Much of the "debate" would be moot if our nation had a transportation policy. To extend HarveyK400's Mardi Gras metaphor -- at this point, we haven't even decided if we want to participate in the party. Yet we already made the decision that we can't afford to toss good candy!
Here in the San Juan Islands of Northwest Washington, it is not possible for islanders to connect between ferries and the morning Talgo to Seattle (except on winter weekends and only if traffic is perfect and somebody else drives from the ferry, because parking is limited at the station so you need to park in the SeaTac Airporter Shuttle lot a mile from downtown; at that point why not just take the bus but it only goes to the airport...). The evening train back up doesn't connect most of the year either...
Yet there is ALWAYS construction happening on I-5; soon it will be six lanes all the way except for the Skagit River Bridge. Any day now, a new bridge will be needed because there has not been investment in trains.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
Maglev; Harvey: The point that has been made by people more wiser than me is that some expansion of capacity can occurr now. The main expansion is the repair of over 60 AMTRAK superliner cars that are laid up bad order at approximately $700,000 per car or maybe $42 Million. Also an unknown number of single level cars. I asked about 6 months ago how long to repair those cars at Beech Grove but no answer has been forthcoming. Now we can only expect maybe 40 cars to be available as maybe others go down. The obvious solution is to add these cars to existing traing so train starts are not increased.One problem with that solution is some platforms cannot take longer trains yet. But 40 cars would give some trains at least another car. Anyone know the number of superliner train sets?
In the meantime designs and construction contracts for both single level and double level cars can begin. Maybe the design of the California cars will be the standard however not knowing their clearances I do not know if they can go into Wash Union Station.If they can then many trains can go there and even the east coast LD trains could drop superliner type at Wash.(Would require more transistion cars). and proceed onto NYP.
At the some time those routes that are capscity overloaded can be expanded however necessary and the new routes proposed (Wash - Clt; Chicago - Various; West coast) that have their studyies complete can start construction. I suspect that the Albany - Buffalo route can be triple tracked and PTC installed fairly quickly since most ROW is there when NYC was 4 tracks.
The specifications for magnetic levitation infrastructure are in the Civil Engineering handbook; therefore, anyone with a calculator and that book (it costs 200 bucks...) could cost out a national maglev system. I really think we should start building it now, even though the vehicles are ten years down the tracks.
In the very least, if we are serious about high-speed surface transportation, inner city stations and rights-of-way need to be preserved. Every day of delay for New York City's Moynihan Station means it will cost more. And it means we are throwing away more money on jet fuel and highways.
At this point, the cost of Seattle's new light rail probably is not that different from expanding their monorail (easily converted to maglev). And remember, we have not yet totally invented light rail: Seattle's system is plagued with computer problems. Expansion of the monorail would mean that Boeing would have a test track for maglev when they have to stop selling airplanes...
I know it's hard to think of the future when we have not yet recovered from the past. California's plans are not futuristic, but really just deferred maintenance when you look at what other nations have done. At some point, in order to catch up, we are going to need to take some forward leaps!
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Blue Streak --
I don't think platform length is an issue; it is my impression that most Amtrak trains have shrunk in recent years (for example, the Zephyr used to be three-trains-in-one). Also, there are stations like Connellsville, PA, which really only accommodate one Superliner at a time, but it still works:
">
I agree that fleet capacity is an issue if car supply does not meet demand for and potential passengers are turned away from existing trains. This is not an either equipment versus line capacity issue; rather it is both.
As I see it, the priority would not be for long-distance equipment. Perhaps a slower rate of production for Superliners would be acceptable to restore coach and sleeper capacity on long-distance routes where demand is high if this does not detract from short-distance needs or adversely affect employment stability.
Another possibility, and a higher priority, would be to repair and convert Superliners for medium- and short-distance trains on routes with mild or little curvature.
The first priority would be to return short-distance, mostly single-level, cars to service. I would love for Amtrak to investigate retro-fitting these cars with active tilting suspension. The existing single-level cars pose an accessibility problem, and high level platforms are not the answer outside the Northeast Corridor.
The post that caught my attention, which prompted my response, is this: "America needs to maintain at least a core network for evacuation and troop transport, in the event natural or military conditions prevent airplanes from flying".
