Paul Milenkovic wrote: For one thing, these places have higher population densities and distances between city pairs of interest.For another thing, while the European places have caught up with the U.S. roughly in terms of auto ownership and vehicle miles, owing to the privation following WW-II and the need to rebuild, auto ownership growth lagged the U.S.Why did the US get rid of steam sooner than Europe or China?
For one thing, these places have higher population densities and distances between city pairs of interest.
For another thing, while the European places have caught up with the U.S. roughly in terms of auto ownership and vehicle miles, owing to the privation following WW-II and the need to rebuild, auto ownership growth lagged the U.S.
Why did the US get rid of steam sooner than Europe or China?
Well, just don't ask Micheal Sol that question!
You might also ask why the US has strong, private frt RRs and Europe does not.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Just a few perhaps disjointed observations, or perhaps conclusions, that I have:
A. most of us make enough to have many hundreds of dollars each month in discretionary spending, and are likely to vote to keep it that way;
B. most of us enjoy the freedom and convenience that the private automobile adds to our daily living, particularly when we are more determinant in its use...as in weekend use and during holidays, and are likely to vote to keep it that way;
C. folks hate lining up, going through security checkpoints, abiding by schedules. The private automobile, once again, tends to reduce those unpleasant interludes to negligible, and people are likely to vote to keep it that way;
D. when using a car, the owner can stop and enjoy at his/her pleasure. Not so the other mass transit conveyances, etc;
E. trains only get you from here to there. Trouble is, here is not right here, and the other end is no better, etc;
F. we are unlikely to want to relinquish all the foregoing in exchange for trains and other forms of transportation but especially if the net gains are not thought to be substantial or even attractive. For example, what does the "crowd" think would be 'rapid transit', or "high speed rail?" Would they settle for an honest to God 120 mph? Do they know that the TTV and Shinkansen can do somewhat better? Would they not be more likely to support something on a par, at least, with those platforms? It will take a protracted and determined effort by a leadership cadre that has influence, but to paraphrase Cicero, the uncertain wishes of the crowd are not to be discounted.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Several posts ago Samantha wrote, "To do it because other countries are doing it, although we can learn from [what] others are doing, is likely to produce the wrong outcome for America."
I would never use the "Everyone else is doing it" argument as the only reason for doing something, but one has to wonder why people that have modern rail systems, including high speed rail (HSR), brag so much about having them, and reinforce their enthusiasm by building even more passenger rail capability.
France, Germany, England, Italy, Japan, and now China, our best world trading partners and at the same time our strongest competition in the world market, find it "right" (if not profitable) to make passenger rail, including HSR, a significant part of their total transportation system.
How can it be good for them and not good for us? What are the differences among these nations that lead to such widely different conclusions for transportation?
Until someone can answer these questions, I will continue to believe that North American neglect of passenger rail is producing the wrong outcome for us.
mdw wrote:Samantha, your error again is the "free market" deciding. I am a free market person, but a "free" market does not exist is transportation.
I may be in error. But errors cut both ways.
Whether the federal government chose the winners following WWII is debatable. An equally strong case can be made that the federal government was responding to the wishes and perceived travel trends of the people. As one writer points out, people were deserting trains, especially the long distance trains, long before the Interstate Highway System matured or the jet airplane was introduced.
Several weeks ago I went to California. I could have driven, flown, taken Amtrak, or rode a Greyhound. I chose to fly. That's exercising market choice. When I got to California, I took a train to Anaheim. Then I took a bus/train to San Francisco, and while I was in San Francisco, I took Amtrak to Sacramento and return to visit the California Railroad Museum. I flew home to Texas.
These were all market choices. And every time I made a choice, I sent a signal to Southwest Airlines, Amtrak, FAA, DOT, etc., as well as my elected representatives, what I want from the transportation market. My signal is only important to the extent that millions of others have sent similar signals.
If most of my neighbors choose to fly to California, as opposed to one of the other options, our elected representatives will figure out what options we want, and they will respond accordingly, unless they no longer want to be our elected representatives. This is one of the reasons why America has invested so heavily in roads and airways.
It is not quite as simple as I have outlined. Part of free markets is to create demand for a product. Advertising and up front investment can influence choices. But if the investment decisions are wrong, i.e. invest in rail infrastructure as opposed to airways infrastructure, people in a free society will not sustain it over the long haul.
The free market means that there are winners and losers. It can be harsh. I am not surprised that many rail advocates don't like it. But it is the best way to ration scarce resources in a democratic society. The alternative is to have a government wonk ram it down your throat ready or not.
Decision points change constantly. Past investment decisions may not be the best going forward. But they were the ones that most of the people wanted at the time.
Well we are not talking about a business. If the Interstates were a business they would have never gotten the capital funding to get off the ground based on the user fees generated from those who bought "tickets" to use the highway. They are a government enterprise that relies on taxation on a much larger network of local and regional right of ways to pay for the capital costs.
I am presenting the historical spending levels as well as future spending levels required for the interstates. In particular the marginal costs of expanding a 4-lane interstate to a 6-lane interstate is very relevant. I have presented both the costs to construct a new build interstate alignment and a expansion of an existing alignment which are both very relevant to any analysis.
VPayne wrote: The amount of money spent on transportation improvements in the past is very relevant as it establishes what is the best use of the money for the future based on past performance.Secondly, the ratio of amount of capital costs payed back to those spent also establishes a resonable rate at which HSR capital fund can be spent in the future.Thirdly, the land use created by the use on interstates when the true cost was not passed on to the user needs to be corrected.HSR should be allowed to be funded according to the historical rate that the interstate system's capital needs were funded.
The amount of money spent on transportation improvements in the past is very relevant as it establishes what is the best use of the money for the future based on past performance.
Secondly, the ratio of amount of capital costs payed back to those spent also establishes a resonable rate at which HSR capital fund can be spent in the future.
Thirdly, the land use created by the use on interstates when the true cost was not passed on to the user needs to be corrected.
HSR should be allowed to be funded according to the historical rate that the interstate system's capital needs were funded.
I spent more than 40 years as a CPA, financial planner, etc. for a Fortune 250 electric utility. I never heard a knowledgeable accountant, financial officer, or chief executive say that what had been spent in the past on generating capacity should be a factor in the decision to build a new power plant.
The questions were do we need it to meet our customers needs, how much will it cost, how much can we earn on it, and how will we fund it. Understanding history, including the cost of various projects, providing one is dealing with historical facts as opposed to just opinions, can be helpful in determining what mistakes to avoid.
HSR should be considered on its merit, in accordance with the same drivers associated with the decision to build a power plant or any other capital project. The amount of money spent to build the interstate highway system is irrelevant to the amount of money needed to build a railroad.
The builders of the New York Central Railroad did not argue that they should spend the same amount of money on the railroad that was spent on the Erie Cannel.
Interesting, but every single comment I hear from those in my office, a civil/structural engineering firm, center around how driving long distances is truly scary when I ask how their trip was.
