengers are going at an increased speed, the unemployment office or a tent city? We may as well advocate fitting trolley poles on cars. Good luck.Much ado about a unrealistic matter of timing.
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
htgguyThanks for the link. I read some of the comments as well-do you think this is accurate?
This article from the same site is even more interesting. It proposes a real plan.
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/01/a-future-interstate-rail-network-redux/
I'm sure airfares are competitive, but that doesn't include getting to and from the airports.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Visit look4trains.com
tomikawaTTHSR in places where it makes economic sense and there's a lower speed public transport infrastructure to support it is one thing. HSR where you need to rent a car or pay a taxi to get to where you're going is no more convenient than air travel. HSR projected through miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles doesn't make economic sense
I agree, politics being what it is. However as another poster indicated previously, the folks living in the more populous states have already forked out a lot for economically necessary roads in the sparsely settled West. We certainly can't build VHSR routes out there b/c the huge distances make even that expensive proposition non-competitive with air.
htgguyCan you provide a link to the data on how many people travel the NE Corridor by various modes? I wonder about the lion's share statement. I don't know how many people travel by train, plane, and automobile. Just curious. Thanks, Jim
RudyRockvilleMDSome of the answers to why high speed rail? It is often competitive or even faster based on a door-to-door travel time compared to air travel for business traveleres. Another answer is Amtrak carries the lion's share of passengers in the Northeast Corridor than the airlines. Still another answer is it is more convenient than flying, and less nerve wracking than driving in densely populated corridors.
What seems to be overlooked in this and the other threads on the subject is that Amtrak's Acela express, the lone effort at high speed in the US, has consistantly shown an operating profit. That happens in spite of the fact that alignment, old bridges, commuter train traffic, and the catenary on the DC to NYC segment all work against the otherwise top speed of the train.
I'm not suggesting that it is a get rich proposition, but at least it is not a black hole for taxpayer dollars.
I have also suggested that high speed rail, and concurred that other rail mass transit systems, built in the right places would reduce demand for petroleum based fuels. If that results in lower gas and diesel prices than would otherwise prevail, we won't limit that benefit to those who live just in the areas where the rail service is available or those who think HSR is a good idea.
FYI: Acela, it does work in the Northeast. As for speed, the "over the road" average speed of 66 mph (as stated in this Forum) is just fine. Try to get in your car in Boston and maintain 66 mph all the way to New York City, can't be done legally. New York radio stations give you the time of backups into New York City each morning, often 30 to 45 min.
Aboard an "Acela":
Depart the Capitol city, Boston, at "South Station", in the heart of the Financial District.
Move ahead 2 miles and stop at "Back Bay Station", Insurance Companies and Fenway Park.
Now 60 mph for aprox 8 miles to the next stop at the beltway "128 Station" where I-95 and state route 128 join.
Now you open up to 150 mph to the Rhode Island state line at "Boston Switch" (P&W junction) then slow down through Pawtucket and into the station stop in the Rhode Island Capitol, Providence.
Departing Providence speed increases to East Greenwich, from there to Westery full speed again.
From Westerly RI its speed is limited by Grade Crossings and Draw Bridges before entering New London CT. Not all "Acelas" stop at New London, home of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy and North Atlantic Sub Base.
The run from New London to New Haven alone the shore of Long Island Sound, crosses river after river with speed reductions. At the New Haven stop it meets trains from the Amtrak Hartford CT to Springfield MA line.
At New Haven you enter the tracks of the Metro North (Commuter) Railroad with a 90 mph speed limit all the way to New Rochelle where you move back onto the Amtrak line. On to the Hellgate Bridge and the Penn Station stop.
Next to Trenton NJ, Philadelphia PA, Willmington DE, Baltimore MD, and Washington DC.
What you can't do in 3 1/2 hours--- drive Boston to New York ---- get from Boston to Logan Airport, go through security and fly to a New York airport, get a Cab into "The City".
Don U. TCA 73-5735
IN the USA high speed rail is probably best approached on an incremental basis. 125 mph high speed operaton between NYC and Albany does not require a brand new railroad, just upgrading what is there. The same should be true of Cleveland - Toledo - Detroit, Detroit - Chicago, Boston - Albany, New HAVEN - Springfield, all of which should be good markets. Expensive new bypasses would be needed LA-SF, Seattle-Portland, so perhaps the beginning should be where the greatest yield can be had for the least expenditure.
tomikawaTT (People in Sin City and the others I named aren't thrilled about connecting cities east of the Mississippi with HSR bought with their tax dollars...)
I (like many people) can afford a nice car that goes 200 mph..does that mean I should buy one? Of course not...I drive a cheap sedan. As a society we need to make similar choices...just because we CAN doesn't mean we have to. I travel sometimes...but never need to travel because I HAVE to. All business meetings can now be conducted over the phone, via email or through teleconference...I walk/bike to work...I don't even need a car or public transit or anything high speed...now's THAT'S quality of life.