Moving large numbers of troops by trains ala WW II probably is not a key component of U.S. military plans for going to war. Moving them by air to the potential points of conflict is the primary method of moving troops today.
Clearly, if significant amounts of heavy equipment need to be moved to seaports for deployment overseas, railroads are ideally positioned to handle the task as long as the homeland is not under attack. However, if the homeland is under attack by a force with air and naval superiority, the rail system, as the Germans found out during WW II, is likely to be neutered.
Once the Allies got ashore in Normandy, their move inland was supported largely by trucks. The French rail system was largely ourt of service, due in no small measure to concentrated bombing by the Allied air forces.
If a rail line gets blow to bits, especially if a key bridge is knocked out, it is difficult to repair it quickly. But if a highway is cratered, including knocking out key bridges, military trucks and track vehicles can take off through the fields, ford shallow streams, or cross on pontoon bridges that can be thrown up quickly.
Also, the U.S. military has staged equipment near potential hot spots as opposed to keeping it in the U.S. Thus, prior to the current situation in Iraq, the U.S. had staged significant amounts of equipment in Middle East countries near Iraq. This has also long been the case in Europe.
HarveyK400 oltmannd The Albany- NY express would be the 13th round trip on the route. It would get the running time down close to 2 hours where most trains run 2:20 to 2:30 now over the 141 miles. Not a huge deal if it gets done or not, I think. Most of the other corridor studies are not in the "ready to build" state. The farthest along is the SEHR corridor, perhaps, with NC leading the way. The others are really nothing more than feasability studies with none of the hard engineering or capacity planning work done. Did you omit Saint Louis - Chicago because it is in progress, lacking only the installation of cab signals after a mis-adventure with PTC for 110 mph service? You are correct about the need for capacity planning and engineering before a spade hits the ground. Stations also need to be planned and engineered; and existing stations may need to be improved or relocated for parking, transit coordination, access to downtown, and meeting local economic development goals. Stations typically are locally developed on independent timetables which can affect service implementation. The Dubuque and Iowa City-Quad Cities Corridors completed capacity evaluations taking into account the railroads' requirements for the respective alternatives as well as proposed schedules. Parallel interests in extended Metra and new Rockford commuter services need to be reconciled for the Dubuque Corridor that will affect signaling and require more passing tracks than originally anticipated. The wild card for the UP alternative for the Dubuque Corridor is the outlook for the Chrysler auto assembly plant in Belvidere and the only major source of freight traffic. The major implication would be public ownership to a connection to the Canadian National in Rockford. My preference would be for a connection around Central Avenue west of the Rockford downtown area. Some Rockford people would be satisfied with a single station on the east side at Alpine Road where a connection also is practical. With a downtown station, an east side station at Perryville Road may be a better choice. I am unaware of any recent capacity analysis for the Milwaukee - Chicago Corridor. Some analysis may have been made underlying the regional long-range plan proposals for a third track and extended service to Wadsworth. The Canadian Pacific is pressing Metra and Amtrak for capacity improvements just to maintain freight service in the face of expanding passenger service, let alone allow for growth. In addition, peak period Metra Milwaukee North service limits capacity for Amtrak; and any expansion in reverse-commuting would eliminate the ability for Amtrak to run around Metra trains. This would jeopardize Hiawathas #330 and #339, the only trains that carry an appreciable load of about 350 passengers; but this pales in comparison with the 500-1,400 passengers on the Metra trains. Where difficulties may be avoided with passing sidings, adding a main track involves considerable engineering for earthworks and drainage, station reconstruction, bridge construction and reconstruction, new railroad and crossing signals, road crossings, and additional crossovers before bids are solicited. Work also may need to be phased in because of particularly complex work in an area. One question that transcends state initiatives is new equipment, due in part to a shortage of equipment for expanded service. A sizable part of the fleet is out of service for repairs; but many of these cars are 30 years old. Just how long would repairs, rebuilding, and retrofitting extend life and at what cost? Outside the NEC, low level platforms, minimal frequencies, and small markets define the range of services to be accommodated. I have no idea where even the Midwest states are on equipment beside having the Compact agreements. Even 110 mph is difficult to sustain with existing curvature without tilt suspension. 90 mph would be the best sustainable speed with Horizon equipment, and possibly 100 mph with a waiver for Amfleet and the few outside swing hanger-equipped Heritage cars that still may be on the property. Many current routes such as Detroit - Chicago would benefit substantially and be more competitive with tilt-equipped trains, even if 110 mph is not attainable. Furthermore, an increase of only 11 mph to 90 mph was difficult to justify with the cost of cab signals. The positive outcome from the Chatsworth tragedy would be PTC.