I will try to remind those with me in the car next time it is raining at 9:00 pm on the interstate that we really should be thankful that we have this peaceful time to ourselves. Particullarly, when being overtaken by a semi on a long 3% downgrade that ends on a 3 degree curve.
I really have no use for any of the conservation arguements mentioned and I have to question that everyone prefers sitting behind a windscreen for 5+ hours as apposed to relaxing or working.
There is this running assumption in the advocacy community that the public at large sees things pretty much our way: trains pleasurable, driving pure misery.
There was an interesting front-page article in the Wall Street Journal a while back about Southside Chicago commuters forced out of their cars and onto Metra on account of the Dan Ryan contruction snarl up.
There is this assumption in the advocacy community that the advantages of trains or so obvious and inherent if people would only see them. What for some people is being able to relax and work on the train, for many motorists, the only private, personal time they get from the boss, the husband or wife, the kids, their only solitude is the time spent behind the wheel.
I support trains, I really do. But the kind of if-you-don't-see-how-trains-are-so-vastly-superior-to-other-modes-you-are-an-idiot tone that I experience from both the virtual world and bricks-and-morter advocacy communities is really wearing on me, and I had been one of the early NARP members back in the late 60's.
As passenger train advocates we are truly trying to reshape the social system at a very deep level. Read the David Lawyer Web page.
I don't quite see how I am trying to have it both ways. One example was new build interstate capacity the other was incremental capacity added to the interstates. The point to both examples is to establish the level of capital that was/is going into the interstate highway system.
However, since you brought it up both are equally not cost effective. The low and moderate use road is not capital cost effective the high use road is not operationally cost effective to the user due to the extended time spent traveling without being able to do anything else.
I do suggest that HSR should be funded on an equal level as the funds for the interstate highway system which did/do not come from the "users" in proportion to their use but from fuel taxes on the large network of local existing street ROWs that were paid for through mortgages at the time of land development and not the "trust fund". Remeber the cities and counties then get to maintain most of those streets without any benefit of the state fuel tax.
I have no problem establishing a balance through tolls or such. But in order for the balance to be established HSR needs access to the "trust fund" in the same proportion of "user" revenues to "trust fund" revenues as has/is being granted to the interstate highway system.
As to marginal costs of expanding interstate capacity take a look at the second pageDOT estimate to enlarge and interstate from 4 lanes to 6 lanes. $22.2 million a mile for an additional lane in each direction just to have it immediately gridlocked!
You can't have it both ways. On one hand you argue that a new highway in Indiana is not cost effective because it has as bad a subsidy ratio as Amtrak and like Amtrak it will operate at some fraction of capacity. On the other hand you argue that another highway project is not cost effective because it will be operating at capacity the day it opens.
When we start reasoning like that, the general public, who likes their cars and the flexibility, gets the idea that we are anti-car rather than pro-transportation alternatives that will help the average non-railfan voter and taxpayer. And when we start in on calling politicians who don't give us everything we want idiots or worse, and we lay into the average voter as being some kind of disciple of Ayn Rand for not voting the tax increases we want, this kind of talk feels good on these forums, it has a sympathetic audience on these forums, but that attitude bleeds outward from the inner circles into the general public and leads to situations like the Vision Report. We we are hopping up and down with Gold Rush Fever that someone suggests spending 10X current Amtrak on trains, the rest of anybody else will look at the capital budget and ridership numbers of Vision and ask "What are these guys smoking because I want some."
That a highway "will be gridlocked the day it opens" is a long-held NARP talking point, and after over 30 years in the transportation wilderness of following NARP-style train advocacy, I think it deserves another look. You all really need to read the personal Web page of David Lawyer, who has some interesting insights on transportation and energy usage, which is the big item as far as the Global Warming concern.
David Lawyer is a self-professed environmentalist who wants to get a big picture view of why our society burns so much fossil fuel, as far as I can tell he has nothing to do with the concrete lobby or the right-wing think tanks who are so pro-highway and anti-train, and he has interesting insights. His basic take is that historically, automobile transport has been energy-saving compared to train transport on a per passenger mile basis (hard to believe, yes, but go Google David Laywer and read his Web page), but the reason we are gobbling up so much oil is that the automobile and (until now) cheap oil lets us move around so much because of the flexibility and convenience. Back in the day, people pretty much sat around at home and didn't go anyplace.
There is that William Howard Kunstler fellow, a popular speaker at advocacy groups, who sees trains as essential to preventing what he sees as the social crisis from Peak Oil. What you need to understand about his agenda, he is not about replacing car passenger miles mile-for-mile with automobile passenger miles. The idea is that trains combined with taxes on gas or oil or cars would roll back the whole ex-urban housing pattern back to central city density of apartment and condo blocks and row houses and streetcars and trains. Not that the common carrier modes are really that more energy efficient per passenger mile, but we would return living patterns to the situation where people would just plain drive less because the ice cream shop would be the corner store rather than a 4 mile drive to the nearest strip mall.
So you build highway lanes, and these lanes fill up the day the highway opens and you are still sitting in a traffic jam. So instead, you take the same money and build trains/carpool highway lanes/whatever, and you have a transportation alternative that is not operating anywhere near capacity because it lacks the flexibility and convenience of what it is replacing, and it offers traffic-jam free travel to people willing to put up with the restrictions of schedule and connections of that other mode, and the highway lanes are still jammed up -- the commuter train or carpool lane paid out of gas tax money hasn't helped the poor schlumps in the other lanes.
The reason Samantha along with the right-wing think tanks (Oh the humanity, that the right-wing think tanks may have a good idea!) are talking "free market solutions" is that the jammed-up highway is one of those "tragedy of the commons" situation where everyone uses a very convenient and desirable and "free" resource (the roads) which leads to everyone being inconvenienced by the resulting congestion. The answer is not to stop building highways; perhaps the answer is RFID toll collection and congestion based pricing, which will perhaps strike a better balance of access to good highway transport, incentive to use train or bus alternatives, and maybe improve our living patterns from the oil-burning ex-urban ways.
Maybe some clarification is in order. There really aren't "free markets" only "free market forces" that operate within some constraints that define the landscape where they operate. In transportation, the landscape is shaped by subsidy, policy and politics.
For example, decisions to build the interstate highways with 90/10 funding, a requirement to pay prevailing wages and a verys specific set of design standards no doubt effected the timing, location, and quality of the build-out. In the absense of the interstate program, a quasi-free market set of highways was being constructed, state by state, in the NE and near midwest.
Different landscape = different results.
A lot of the current constraints are non-uniformly applied by mode, resulting in a landscape tilted toward highway and air. It sub-optimized taxpayer dollars. Flattening out the landscape would likely create a niche for corridor trains, as Paul M and Samantha point out, a historically skewed landscape is not justification for unlimited passenger rail subsidies. Each project needs to rise and fall on it's own merit - based on free market forces - within the defined lanscape.
