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.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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/)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.