oltmannd The Albany- NY express would be the 13th round trip on the route. It would get the running time down close to 2 hours where most trains run 2:20 to 2:30 now over the 141 miles. Not a huge deal if it gets done or not, I think. Most of the other corridor studies are not in the "ready to build" state. The farthest along is the SEHR corridor, perhaps, with NC leading the way. The others are really nothing more than feasability studies with none of the hard engineering or capacity planning work done.
The Albany- NY express would be the 13th round trip on the route. It would get the running time down close to 2 hours where most trains run 2:20 to 2:30 now over the 141 miles. Not a huge deal if it gets done or not, I think.
Most of the other corridor studies are not in the "ready to build" state. The farthest along is the SEHR corridor, perhaps, with NC leading the way. The others are really nothing more than feasability studies with none of the hard engineering or capacity planning work done.
Did you omit Saint Louis - Chicago because it is in progress, lacking only the installation of cab signals after a mis-adventure with PTC for 110 mph service?
You are correct about the need for capacity planning and engineering before a spade hits the ground. Stations also need to be planned and engineered; and existing stations may need to be improved or relocated for parking, transit coordination, access to downtown, and meeting local economic development goals. Stations typically are locally developed on independent timetables which can affect service implementation.
The Dubuque and Iowa City-Quad Cities Corridors completed capacity evaluations taking into account the railroads' requirements for the respective alternatives as well as proposed schedules. Parallel interests in extended Metra and new Rockford commuter services need to be reconciled for the Dubuque Corridor that will affect signaling and require more passing tracks than originally anticipated.
The wild card for the UP alternative for the Dubuque Corridor is the outlook for the Chrysler auto assembly plant in Belvidere and the only major source of freight traffic. The major implication would be public ownership to a connection to the Canadian National in Rockford.
My preference would be for a connection around Central Avenue west of the Rockford downtown area. Some Rockford people would be satisfied with a single station on the east side at Alpine Road where a connection also is practical. With a downtown station, an east side station at Perryville Road may be a better choice.
I am unaware of any recent capacity analysis for the Milwaukee - Chicago Corridor. Some analysis may have been made underlying the regional long-range plan proposals for a third track and extended service to Wadsworth. The Canadian Pacific is pressing Metra and Amtrak for capacity improvements just to maintain freight service in the face of expanding passenger service, let alone allow for growth. In addition, peak period Metra Milwaukee North service limits capacity for Amtrak; and any expansion in reverse-commuting would eliminate the ability for Amtrak to run around Metra trains. This would jeopardize Hiawathas #330 and #339, the only trains that carry an appreciable load of about 350 passengers; but this pales in comparison with the 500-1,400 passengers on the Metra trains.
Where difficulties may be avoided with passing sidings, adding a main track involves considerable engineering for earthworks and drainage, station reconstruction, bridge construction and reconstruction, new railroad and crossing signals, road crossings, and additional crossovers before bids are solicited. Work also may need to be phased in because of particularly complex work in an area.
A sizable part of the fleet is out of service for repairs; but many of these cars are 30 years old. Just how long would repairs, rebuilding, and retrofitting extend life and at what cost?
Outside the NEC, low level platforms, minimal frequencies, and small markets define the range of services to be accommodated. I have no idea where even the Midwest states are on equipment beside having the Compact agreements.
Even 110 mph is difficult to sustain with existing curvature without tilt suspension. 90 mph would be the best sustainable speed with Horizon equipment, and possibly 100 mph with a waiver for Amfleet and the few outside swing hanger-equipped Heritage cars that still may be on the property. Many current routes such as Detroit - Chicago would benefit substantially and be more competitive with tilt-equipped trains, even if 110 mph is not attainable.