BTW- The mass exodous from the post WWII streamliners occurred well in advance of the inception of the interstate highway system. It had more to do with the rise of commercial aviation and private auto ownership than the existence of limited access highways. By 1950, the LD trains were by-and-large "deadmen walking" - at least as a profit-driven enterprise.
Here's a quiz question:
Found this headline on line: "AMTRAK'S RIDERSHIP POSTS GAIN OF 25%; 2 Million People Used Rail System in June, the Highest Total for a Month in Unit's History"
Guess the year.
Finally, the capital spending on the interstates is not finished. Many bridges need to be replaced under traffic which is quite expensive. The debate on past capital cost effectiveness enters into the equation so as to inform what can be spent.
As to the vision report it dosen't sound like something I would support. I am advocating new build, fully grade separated, 125/140 MPH passenger 75 MPH intemodal freight lines. For the amount of created capacity they are quite cheap. The original interstates showed the need for new build infrastructure. The same pattern should be followed by intercity rail.
As to marginal costs of expanding interstate capacity take a look at the second page of the FDOT estimate to enlarge and interstate from 4 lanes to 6 lanes. $22.2 million a mile for an additional lane in each direction just to have it immediately gridlocked! http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/policy/costs/costs-D3.pdf
The payback on Interstate capital funding is becoming even worse than the historical record. It is time to realize that HSR should be allowed to be funded according to the historical rate that the interstate system's capital needs were funded.
Paul Milenkovic is correct. The amount of money spent on the current transportation infrastructure is a sunk cost. It is irrelevant for answering the question, "what is the best way forward?"
Highways, airways, waterways, pipelines, railways, elevators, escalators, etc. will be part of our transportation infrastructure. The question is which one delivers the most value in a given environment for the required expenditures. It is a difficult question to answer. This is why, where possible, I prefer to have the free market answer it.
Looking at the cost of current modes of transport gives the decision makers an opportunity to identify high cost/low benefit activities that could be discontinued so that the resources could be used better.
The Vision report is proposing 350 billion over 40 years, with only a limited amount of true HSR in California, with much of the capital spending on 110 MPH rail on the order of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative. The Vision report is what people came up with on the thought they could get 10X current Amtrak funding to carry 10X the passengers.
A lot of highway construction is a national legacy -- it may have been affordable to build highways back in the day, but the cost effective way to add incremental capacity in congested corridors may be to use existing rail lines in the fashion of the California trains. I have no problem with putting forward a reasoned economic case. But that is not what we do. We complain about the Three Rivers and the Sunset.
But too much of the commentary is about the (name your favorite politician) being a fool and the electorate being spoiled and greedy for not wanting to part with tax dollars for our favorite transportation schemes. It may feel good, but it hasn't gotten the advocacy community very far since 1971.
Having not gotten into what I assume is the AASHTO Vision report it would seem that the comparison you make is a little flawed. I backed out that the report probably meant for 10,000 miles of HSR at $25 million a mile, with ridership of 11,000/day per mile. Correct me if I am wrong.
It sure seems that HSR accross Indiana could be built for quite a bit less than $25 million a mile as you are only taking control and grading a 60' ROW instead of a 250' ROW but lets just use that.
You are comparing very similar capital expenses for two facilities but handicaping one with less than half the ridership (11,000/25,000). Also, I only got 11 million passenger miles at 1.2 person/auto for the I-69 example. Further, the current Interstate usage doesn't really have a reference point unless we look at the NPV of 50 years or capital spending. In 1970 the Interstate VMT was 1/5 of that in 2005.
The point I would make is that apples to apples HSR is close to the Interstate network when it is allowed to be funded as the Interstate network was funded.
The added plus to society is the HSR operator would be covering their costs+profit even while providing the passengers a lower cost transportation service than the highway equivalent of even a two person auto if a resonable auto marginal cost (not just gas) is considered.
I was not addressing V Payne's points. My comments were directed to some of M. Eaton's observations, but they cut across several postings.
If there is money to be made in any form of passenger rail, investors will jump on it. I am not holding my breath.
Highways were never intended to make money. The plan was and is to recapture their costs through user fees and general fund transfers, which are paid for the most part by the users.
The nation's airways were never intended to make money. The plan was and is to recapture their costs through user fees and general revenue transfers. The users pay 85 per cent of the cost, and most of them pay most of the general fund transfers. Most air travelers come from the upper half of the populations that pays federal income taxes.
Business and general aviation aircraft users pay the same fuel taxes and certification fees as commercial airline users, sans the passengers screening fees. They do not get a free ride. I was a pilot for many years. I have a good idea what taxes and fees general aviation users pay.
This country has a huge investment in highways and airways because it is what the people said that they wanted. What a novel idea for a democratic republic. The people's representatives speak for them.
The constant dollar cost of gasoline is at or only slightly above what it cost in 1981. In some states, however, taxes have caused it to rise higher than general inflation rates.
The cost to build an interstate highway in rural Texas would be lower than the cost to build one through the middle of the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. My estimate of the cost to construct new highways is probably too low, although I was not just thinking of new highways. I was thinking as much about expanding existing ones. I accept that. I was trying to make the point that a lot of highway mileage could be constructed by raising the gasoline and diesel taxes by a relatively small percentage.
Some smaller airports, especially those that were built for bragging rights, don't have enough traffic to cover their costs. They have to rely on the general revenues to make-up the difference. Most major airports, however, not only cover their costs, they provide hundreds of community jobs. And each airport worker, as well as most vendors, pays local taxes into a pool, from which the funds for the airport are drawn. In many instances the taxes paid by the workers, as well as vendors, are more than the local taxes required to support the airport.
NARP, as well as others, constantly cite the revenues generated by long distance trains. They conveniently forget the other side of the accounting equation. It is cost.
Southwest Airlines lobbied against a Texas high speed rail line. But whether their position was decisive is arguable. According to a friend of mine, who was in the Texas Legislature at the time, as well as an associate, who was one of our lobbyists, the deal fell apart because there was no appetite in the legislature to fund a large Lionel set. Texans, for the most part, are not interested in intercity rail. End of story, at least for now.
Whether an electronic roadway guidance system is feasible remains to be seen. If you think we are at the end of the technological development curve, then it isn't feasible. You would have found comfort with the Head of the U.S. Patient Office in the middle 1880s. He recommended closing the patient office because everything that was worth inventing had been invented.
Today's airplanes are much more sophisticated than when I was flying. Instrument approaches, for example, are made with an electronic coupler. If it fails, an alarm goes off in the cockpit, and the pilots take over. A similar system could probably be designed for an electronic roadway guidance system.
Users should pay directly or directly for what they use. Because of the large base of air and highway users, they do. Because of the small base of rail users in the U.S., a greater portion of the load is shifted to non-users than is the case for air and highway users.
I am for corridor rail because it is the one place where trains, which are designed to move large numbers of people, have at least a chance of breaking even, as per a posting I made several months ago on how the Surfliner could make money if gasoline was near $5.00 a gallon. Long distance trains don't even come close to recovering their costs.