Ulrich I'm going to take the contrarian view on this one...I just don't see the need for high speed passenger rail services. In Europe (where high speed rail is more developed) what are the user demographics? Does anyone's livelihood depend on high speed transportation (other than the people who work for the railway)? Don't get me wrong..I think high speed rail is nice but perhaps not a luxury we can afford nor is it something the planet really needs. Alot of what we have now is a waste and a drag on the environment...we don't need more of that.
I'm going to take the contrarian view on this one...I just don't see the need for high speed passenger rail services. In Europe (where high speed rail is more developed) what are the user demographics? Does anyone's livelihood depend on high speed transportation (other than the people who work for the railway)? Don't get me wrong..I think high speed rail is nice but perhaps not a luxury we can afford nor is it something the planet really needs. Alot of what we have now is a waste and a drag on the environment...we don't need more of that.
The Europeans have it so therefor it must be the most exciting thing in the world. The Liberals are in charge now and they think Europe is God's Paradise on Earth, so we should be EXACTLY like Europe.
Reality TV is to reality, what Professional Wrestling is to Professional Brain Surgery.
Brother Berthold,
Those are all fine examples -but!
Note that the first nationwide committment to HSR was in a country the size of California, far more densely populated and already possessed of a comprehensive rail passenger traffic net. Which US state is the same size as Germany, as densely populated, and with an equivalent public transportation network? We won't mention the Marshall Plan impact on rebuilding every one else's infrastructure...
And then there's the Desert Xpress, which expects people to pay $100 for a one-way trip on a 155-mph glorified subway train to travel from a park-and-ride in California to Las Vegas. They plan to pretty it up with casino ameneties... (further comments from this Las Vegas resident withheld!)
HSR in places where it makes economic sense and there's a lower speed public transport infrastructure to support it is one thing. HSR where you need to rent a car or pay a taxi to get to where you're going is no more convenient than air travel. HSR projected through miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles doesn't make economic sense, but leaving it out flies in the face of political reality (People in Sin City and the others I named aren't thrilled about connecting cities east of the Mississippi with HSR bought with their tax dollars...)
Chuck
ulrich. I don't buy the quality of life thing...our quality of life is much better.
That is questionable for the average person.
jeatonJust to provide a modest comparison, the high speed line from Madrid to Barcelona, Spain is 386 miles and from Madrid to Seville is 293 miles. On the former route, Spain runs 17 trains a day each way between 6am and 8pm, non-stop in 2 hours 38 minutes and 30 minutes longer with intermediate stops. Madrid-Seville gets 16 trains a day each way, and with some stretches operating at speeds less than 187 MPH, non stop travel time on that route is 2hours 20 minutes.
Or a second example. Berlin to Hamburg 175 miles in 96 mins,. top speed about 162 mph, average only 109 mph. 14 trains each way between 6am and 8pm, 68 Euros = $103. Although this isn't cheap, the train is the preferred travel mode.
Ulrich Europe is more suitable to high speed rail due to the shorter distances and greater population densities. I don't buy the quality of life thing...our quality of life is much better. I agree...the technology is great...but in the final analysis high speed is a very expensive luxury. Who needs it here when short hop airlines offer the same for dirt cheap rates?
Europe is more suitable to high speed rail due to the shorter distances and greater population densities. I don't buy the quality of life thing...our quality of life is much better. I agree...the technology is great...but in the final analysis high speed is a very expensive luxury. Who needs it here when short hop airlines offer the same for dirt cheap rates?
Here is a list of fairly densely populated places in the US and their distances (via Amtrak routes) from Chicago.
Minneapolis 418Kansas City 437St Louis 284Detroit 281Cincinnati 319Indianapolis 196Milwaukee 85Cleveland 341
I am sure that one could compile a similar list of densely populated areas and their distances, all under 500 miles, from big places such as New York, Philadelphia, Washington, DC and Atlanta.
Just to provide a modest comparison, the high speed line from Madrid to Barcelona, Spain is 386 miles and from Madrid to Seville is 293 miles. On the former route, Spain runs 17 trains a day each way between 6am and 8pm, non-stop in 2 hours 38 minutes and 30 minutes longer with intermediate stops. Madrid-Seville gets 16 trains a day each way, and with some stretches operating at speeds less than 187 MPH, non stop travel time on that route is 2hours 20 minutes.
Quality of life. Does CA mean California or Canada?