Furthermore, an increase of only 11 mph to 90 mph was difficult to justify with the cost of cab signals. The positive outcome from the Chatsworth tragedy would be PTC.
I left out the Chicago -StL and Milwaukee routes because they are already running, albiet at 79mph. They aren't "new", but are upgradable.
NC really has a "psuedo-corridor". They've cobbled together some LD routes (Carolinian, Crescent) with some of their own money (Piedmont) to get more than once a day service in the state. They've also spent $$ on the NCRR (thru NS) to upgrade the route some. The whole SEHR is about connecting NC and VA to the NEC. That's somewhat "new". I was also thinking about CCC in Ohio and other "new" routes.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Gentlemen : If you think our disagreements are out of sight just imagine the arguments when a bunch of politicians get together and design something by "committee".
I started a new thread about using trains for defense...
We can really acomplish something here if we share this information with our elected officials, and encourage them to support high-speed rail. And low speed rail. Any speed would do... indeed, a recurring point here is that Amtrak's damaged cars need to be repaired, so even just lifting our trains out of the ditch would be a forward motion!
up here in new england youve got operators like csx and pan am Guilford -B&M who run their operations like slum lords and wait for the tax payers to do the work they should be doing anyway. i'm all for investment in high speed rail...you bet..its one of the things we need to get our industrial base kickstarted.
NS finally came to an agree w/panamto invest in upgrades in track bet. rotterdam ny and ayer mass. because they got fed up w/pan am slow transit time bad track,etc.....do the world a favor and take that rr (pan am)away from the robber baron mellon.....
Right now there is a very short window for any kind of infrastructure construction in the north going in 2009. To get land acquisition, engineering drawings, constructions bids, contracts let, utilities moved will be almost impossible in 2009. So for any of us to expect construction to start in 2009 may be premature. Any clearing of land may be able to be completed in the next (2009-2010) winter but turning dirt probably will not happen. Now here in the south land clearing is usually more difficult but construction can go year around. Another impediment is the acquiring of tunnel boring machines (TBMs). That is a specialized industry and unless some TBMs that are scheduled to complete their jobs can be used there may be a real delay. (ex THE - trans hudson tunnel). I do not know of any other rail tunnels planned. Remember the rail building may have to compete with the other infrastructure plans contemplated.
Amtrak has a "non-electric high-speed rail" project that has been studied but can only be described as dead-on-arrival.
Site note: the two New York high-speed train projects (Turboliner-based and conventional) are *not* this project. This was to be a new diesel with Acela-like technology.
Sad irony is that the dollars Amtrak and NY used to sue each other over those Turboliners and track improvements in upstate New York could have been used to pay for the non-Turboliner service that these budget cuts are killing.
Still, 20 minutes saved is 20 minutes saved.
With the passage of the HSR initiative in California, the time has come--with a new administration to take office in 70 days--to initiate a US national plan for a continental HSR network that will connect major cities. In practical terms, this will take about 25-30 years to achieve. I recommend steel-wheel rather than maglev, for cost and practical reasons. An HSR trainset costs about $32 million from a supplier like Bombardier, and this is far less expensive than a jetliner. Center-city to center-city, no transit from airports (airports can be rehabbed, gradually, for mixed-use developments, with their own amenities).
With HSR, we can move coast-to-coast in about 16 hours, with all the amenities of a hotel on wheels.
JJS
At 40 or 50 cents per mile - typical Acela fare, coast to coast would cost you $1000-- for a coach seat. Add another $300 or so if you want to sleep.
I can fly coast to coast in 6 hours for $150.
I don't think you'd get many takers...
oltmannd At 40 or 50 cents per mile - typical Acela fare, coast to coast would cost you $1000-- for a coach seat. Add another $300 or so if you want to sleep. I can fly coast to coast in 6 hours for $150. I don't think you'd get many takers...
But most significant are the aesthetic aspects of trains versus planes. You can't see our beautiful landscape from an airplane, can't move around when you please (one can barely squirm to maintain circulation in a coach seat) , and railroads have the capability to offer much better food service.