Ideally, each mode of transport should cover its costs through direct user fees. If this was the practice in the U.S. we would have a better balanced transport system. But most people would still take the family buggy to the beach or an airplane across the country. And trains would probably become more common in high density corridors.
Here's the thing. If it costs 29 million dollars per mile to support 25,000 cars/hour, 22 cents per vehicle mile sounds about right, which is about the rate at which Amtrak is subsidized and ten times the rate of the gas tax take, and so forth.
But if you look at system averages, it is estimated that the 47,000 mile Interstate system was built at a 2006-dollar price of about 500 billion dollars. It carries 25 percent of national vehicle miles, so that half-trillion dollar facility is accounting for a trillion passenger miles per year. Using similar formulas, that means it is costing 50 cents in capital outlay per passenger mile.
The Vision report wants to spend 350 billion dollars for the capacity to carry 40 billion passenger miles per year. That is about 9 dollars per passenger mile in outlay.
Your highway example spends 29 million to build a mile of new Interstate to carry about 14 million passenger miles -- about 2 dollars per passenger mile and 3 times better than Vision.
Highways cost huge bucks, but trains cost an order of magnitude more (3-18 times more).
jeaton wrote: For those of you who can look at the Trains News Wire:US Rep. John Mica (R-FL) has introduced a bill to have the Department of Transportation solicit proposals for development of a high speed Washington-New York line along the Northeast Corridor. Proposals are to include engineering, financing and development plans for the corridor and requires express service of no more than two hours between the two cities.The bill contains no funding.No doubt big buck developers and high powered civil engineering firms are just chomping at the bit to get into the action for what is sure to be an enormously profitable business.
For those of you who can look at the Trains News Wire:
US Rep. John Mica (R-FL) has introduced a bill to have the Department of Transportation solicit proposals for development of a high speed Washington-New York line along the Northeast Corridor. Proposals are to include engineering, financing and development plans for the corridor and requires express service of no more than two hours between the two cities.
The bill contains no funding.
No doubt big buck developers and high powered civil engineering firms are just chomping at the bit to get into the action for what is sure to be an enormously profitable business.
After reading everyone eles good ideas, money, contruction, and different view. All I got to say isthank god my prayers have been ansewerd. I like to think I'm one of the few people who was there when the "Amtrack Acela" first rolled into DC on that great day. And one of my first questions was "will it reach it's top speed from here to NYC?" but I really hope they do it. I have rode the Acela when I was station in DC twice in my life so that is a combine total of 10 trips. She fast and sleek but I do feel she could go further. Give amtrak the room to breath....
First the northest corridor, next...the high speed track from DC to ChicagoFinally... all west and east coast and back again!!!!
The current I-69 buildouts proposed through Indiana are projected to cost $29 million a mile in 2007 estimates. With paving maintenance only and repaying the capital at a very low effective interest rate I get an expense of $5500 day for the operation of the facility if it were an "idealizied" tollway. At 25,000 autos a day assumed that means..... $0.22/mile! A mere $5.5/gallon in fuel taxes at 25 MPG.
Of course I had to assume 25,000 day for a section of rural interstate as none of the documents for this project propose any "ridership" levels or cost recovery levels. Will trucks help pay this off? I wouldn't think so as the FHWA Cost Allocation Study found they were paying 80% of their costs to use the interstate. Shoot, 25,000 day is probably a bit optimistic for this section of I-69.
Sure urban interstates are now running four or five times the 25,000 above but they didn't when first opened and the rural areas most certainly didn't. Based on the FHWA's numbers at a discount rate of 4% I see a Net Present Value of the interstate network of negtive $23 trillion as so little of the early expenses were paid for by the users of the interstates.
To say that the general fund taxpayers are the same as the users is quite contrary to any economic model. Not everyone can even fly due to medical conditions! How can you say that! As best I understand it Amtrak could have been funded from the Post WWII 10% ticket tax on a NPV basis.
Consider Texas DOT's tolling schemes for the son of the Trans Texas Corridors. There is no way that someone would pay the rates proposed for travel in a rural area.
We should instead invest in a double track electricfied railroad that can handle 140-155 mph passenger trains during the day (running overbalanced) and 75 mph single level trailer intermodal trains at night (running underbalanced).
Samantha wrote: "According to the thinking of Rep. Mica the money to build his proposed high speed from DC to NYC will come from the private sector, raised by all those business that are just chomping at the bit to put their great management skills to work building, owning, operating and making huge profits on this service." "May I ask where you think all the money will come from for highways and airways?" "Since gas is already up $1 to $2 a gallon since just a couple of years ago, do you think debt ridden Americans can afford to spend more for gas? I suspect that the part of the airline ticket that goes to support air traffic control already falls short of the cost, so between the cost of fuel for airlines and possible additions to pay for air traffic improvements, it seems likely that air fares will also go up."If high speed rail or any passenger rail had a reasonable probability of providing an acceptable return on invested capital (ROI), investors would have jumped on it long ago. There have been several attempts to turn a profit running passenger trains, e.g. original Auto Train, American Orient Express, etc. Most of them failed. Approximately 15 years ago a group of investors proposed building a high speed rail system from Dallas/Fort Worth to San Antonio. They planned to raise some of the capital in the securities market, but from the get go they stated that they would require significant government monies to make a go of it. The Texas Legislature would not go along with the project, and it died. The problem, as most business analysts know, is that the potential for decent returns in any form of passenger rail is not there. Any public firm that put shareholder money into it would have the shareholders knocking down the board room door. And it would not be to offer congrats all around. Also, privately held companies know not to do it. This is why passenger rail systems are operated by governments or contracted to private operators (Australia, New Zealand, etc.) with a guaranteed return. When adjusted for inflation, Americans are paying about the same for a gallon of gasoline as they paid in 1981. However, their household incomes, when adjusted for inflation, are somewhat greater than they were in 1981. This is why the cost of a gallon of gasoline is not breaking most family budgets. Many Americans have opted for large, gas guzzling SUVs and pick-ups. And because they live, on average, farther from work than they did in 1981, they drive more, which means they burn more gasoline than they did in 1981. So many families are looking at a higher constant dollar fuel bill than they did in 1981. U.S. airways are burdened by a few chokepoints. But technological improvements, i.e. better computers, air navigation aids, landing systems, etc., will expand significantly the capacity of the airways. This is what the FAA is proposing, and it is getting legislative buy-in to make it happen. Who will pay for the updates? Mostly the users! The incremental cost to the users to upgrade the airways will be relatively small. The FAA estimates that it will cost $22 billion to upgrade the air traffic control system. Assuming the cost of the system upgrades is amortized over seven years, which is the normal depreciation period for electronic equipment, sans the software, and assuming that the growth in air traffic is four per cent a year, the increase would average $3.91 per ticket or 1.2 per cent on an average domestic airfare through the third quarter of 2007 of $324.29. Most of the FAA budget (85 per cent) is covered by aviation fuel taxes and fees. The other 15 per cent is covered by an intergovernmental transfer from the general fund. It too is paid for by the users through general taxes.In 2007 U.S. commercial airlines carried approximately 679 million domestic