RudyRockvilleMD The questions are: high speed rail, why, when where, and how? To partly answer the where question Chicago is a hub city where high speed rail lines of up to 400 - 500 miles could connect it with the Twin Cities, St Louis, Detroit, or Cincinnati to name a few cities. Some of the answers to why high speed rail? It is often competitive or even faster based on a door-to-door travel time compared to air travel for business traveleres. Another answer is Amtrak carries the lion's share of passengers in the Northeast Corridor than the airlines. Still another answer is it is more convenient than flying, and less nerve wracking than driving in densely populated corridors.
The questions are: high speed rail, why, when where, and how? To partly answer the where question Chicago is a hub city where high speed rail lines of up to 400 - 500 miles could connect it with the Twin Cities, St Louis, Detroit, or Cincinnati to name a few cities.
Some of the answers to why high speed rail? It is often competitive or even faster based on a door-to-door travel time compared to air travel for business traveleres. Another answer is Amtrak carries the lion's share of passengers in the Northeast Corridor than the airlines. Still another answer is it is more convenient than flying, and less nerve wracking than driving in densely populated corridors.
The answers to big city living/commutes is arguably HSR. Yes.
RudyRockvilleMD. For example the Acela Express can travel at a top speed of 150 mph in Massachusetts yet it takes 3 1/2 hours to travel between Boston and New York for an average speed of only 66 mph!
And there are a lot of earlier forms of rail service that technically reached higher averages---hence---back to the question. Why HSR??
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
An answer to the when question is California is actively planning a high speed rail network that will move people faster than air travel between its major cities.
One important consideration for high speed rail is think of high average speeds, not high top speeds. For example the Acela Express can travel at a top speed of 150 mph in Massachusetts yet it takes 3 1/2 hours to travel between Boston and New York for an average speed of only 66 mph!
CShaveRRLarry, if A to B and C to D are relatively short stretches at the ends of the line, I'd gladly take a train from A to D to experience a long, fast trip over the B-C stretch.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
BaltACD For the past several years the airlines have all be clamoring that they are financially at deaths door with the current fare/cost structure...a structure where the airlines are not paying fully allocated costs for either the terminal facilities (airports) or traffic control (air traffic control systems). Were those costs to be fully passed on to the airlines, very few people could afford to fly at the fares that would have to be charged. As it stands now, airlines are receiving a subsidy from all forms of government to sustain their operations....subsidies that are not acknowledged for what they are.
For the past several years the airlines have all be clamoring that they are financially at deaths door with the current fare/cost structure...a structure where the airlines are not paying fully allocated costs for either the terminal facilities (airports) or traffic control (air traffic control systems). Were those costs to be fully passed on to the airlines, very few people could afford to fly at the fares that would have to be charged. As it stands now, airlines are receiving a subsidy from all forms of government to sustain their operations....subsidies that are not acknowledged for what they are.
I think that there was a change in the business model quite a few years ago that 'allowed' the airline industry to grow at a faster rate through various seat price wars. If I see a mass of surtaxes, surcharges and fees dumped on my ticket then i really need to wonder where the money is going.
The business model currently being used is terminally ill and needs changed.
As for HSR----explain the need to people still living in the rural areas of N.America. This is all for the urban populations---
BaltACDAs it stands now, airlines are receiving a subsidy from all forms of government to sustain their operations....subsidies that are not acknowledged for what they are.
Very true...of course this forum's resident accountant disputes that b/c of claiming the airlines only should be responsible for 30% of all the government funding.. And if that is so, then we sure are heavily subsidizing corporate business jets.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
UlrichDoes anyone's livelihood depend on high speed transportation (other than the people who work for the railway)?
Does anyone's livelihood depend on high speed transportation (other than the people who work for the railway)?
UlrichI think high speed rail is nice but perhaps not a luxury we can afford nor is it something the planet really needs.
I think high speed rail is nice but perhaps not a luxury we can afford nor is it something the planet really needs.
Ulrich A lot of what we have now is a waste and a drag on the environment...we don't need more of that.
A lot of what we have now is a waste and a drag on the environment...we don't need more of that.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
UlrichWho needs it here when short hop airlines offer the same for dirt cheap rates?
Europeans don't see it as a "luxury item" but more a "quality of life" issue...not only is it easier and cheaper than flying, it's also environmentally sound. Hard to believe in the US but in Europe it's not uncommon for a family to not own a car. They can commute to work, take daytrips on the weekend, or longer vacation trips all on public transportation.
It's probably not going to be possible to get beyond the fact that Europeans and Americans have opposite views of life. In Europe the feeling is "if we pool our resources, we can create things that benefit all of us" - like rail transportation, health care, day care etc. In the US we feel "I want to keep all my money for myself, and to heck with everybody else". We pay lower taxes than any other industrialized nation, but think we pay the most...so politicians know it's suicide to put forward anything to help society as a whole if it would mean even a tiny tax increase. That's why we're a generation or two behind Europe in transportation.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.