Oh, but it's easy to sleep on a plane -- especially if the pilot custs off the air supply. I was on a a delayed flight once in another country where everyone aboard passed out for five hours. No complaints from the passengers!
How do you propose to pay for a national high speed rail system, especially given the severe budget deficit and debt problems facing the United States?
In 2007 the President of Amtrak told the House Transportation and Infrastructure Sub-Committee that it would cost approximately $25 million a mile to construct a high speed rail line, comparable to the TGV, in open country, excluding the real estate acquisition cost.
It is approximately 2,700 miles from New York to San Francisco. Thus, at $25 million per mile, it would cost approximately $67.5 billion to construct a high speed line from the Big Apple to the Athens on the Bay, excluding the cost of the real estate, plus the incremental costs of constructing the line through densely populated areas as well over or through the mountains. When these costs are added to the total cost of the project, admittedly no one knows what they would be' it would probably cost in excess of $100 billion. And this would be for just one line.
In 2007 the average federal subsidy for an Amtrak passenger was $53.48. By comparison the average federal subsidy for an airline passenger was $4.30, whilst the average federal subsidy for a motorist was $169.12. However, when shown on a passenger mile basis, which is the relevant basis for comparison, the Amtrak federal subsidy was 24.45 cents per mile, whilst the airline federal subsidy was .49 cents per mile and the motorist's federal subsidy was .0138 cents per mile. In other words, while the federal subsidy to carry an Amtrak passenger one mile was nearly 25 cents, the subsidy was approximately one half of a cent to move an airline passenger the same distance and less than two tenths of a cent to move a motorist one mile.
These of course are not the only subsidies received by the various forms of passenger transport in the U.S. All of them, to a greater or lesser extent, receive some form of subsidy from state and local authorities. Including Amtrak!
Given the significant subsidies required by Amtrak, for all segments of its operations, it is difficult to imagine a high speed rail system that could be built or operated without massive federal and state subsidies.
Assuming an average TGV speed of 158 mph, it would take 17 hours to go from New York to San Francisco. It takes less than six hours to fly. Why would a business person spend 17 hours on a train from New York to San Francisco when she could fly there in less than six hours? I know very few business persons who would do so or could afford to take the time to do so.
Sam1Assuming an average TGV speed of 158 mph, it would take 17 hours to go from New York to San Francisco. It takes less than six hours to fly. Why would a business person spend 17 hours on a train from New York to San Francisco when she could fly there in less than six hours? I know very few business persons who would do so or could afford to take the time to do so.
I knew a man who traveled from St. Louis to Chicago and back again once a week for medical treatment. With early purchase and his senior discount, the ticket was less than twenty dollars. This was significantly cheaper than driving and he hated flying. A major price advantage would help sell high speed rail to the public.
I fear the distances are too great here in the States.
James
Thanks (I think) to the various responders to my recent message. I've heard all these tired objections ad nauseam for 40 years. All (and many more) miss the key point:
These people all ASSUME that fuel will be infinitely available, and costs will be the same as now, forever. WRONG!!
Ever heard of Peak Oil? We're on the high plateau now, folks--it gets worse from here, and fast; gasoline will be $6/gallon next summer, and will get higher from then on (maybe a blip or two, like now--gas is always cheap around elections, or have you never noticed? Oil companies are very political, so are the oil producing countries...
Air service will be more expensive, and less available. Don't babble about 'business persons' and that tripe. If you want to be able to travel intercity in the future, it will be on high-speed trains, period. Fast ships will replace air service and air freight over the oceans (see website FAST SHIP).
This is the essence of it. The rest is quibbles and details. Wake up and smell the coffee--the rest of the developed world has already done so. More than 25 countries already have and/or are developing HSR.
Sitting on our hands and wishing for miracles is not a realistic option.
The subsidy figures Sam cites appear incomplete to me. It is probably easy to figure the Amtrak per-mile subsidy, but what factors are included in determining air and highway figures? More importantly, what non-economic costs are being ignored?