passengers. Most of them pay federal income taxes, and many of them work for organizations that also pay federal income taxes. It is these taxes, above and beyond the direct user taxes, that pay for the intergovernmental transfer. So the users are funding most of the FAA budget. Undoubtedly, many roadways need to be improved. Here too technological enhancements will help expand the capacity of the system. GM, for example, has developed a prototype car that can be guided by sensors embedded in the highway. If this system or something like it was adopted for the Interstate highway system, as well as limited access federal and state highways, it could significantly increase the capacity of existing roadways. Who will pay for the highway improvements? Again, it will be the users. How much will it cost to improve existing highways or build new ones? Estimates are difficult to determine because improvements will be funded by numerous governments, as well as authorities, i.e. federal, state, county, local, toll road authorities, etc. In addition, how much additional capacity needs to be built is debatable. A recent Texas Transportation Commissioner said that the state gasoline tax would need to be raised from 20 cent per gallon to 90 cents per gallon to meet Texas' highway build needs. This sounds like a huge increase in one of the highway user fees. As a per cent increase, it is. But as a per cent of personal vehicle ownership costs, it is very small. Approximately 146 billion gallons of gasoline were burned in 2007 by American motorists. If the gas tax was raised to 90 cents a gallon, it would generate approximately $132 billion per year. That would pay for 10,950 miles of roadway at an average cost of $12 million per mile. If the tax on diesel fuel was increased proportionally, it would generate additional revenues that presumably could be used for highway expansions. However, since most cars in the U.S. use gasoline, this analysis will just consider gasoline consumption.The combined state and federal gasoline tax costs the average Texas motorist's 1.7 cents a mile. If the combined tax was raised to $1.08 per gallon, the cost for the average motorist would increase to 4.8 cents a mile. This is a 182 per cent increase, but it is well within the ability of most motorists to pay it. When considered in light of the total cost of vehicle ownership, which varies widely, the gasoline tax is pretty small. For example, I drive a Toyota Corolla. It costs me 27.61 cents a mile to run it. The gasoline tax is 1.4 per cent of my operating cost. If it was raised to $1.08 per gallon, the tax would be 4.2 per cent of my vehicle operating costs, which is still relatively small. Of course, the numbers would vary significantly for other motorists.Raising the gasoline tax has been a non-starter at the federal level and in most state houses for more than a decade. Too bad! As a result, in Texas the Department of Transportation (TXDOT) has turned to building toll roads, which in the end are costing motorists far more than hiking the gasoline tax. I suspect that more and more highways in the U.S. will be built as toll roads. The user fees and intergovernmental transfers for highways are more difficult to trace. They are collected or allocated by the federal government, as well as 52 state governments, and numerous local governments, i.e. county, city, etc. In 2007 there were approximately 204 million motorists in the U.S. Approximately 72 per cent of them pay federal income taxes, and many of them work for organizations that also pay federal income taxes. It is these taxes, above and beyond the user taxes, that pay for the intergovernmental transfer for the federal highway system. The same per cent also pay the state and local taxes, i.e. sales taxes, property taxes, etc., that close the gap between highway user fees and the total cost to build and maintain the state and local roadways. As is the case with the FAA, the users are paying for their highways, although some of the payments are indirect. Amtrak estimates that it would cost $10 billion, excluding real estate acquisition costs, to upgrade the 457 mile Northeast Corridor to a true high speed railroad. This would add approximately $996 to the price of an average ticket, assuming the number of passengers carried in 2007. Obviously, this would not work. So the general tax payer would have to pick up most of the tab.The Passenger Rail Working Group estimated that it would cost $352 billion by 2050 to build its vision of a national passenger rail system. Unfortunately, it did not estimate how many riders would use the system or how much revenue it would generate. Accordingly, it is impossible to estimate the rider burden for the vision or the burden that would be passed on to the general taxpayer. Amtrak carried approximately 25.8 million passengers in 2007. If every passenger took just one trip on Amtrak during 2007, approximately 12 per cent of the adult population of the United States rode the train. By comparison, nearly 315 per cent of the adult population, using the same criteria, flew on a domestic commercial flight. And 94 per cent of the adult population drove a personal vehicle. Amtrak's riders also pay income taxes and many of them work for organizations that pay federal income taxes. So they contribute to the intergovernmental transfer required to support Amtrak. But because their base is small compared to the airline and highways user base, more of their intergovernmental transfer is paid by non-users. In summary, the improvements to the airway system and the highway system will be funded by a large user base through user fees and general taxes. Most of the users will continue to pay the intergovernmental transfers. Because the user bases are so large, the increase costs can be borne easily by the users. But in the case of Amtrak or any potential high speed rail builder, unless the per cent of people using the system increased dramatically, most of the cost would be shifted to the users of other modes of transportation. Whatever was spent on the federal airway or highway system is sunk costs. It is like telling a potential buyer that your car is worth $15,000 because that is what you paid for it. It is worth is what a buyer will give you for it in an arms length transaction. Accountants consider what you paid for your car to be irrelevant. The same applys to what it cost to build the nation's roadways. What should the country do going forwardto solve its transportation problems is the relevant question? What is the best solution to its transportation problems? And what can it afford?Rapid rail is a good solution for relatively short, high density corridors where air and highway congestion is a serious problem, and where the cost to expand either is cost prohibitive. Otherwise, passenger rail is a costly and suboptimum choice. To do it because other countries are doing it, although we can learn from others are doing, is likely to produce the wrong outcome for America.
"According to the thinking of Rep. Mica the money to build his proposed high speed from DC to NYC will come from the private sector, raised by all those business that are just chomping at the bit to put their great management skills to work building, owning, operating and making huge profits on this service."
"May I ask where you think all the money will come from for highways and airways?"
"Since gas is already up $1 to $2 a gallon since just a couple of years ago, do you think debt ridden Americans can afford to spend more for gas? I suspect that the part of the airline ticket that goes to support air traffic control already falls short of the cost, so between the cost of fuel for airlines and possible additions to pay for air traffic improvements, it seems likely that air fares will also go up."
If high speed rail or any passenger rail had a reasonable probability of providing an acceptable return on invested capital (ROI), investors would have jumped on it long ago. There have been several attempts to turn a profit running passenger trains, e.g. original Auto Train, American Orient Express, etc. Most of them failed.
Approximately 15 years ago a group of investors proposed building a high speed rail system from Dallas/Fort Worth to San Antonio. They planned to raise some of the capital in the securities market, but from the get go they stated that they would require significant government monies to make a go of it. The Texas Legislature would not go along with the project, and it died.
The problem, as most business analysts know, is that the potential for decent returns in any form of passenger rail is not there. Any public firm that put shareholder money into it would have the shareholders knocking down the board room door. And it would not be to offer congrats all around. Also, privately held companies know not to do it. This is why passenger rail systems are operated by governments or contracted to private operators (Australia, New Zealand, etc.) with a guaranteed return.
When adjusted for inflation, Americans are paying about the same for a gallon of gasoline as they paid in 1981. However, their household incomes, when adjusted for inflation, are somewhat greater than they were in 1981. This is why the cost of a gallon of gasoline is not breaking most family budgets.
Many Americans have opted for large, gas guzzling SUVs and pick-ups. And because they live, on average, farther from work than they did in 1981, they drive more, which means they burn more gasoline than they did in 1981. So many families are looking at a higher constant dollar fuel bill than they did in 1981.
U.S. airways are burdened by a few chokepoints. But technological improvements, i.e. better computers, air navigation aids, landing systems, etc., will expand significantly the capacity of the airways. This is what the FAA is proposing, and it is getting legislative buy-in to make it happen. Who will pay for the updates? Mostly the users!
The incremental cost to the users to upgrade the airways will be relatively small. The FAA estimates that it will cost $22 billion to upgrade the air traffic control system. Assuming the cost of the system upgrades is amortized over seven years, which is the normal depreciation period for electronic equipment, sans the software, and assuming that the growth in air traffic is four per cent a year, the increase would average $3.91 per ticket or 1.2 per cent on an average domestic airfare through the third quarter of 2007 of $324.29.
Most of the FAA budget (85 per cent) is covered by aviation fuel taxes and fees. The other 15 per cent is covered by an intergovernmental transfer from the general fund. It too is paid for by the users through general taxes.
In 2007 U.S. commercial airlines carried approximately 679 million domestic passengers. Most of them pay federal income taxes, and many of them work for organizations that also pay federal income taxes. It is these taxes, above and beyond the direct user taxes, that pay for the intergovernmental transfer. So the users are funding most of the FAA budget.
Undoubtedly, many roadways need to be improved. Here too technological enhancements will help expand the capacity of the system. GM, for example, has developed a prototype car that can be guided by sensors embedded in the highway. If this system or something like it was adopted for the Interstate highway system, as well as limited access federal and state highways, it could significantly increase the capacity of existing roadways. Who will pay for the highway improvements? Again, it will be the users.
How much will it cost to improve existing highways or build new ones? Estimates are difficult to determine because improvements will be funded by numerous governments, as well as authorities, i.e. federal, state, county, local, toll road authorities, etc. In addition, how much additional capacity needs to be built is debatable.
A recent Texas Transportation Commissioner said that the state gasoline tax would need to be raised from 20 cent per gallon to 90 cents per gallon to meet Texas' highway build needs. This sounds like a huge increase in one of the highway user fees. As a per cent increase, it is. But as a per cent of personal vehicle ownership costs, it is very small.
Approximately 146 billion gallons of gasoline were burned in 2007 by American motorists. If the gas tax was raised to 90 cents a gallon, it would generate approximately $132 billion per year. That would pay for 10,950 miles of roadway at an average cost of $12 million per mile. If the tax on diesel fuel was increased proportionally, it would generate additional revenues that presumably could be used for highway expansions. However, since most cars in the U.S. use gasoline, this analysis will just consider gasoline consumption.
The combined state and federal gasoline tax costs the average Texas motorist's 1.7 cents a mile. If the combined tax was raised to $1.08 per gallon, the cost for the average motorist would increase to 4.8 cents a mile. This is a 182 per cent increase, but it is well within the ability of most motorists to pay it.
When considered in light of the total cost of vehicle ownership, which varies widely, the gasoline tax is pretty small. For example, I drive a Toyota Corolla. It costs me 27.61 cents a mile to run it. The gasoline tax is 1.4 per cent of my operating cost. If it was raised to $1.08 per gallon, the tax would be 4.2 per cent of my vehicle operating costs, which is still relatively small. Of course, the numbers would vary significantly for other motorists.
Raising the gasoline tax has been a non-starter at the federal level and in most state houses for more than a decade. Too bad! As a result, in Texas the Department of Transportation (TXDOT) has turned to building toll roads, which in the end are costing motorists far more than hiking the gasoline tax. I suspect that more and more highways in the U.S. will be built as toll roads.
The user fees and intergovernmental transfers for highways are more difficult to trace. They are collected or allocated by the federal government, as well as 52 state governments, and numerous local governments, i.e. county, city, etc.
In 2007 there were approximately 204 million motorists in the U.S. Approximately 72 per cent of them pay federal income taxes, and many of them work for organizations that also pay federal income taxes. It is these taxes, above and beyond the user taxes, that pay for the intergovernmental transfer for the federal highway system. The same per cent also pay the state and local taxes, i.e. sales taxes, property taxes, etc., that close the gap between highway user fees and the total cost to build and maintain the state and local roadways. As is the case with the FAA, the users are paying for their highways, although some of the payments are indirect.
Amtrak estimates that it would cost $10 billion, excluding real estate acquisition costs, to upgrade the 457 mile Northeast Corridor to a true high speed railroad. This would add approximately $996 to the price of an average ticket, assuming the number of passengers carried in 2007. Obviously, this would not work. So the general tax payer would have to pick up most of the tab.
The Passenger Rail Working Group estimated that it would cost $352 billion by 2050 to build its vision of a national passenger rail system. Unfortunately, it did not estimate how many riders would use the system or how much revenue it would generate. Accordingly, it is impossible to estimate the rider burden for the vision or the burden that would be passed on to the general taxpayer.
Amtrak carried approximately 25.8 million passengers in 2007. If every passenger took just one trip on Amtrak during 2007, approximately 12 per cent of the adult population of the United States rode the train. By comparison, nearly 315 per cent of the adult population, using the same criteria, flew on a domestic commercial flight. And 94 per cent of the adult population drove a personal vehicle.
Amtrak's riders also pay income taxes and many of them work for organizations that pay federal income taxes. So they contribute to the intergovernmental transfer required to support Amtrak. But because their base is small compared to the airline and highways user base, more of their intergovernmental transfer is paid by non-users.
In summary, the improvements to the airway system and the highway system will be funded by a large user base through user fees and general taxes. Most of the users will continue to pay the intergovernmental transfers. Because the user bases are so large, the increase costs can be borne easily by the users. But in the case of Amtrak or any potential high speed rail builder, unless the per cent of people using the system increased dramatically, most of the cost would be shifted to the users of other modes of transportation.
Whatever was spent on the federal airway or highway system is sunk costs. It is like telling a potential buyer that your car is worth $15,000 because that is what you paid for it. It is worth is what a buyer will give you for it in an arms length transaction. Accountants consider what you paid for your car to be irrelevant. The same applys to what it cost to build the nation's roadways. What should the country do going forwardto solve its transportation problems is the relevant question? What is the best solution to its transportation problems? And what can it afford?
Rapid rail is a good solution for relatively short, high density corridors where air and highway congestion is a serious problem, and where the cost to expand either is cost prohibitive. Otherwise, passenger rail is a costly and suboptimum choice. To do it because other countries are doing it, although we can learn from others are doing, is likely to produce the wrong outcome for America.