For example, automobiles have dramatically altered our social architecture. Before traffic laws, streets were a safe place to play. After too many people were killed by cars, laws were enacted restricting movement in neighborhoods and children learned to obey guards at school crossings. There are many other ways that automobiles have contributed to a host of social ills. Social impacts of air travel include non-economic costs such as people having no idea how vast and beautiful our nation is. And we have accepted that long-distance travel means indignity and discomfort.
Pollution is another issue where it is easy to overlook non-economic costs. Examples: Scientists have only a poor understading of what happens to tires as they wear down. Do we breathe those particles? Power plant turbines have more stringent emissions requirements than airplane turbines; and the effects of contrails are unknown. Therefore, a fuel-efficiency comparison of electric trains versus airplanes ignores some important or unknown non-economic costs.
Simply put, because we have no transportation policy, we do not analyze costs in a rational and consistent manner.
The Butler Sam1 Assuming an average TGV speed of 158 mph, it would take 17 hours to go from New York to San Francisco. It takes less than six hours to fly. Why would a business person spend 17 hours on a train from New York to San Francisco when she could fly there in less than six hours? I know very few business persons who would do so or could afford to take the time to do so. Sadly, it's not just the business person. I know too many people who fly out of Chicago for a weekend golf trip in North Carolina or two days and one night in Las Vegas for a bachelor party, or to Orlando to spend five days at the "Mouse House", etc. With this attitude, I do not see long distance rail travel as anything more than a novelty in most American's eyes. If the high speed train trip adds no more than an hour to an equal flight, then there is a chance for success. I knew a man who traveled from St. Louis to Chicago and back again once a week for medical treatment. With early purchase and his senior discount, the ticket was less than twenty dollars. This was significantly cheaper than driving and he hated flying. A major price advantage would help sell high speed rail to the public. I fear the distances are too great here in the States.
Sam1 Assuming an average TGV speed of 158 mph, it would take 17 hours to go from New York to San Francisco. It takes less than six hours to fly. Why would a business person spend 17 hours on a train from New York to San Francisco when she could fly there in less than six hours? I know very few business persons who would do so or could afford to take the time to do so.
You can only offer a price advantage when you have a cost advantage. Does HSR have a cost advantage over flying? I don't know where it would be....
Juniperhouse Thanks (I think) to the various responders to my recent message. I've heard all these tired objections ad nauseam for 40 years. All (and many more) miss the key point: These people all ASSUME that fuel will be infinitely available, and costs will be the same as now, forever. WRONG!! Ever heard of Peak Oil? We're on the high plateau now, folks--it gets worse from here, and fast; gasoline will be $6/gallon next summer, and will get higher from then on (maybe a blip or two, like now--gas is always cheap around elections, or have you never noticed? Oil companies are very political, so are the oil producing countries... Air service will be more expensive, and less available. Don't babble about 'business persons' and that tripe. If you want to be able to travel intercity in the future, it will be on high-speed trains, period. Fast ships will replace air service and air freight over the oceans (see website FAST SHIP). This is the essence of it. The rest is quibbles and details. Wake up and smell the coffee--the rest of the developed world has already done so. More than 25 countries already have and/or are developing HSR. Sitting on our hands and wishing for miracles is not a realistic option. JJS
Nobody is going to be sitting on their hands. I suggest your view of the future is off the mark.
HSR is not more energy efficient by any significant amount than air travel or driving.
Liquid hyrdocarbons will be relatively cheap an plentiful for many, many years. You can get all you need from coal as long as oil stays dependably north of $60/bbl or so. Carbon sequestration may add to the cost a bit and it doesn't have the 100 year history of coal gassification, so that is a bit of a hurdle but not an unreasonable one. We're a long way from "peak coal" or "peak nat'l gas"...
Don't like that? How about liquid hydrocarbon fuels by reforming nat'l gas. Not as cheap as doing coal gassification, but certainly not unreasonable.
The limits for growth of air travel are more airport size and capacity than any fuel issue. So, there won't be any LESS flying, it's just that HSR might be a better alternative for shorter hauls, leaving the airport capacity for the long haul and international stuff.
FASTSHIP is about a decade on now, and they still are nothing but paper. Not even earnest money for a prototype. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to get built.