You seem to be quite optomistic that the American public is going to be willing to spend more for highway infrastructure either through user fees or general revenues. We are after all rather penny wise and pound foolish. For the lack of the kind of leadership that was present when the Interstate Highway System was proposed, there has been no willingness to increase the user fees, mainly gas tax, so we could do the things necessary to keep our transportation systems in good working order and uncongested. Instead we just send off one to two bucks a gallon to the Middle East so folks in places in like Kuwait can build indoor facilities for snow skiing and a couple of more golf courses.
I happen to have nothing against spending more money on highways or airways, but to suggest that these are the only rational or economicly desireable approach to the problem has been rather well debunked. Let me note a couple of errors in your remarks, or at least appearant inconsistencies. Inflation adjusted gasoline rates are now ahead of historic levels. Not surprising, since gas prices have gone up about 50% in the last couple of years and forecasters are suggesting another 10 to 20% yet this year.
I also think you may be a bit off on the cost per mile for fixing an interstate highway. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation has announced plans for rebuilding and and adding a lane each way for the 35 mile stretch of I-94 from Milwaukee to the Illinois State Line with a price tag of $1.9 billion. That comes in a $54 million (and change) per mile. The highway needs to be rebuilt, but skipping the lane expansion would reduce the cost enough to pay for a proposed commuter service between Kenosha and Milwaukee-actually an extension of the existing Chicago-Waukegan-Kenosha service- and for some serious upgrades to the limited stop Amtrak Service between Milwaukee and Chicago.
I would finaly like to note that your facts on use are correct, but appear to assume that there is no probabilty that there will be any significant change. What happens if airline travel and highway usage drops off? What would be the effect on the mix if passenger rail was able to improve the geographic scope and frequency with the attendant improvement in the convenience factor? I don't mean to suggest that rail will ever over take the other modes, but I would suggest that the current refusal of the Federal Government to fund rail passenger infrastructure development in the same manner as the highway system perpetuates the great disparity in usage.
By the way, I am also not against tax support of commercial airline service. I clearly is vital for the business community to have people be able to travel long distances as rapidly as possible. (In fact it is so vital that huge numbers of very expensive corporate aircraft are used for that purpose. A great convenience especially when they get to use the air ways and air traffic control system without the inconvenience of paying user fees.) I would also agree that people traveling on limited personal free time ought to be able to get to their destinations with a minimum of travel time. However, compared to the good old days, the 25 years up to 1990 when I made 20 to 30 air trips a year, air travel now sucks and I would just as soon spend an hour in a dentist's chair as take an airplane trip. But then, each to his own.
"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
The incremental cost to the users to upgrade the airways will be relatively small. The FAA estimates that it will cost $22 billion to upgrade the air traffic control system. Assuming the cost of the new system is depreciated over 25 years, and assuming that the growth in air traffic is four per cent a year, the increase would average 73 cents per ticket or 22 one hundredths of one per cent on an average domestic airfare through the third quarter of 2007 of $324.29.
Amtrak estimates that it would cost $10 billion, excluding real estate acquisition costs, to upgrade the 457 mile Northeast Corridor to a true high speed railroad. This would add approximately $9.60 to the price of an average ticket, before taking into account real estate acquisition costs, and assuming the number of passengers carried in 2007. Amtrak uses a 40 year depreciation schedule for the rails, with a shorter period for some equipment. Assuming the real estate cost, especially in urban areas, would be relatively high, it is probably fair to say that the real estate costs could double the incremental ticket cost to $19.20.
What was spent on the nation's airways or highways is irrelevant. The costs are sunk. The key questions is what should the nation do to meets its transportation needs? And how much can it afford?
Considering that the original interstates never fully paid back the 90% federal contribution from the "fuel tax" I fail to understand why high speed rail should be required to do so. I have put together an excel sheet using the FHWA's own numbers published on their website of historical interstate captial and capital maintenance by the Federal government and found that the interstates have roughly paid back 1/8 to 1/6 of their original capital costs. This is why no highway DEIS ever has any "ridership" numbers.
As best I understand it the capital came from taxing already existing local and regional roads through the fuel tax, which is as though a sales excise tax had been devoted to improving the capital invested in a product. the regional roads were mostly put in by the land developer and paid for through the mortgage, not the fuel tax.
Very few states have sales tax on top of the fuel tax. In my state food is taxed even at the grocery store so the analogy would be that those sales taxes from food should be put in a dedicated fund that would fund barns, fields, and refridgeration equipment instead of the excise tax going into the general fund.
So if you factor in that essentially no sales tax is paid on gasoline no road capital funds have ever been repaid. The railroads made this arguement extensively from the time of the first fuel taxes in the 1920's on through the begining of the Federal taxes in the 1950's. Nobody listened back then. I suppose ISTEA was to fix all this but I still don't see any financial analysis of proposed roads like I-69 as they are for development. Sigh.....
High Speed Rail has for some reason been caught up in this idea that it must pay for itself. I say we work to exploit the misrepresentation that has been forwarded by the road interests. Have the congressman change the bill to state that HSR should pay back the capital investment at the same rate that the Interstate Highway network has paid for its capital from "user fees" generated on the Interstate system alone. Many people would vote for it not understanding what is going on and then when the numbers came out HSR could take from the transportation trust fund just as road can.
Samantha wrote: The on-time arrival percentage for the nation's commercial airlines for 2007 was approximately 74 per cent. It was a relatively bad year, primarily because of weather delays in the New York area and high summer bookings. Historically, the airlines have a better than 80 per cent on time record. During the last quarter of 2007 they were on time nearly 79 per cent of the time. This is considerably better than Amtrak's record, oustide of the NEC, especially the long distance trains. Two weeks ago I flew from Austin to LAX. I took the train - San Joaquin - to San Francisco. Then I flew home to Austin. No delays! A month ago I flew to El Paso. No delays! I have flown on a commercial airliner approximately six times a year for the last 41 years. Many of those flights were into and out of the New York Terminal area, including three last year. Also, between 1999 and 2004 I made 18 trips between Australia and the U.S. I lived there. I have had just three delays (two due to weather and one due to mechanical problems) in 41 years. None of them was more than two hours. Equally impressive, my luggage was delayed only once. Who says the air traffic control system is maxed out? Not the FAA! There are problems in New York terminal area that tend to cascade throughout the system, but they are fixable. One of the short term fixes is to limit the number of departures and arrivals at Kennedy, which are being put into place, and Newark. They are limited at LaGuardia. Over the next decade the FAA will introduce a vastly improved air traffic control system. It will be able to handle many more air craft movements than the current system. Also, New York is enhancing the White Plains Airport in West Chester Country. It will help reduce air traffic congestion in the New York terminal area, which in turn will have a beneficial impact on air traffic throughout the country.What is to prevent the governments that are responsible for the highways along the eastern seaboard from improving the capacity of I-95 or building new roadways? Americans have shown consistently that they prefer their personal vehicles for relatively short trips or for family vacation trips. It is the economics. No form of public transport can compete with the automobile when it comes to hauling a family of four from Washington, D.C. to Florida or any other vacation spot in the U.S. Moreover, when they get there they have the family buggy to get around as opposed to renting a vehicle, which must be factored into the transport bill.As I have said in previous postings, commercial airlines, bus companies, trucking lines, etc. tote their share of the note. They make money for their shareholders. Why should passenger rail service be any different? To say that we should have passenger rail and not have the users pay for it because it is does not cover its costs anywhere else is an awful indictment. It is akin to saying that we should sign on with the losers so that we can go down the financial tubes with them. This nation was founded in large part because the founders did not want to emulate their European forefathers. Long distance trains are not likely to ever pay for themselves. But with a bit of tweaking, rapid rail in relative short, high density corridors could cover its operating costs and contribute to the fixed costs. If the government stopped subsidizing other forms of transport, which is much lower on a passenger mile basis than the subsidies enjoyed by Amtrak, rapid rail could cover all of its costs. High speed rail is very expensive. Alex Kummant told the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that its cost ranges from $20 to $25 million per mile in open country, and this estimate excludes real estate acquisition costs. But rapid rail, i.e. average speeds of 80 to 100 mph, could be built for considerably less money. It could be a better option for many of the nation's high density population corridors. I have never heard a high speed rail enthusiast suggest realistically how it will be funded. The U.S. federal debt is more than $9 trillion. This is an average of $75,000 per household. In addition, Americans are weighed down by high levels of personal credit, consumer credit, mortgage debt, state and local debt, and unfunded liabilities (Medicare, Social Security, military retirement liabilities, etc.). According to the Comptroller General of the United States, David M. Walker, the total U.S. debt (current as well as implicit exposures) was approximately $440,000 per household in 2006. Implicit exposures represent the present value of the unfunded liabilities. So where is the money for high speed rail going to come from?
The on-time arrival percentage for the nation's commercial airlines for 2007 was approximately 74 per cent. It was a relatively bad year, primarily because of weather delays in the New York area and high summer bookings. Historically, the airlines have a better than 80 per cent on time record. During the last quarter of 2007 they were on time nearly 79 per cent of the time. This is considerably better than Amtrak's record, oustide of the NEC, especially the long distance trains.
Two weeks ago I flew from Austin to LAX. I took the train - San Joaquin - to San Francisco. Then I flew home to Austin. No delays! A month ago I flew to El Paso. No delays! I have flown on a commercial airliner approximately six times a year for the last 41 years. Many of those flights were into and out of the New York Terminal area, including three last year. Also, between 1999 and 2004 I made 18 trips between Australia and the U.S. I lived there. I have had just three delays (two due to weather and one due to mechanical problems) in 41 years. None of them was more than two hours. Equally impressive, my luggage was delayed only once.
Who says the air traffic control system is maxed out? Not the FAA! There are problems in New York terminal area that tend to cascade throughout the system, but they are fixable. One of the short term fixes is to limit the number of departures and arrivals at Kennedy, which are being put into place, and Newark. They are limited at LaGuardia.
Over the next decade the FAA will introduce a vastly improved air traffic control system. It will be able to handle many more air craft movements than the current system. Also, New York is enhancing the White Plains Airport in West Chester Country. It will help reduce air traffic congestion in the New York terminal area, which in turn will have a beneficial impact on air traffic throughout the country.
What is to prevent the governments that are responsible for the highways along the eastern seaboard from improving the capacity of I-95 or building new roadways? Americans have shown consistently that they prefer their personal vehicles for relatively short trips or for family vacation trips. It is the economics.
No form of public transport can compete with the automobile when it comes to hauling a family of four from Washington, D.C. to Florida or any other vacation spot in the U.S. Moreover, when they get there they have the family buggy to get around as opposed to renting a vehicle, which must be factored into the transport bill.
As I have said in previous postings, commercial airlines, bus companies, trucking lines, etc. tote their share of the note. They make money for their shareholders. Why should passenger rail service be any different?
To say that we should have passenger rail and not have the users pay for it because it is does not cover its costs anywhere else is an awful indictment. It is akin to saying that we should sign on with the losers so that we can go down the financial tubes with them. This nation was founded in large part because the founders did not want to emulate their European forefathers.
Long distance trains are not likely to ever pay for themselves. But with a bit of tweaking, rapid rail in relative short, high density corridors could cover its operating costs and contribute to the fixed costs. If the government stopped subsidizing other forms of transport, which is much lower on a passenger mile basis than the subsidies enjoyed by Amtrak, rapid rail could cover all of its costs.
High speed rail is very expensive. Alex Kummant told the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that its cost ranges from $20 to $25 million per mile in open country, and this estimate excludes real estate acquisition costs. But rapid rail, i.e. average speeds of 80 to 100 mph, could be built for considerably less money. It could be a better option for many of the nation's high density population corridors. I have never heard a high speed rail enthusiast suggest realistically how it will be funded.
The U.S. federal debt is more than $9 trillion. This is an average of $75,000 per household. In addition, Americans are weighed down by high levels of personal credit, consumer credit, mortgage debt, state and local debt, and unfunded liabilities (Medicare, Social Security, military retirement liabilities, etc.).
According to the Comptroller General of the United States, David M. Walker, the total U.S. debt (current as well as implicit exposures) was approximately $440,000 per household in 2006. Implicit exposures represent the present value of the unfunded liabilities.
So where is the money for high speed rail going to come from?
According to the thinking of Rep. Mica the money to build the his proposed high speed from DC to NYC will come from the private sector, raised by all those business that are just chomping at the bit to put their great management skills to work building, owning, operating and making huge profits on this service. He will thus prove that he has always been correct when he argues that Amtrak can't do anything right and is just a big waste of taxpayers money.
It is nice to hear from someone convinced that all is well with the present people transportation systems, or will be when all huge improvments are made in the highway and air traffic control systems.
You seem to be concerned as to where the money will come from for high speed rail. May I ask where you think all the money will come from for highways and airways?
The Federal Highway Trust Fund is just about to be taking in less money than is necessary just to keep up with current programs. Want to raise the gas tax? Since gas is already up $1 to $2 a gallon since just a couple of years ago, do you think debt ridden Americans can afford to spend more for gas? I suspect that the part of the airline ticket that goes to support air traffic control already falls short of the cost, so between the cost of fuel for airlines and possible additions to pay for air traffic improvements, it seems likely that air fares will also go up.
So here is the deal. One either pays for transportation directly out of pocket, through taxes of various kinds or stays home. Take your pick.
I do a bit of flying around the country and one thing I have realized as the planes are making their approach to the various airport....
To a great extent, right of ways for high speed rail basically exist today....the rights of way that the electric utilities have charted for their High KV long distance transmission lines. Not only is the right of way basically there, the power source for the trains is readily available. For Passenger operations, with their high power to weight ratio, you don't need to hold grades to the absolute minimum as is necessary for efficient freight operations, so following these Electric Transmission lines would not require the level of grade compensation that was necessary in the constrction of the freight rights of way.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.