Maglev The subsidy figures Sam cites appear incomplete to me. It is probably easy to figure the Amtrak per-mile subsidy, but what factors are included in determining air and highway figures? More importantly, what non-economic costs are being ignored? For example, automobiles have dramatically altered our social architecture. Before traffic laws, streets were a safe place to play. After too many people were killed by cars, laws were enacted restricting movement in neighborhoods and children learned to obey guards at school crossings. There are many other ways that automobiles have contributed to a host of social ills. Social impacts of air travel include non-economic costs such as people having no idea how vast and beautiful our nation is. And we have accepted that long-distance travel means indignity and discomfort. Pollution is another issue where it is easy to overlook non-economic costs. Examples: Scientists have only a poor understading of what happens to tires as they wear down. Do we breathe those particles? Power plant turbines have more stringent emissions requirements than airplane turbines; and the effects of contrails are unknown. Therefore, a fuel-efficiency comparison of electric trains versus airplanes ignores some important or unknown non-economic costs. Simply put, because we have no transportation policy, we do not analyze costs in a rational and consistent manner.
The figures that I presented to show that passenger rail is much more dependant on federal handouts than air or motor transport can be found at Amtrak, DOT, FAA, and Homeland Security. They are verifable.
As I have pointed out in other postings, the federal, state, and local subsidies received by airline passengers and motorists are largely paid by them, although wealthier users pay a larger share of the subsidy than lower income users. On the other hand, the subsidies received by rail users depend on a large transfer from non-users because only a very small percentage of the population uses passenger rail.
All forms of transport, including railroads, as well as power production facilities, generate some pollution. Attributing the cost of the pollution depends on estimates that can vary widely. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, someone pays for them.
My estimate of the cost to build one HSR line from New York to San Francisco overlooked two important numbers. I did not account for the cost of the train sets. I don't know how much they would cost, but I suspect they are not cheap. The other item that I overlooked, which is unforgivable for an accountant, is the cost to finance the project.
Assuming all estimated $100 billion to build the project is borrowed at the U.S. Treasury long bond rate, the total cost of the line would be $384.8 billion over the estimated service life of the debt. Again, this is just the cost of one line.
Maglev oltmannd At 40 or 50 cents per mile - typical Acela fare, coast to coast would cost you $1000-- for a coach seat. Add another $300 or so if you want to sleep. I can fly coast to coast in 6 hours for $150. I don't think you'd get many takers... Of course, your costs don't include subsidies our government gives to support air traffic control, airports, and highways to the airport (which are generally farther from your departure point than a train station). And at 16 hours, the time factor is almost insignificant when you include all the extra time involved in air travel. But most significant are the aesthetic aspects of trains versus planes. You can't see our beautiful landscape from an airplane, can't move around when you please (one can barely squirm to maintain circulation in a coach seat) , and railroads have the capability to offer much better food service. Oh, but it's easy to sleep on a plane -- especially if the pilot custs off the air supply. I was on a a delayed flight once in another country where everyone aboard passed out for five hours. No complaints from the passengers!
A lot of those airline subsidies come from the ticket taxes, no? Samantha figured airlines get 1/2 cent per pass. mile in subsidy. OK, lets assume, all indirect stuff rolled in, that it's 5 cents per pass. mile. So, add another $130 to that plane ticket for a total of $280. Also, lets add 2 hours on the front end and one on the back end for airport time over and above train station time. That give us $1000 and 16 hours for rail vs. $280 and 9 hours for air (of which only 4 hours or so is actually on the plane).
That's a pretty big gap. I find it hard to believe the sightseeing benefits of the HSR would be worth 7 hours and $720 a person. You'd have to close the gap on the fare. The only way to do that is increase the seat pitch, go to 3&2 seating and dump as much non revenue space as possible. What you'd have is pretty much an airline interior! Airlines don't HAVE to jamb you in like they do, they do it because people value a low fare more than some extra space. American tried the "extra room" pitch a while back and it got them zilch. How few people will even spring for the extra $50-$100 upgrade for business class? It's mostly frequent flier points being spent.
HSR in a hub and spoke out of Chicago, or "connect the dots" in the near midwest or southeast, and you have my attention. Coast to coast? Here's your lance, there's the windmill!
JuniperhouseThis is the essence of it. The rest is quibbles and details. Wake up and smell the coffee--the rest of the developed world has already done so. More than 25 countries already have and/or are developing HSR. JJS
Just one more note against a coast to coast HSR line.
How did the 16 hour Broadway and 20th Century do against an unreliable, bumpy, cramped 4 hr DC3 flight?
In answer to Juniper House, HSR comes in two forms: one with on-line stations, and the other with a trunkline devoid of stations with connections to parallel low-speed lines for access to city and town stations. The Japanese Shinkansen/Bullet Train was of the first type with platform sidings at intermediate stations. Non-stop Super Expresses would overtake and pass stopping trains at these points. Costly new constuction and significant dislocation resulted from building the Shinkansen into the hearts of cities. However, existing lines already were near capacity and most were narrow guage. Expansion of the HSR network brought conversion of parts of some narrow guage lines. The French TGVs employed the second strategy and avoided much of the cost reaching city center stations.
The average distance between stations is dependent on the size of market that can be served, the distance between markets, and the impact of stops on overall travel time or need for secondary trains for local services. For conurbations, access time may be a factor in determining station location and choosing between community centers for a station site. The average distance between stations for HSR has no meaning.
These people all ASSUME that fuel will be infinitely available, and costs will be the same as now, forever. WRONG!! Ever heard of Peak Oil? We're on the high plateau now, folks--it gets worse from here, and fast; gasoline will be $6/gallon next summer, and will get higher from then on (maybe a blip or two, like now--gas is always cheap around elections, or have you never noticed? Oil companies are very political, so are the oil producing countries...
I too am concerned about next summer's gas prices and Peak Oil. That is especially why I have become discouraged about the prospects for trains.
The Vision Report proposed spending half a trillion dollars spread out over 40 years to increase trains from .1 percent of passenger miles to 1 percent of passenger miles. Were trains to be virtually liquid-fuel free (electrification), a 1 percent saving on auto fuel use is almost of no consequence in staving off Peak Oil.
President-Elect Obama has proposed a $7000 tax credit for next-generation hybrid cars, I presume plug-in hybrids. Assuming a nominal 100,000 mile lifetime for a car, that amounts to a 7 cents/mile subsidy. Amtrak is subsidized at 20 cents/mile. Furthermore, as the hybrid car industry grows, it can be assumed that the subsidy would be tapered off. There is no evidence that growth in Amtrak would result in reduced rates of subsidy -- in fact, such "Amtrak Reform" or "glidepaths to profitibility" are frequently ridiculed in train advocacy circles. "Don't ya' know that passenger trains require (high) levels of subsidy in all parts of the world?"
A recent WisARP newletter pointed out that the high price of gas resulted in something like a 5 percent decline in automobile travel. There was this implication that if 5 percent of the auto trips were forgone, this represented, perhaps, a market for a 50-fold increase in Amtrak, currently carrying .1 percent of passenger miles.
If one-in-twenty auto trips was not made, it was largely because people said, "gas is expensive, I will wait for my friend and share the ride", or "gas is expensive, we can put off seeing Grandma until next week", or "gas is expensive, I will skip today's trip to the mall just to look around." It did not mean, "darn, gas is too expensive to see Grandma this week, if we only had a train I would have gone to see her." There is this implication that if people have to forgo car trips that they are potential customers of the train, rather than that high gas is causing people to think about ways that they can simply drive around less.
Other countries are putting in HSR, but a lot of other countries are doing a lot of strange things, now, aren't they. Cloudy Germany has a massive program to put up solar panels on account of their Green Party. Solar panels are a Good Thing, but there are probably a lot of other places where you would want to put them up first on account of more sunshine. The same could be said about the putative San Francisco-New York HSR line.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Two more points on subsidies: express freight can add significant revenue to rail service. By shipping US mail on airplanes, the government is subsidizing airlines and denying Amtrak revenue.
Also, retail outlets in train stations can provide important funding for improvements and expansion. I recall that "Duty Free Shoppers" was a major source of revenue for Honolulu International Airport. Of course, there are limited benefits from passenger traffic if a station sees one train every other day -- but get that frequency up to several trains a day, and see how much interest there is in renting retail space.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.