Indeed, it is hard to make an economic argument of trains versus planes for high-speed transportation. But here are some more aesthetic factors to consider.
After 9-11, airline employee working conditions, pay levels, and retirement benefits deteriorated. I know a flight attendant whose plane from Japan to Honolulu on the morning of 9-11 was escorted by a fighter jet in case anyone on board had box cutters. Such a horrifying experience is simply not possible on a train. I know a pilot who was given a promotion at a lower rate of pay, so that was his last day working for the airlines. And many older airlines, with sentimental and historic value, cannot operate in the cut-throat air travel business. 60-year-old Aloha Airlines in Hawaii is just one example of a bankrupt airlines.
What are we getting for our air travel dollars? Cramped seats, lousy (or no) food, and no sense of pride in a system that disrespects its workers and customers. No sense of history.
What do trains offer? For example, seeing the wagon-train ruts from the California Zephyr. Picking weeds in the Reno yard to make a bouquet for our private dinner. Watching people wade across the Rio Grande. Plenty of time and space to get to know your fellow travelers (or to get away from them!)
My great-grandfather and grandfather took it for granted that the railroads would provide passenger service. They would be shocked to see that our transportation system represents an America that is land of the confined, home of the afraid, with gray sky's majesty.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
Maglev America that is land of the confined, home of the afraid, with gray sky's majesty.
America that is land of the confined, home of the afraid, with gray sky's majesty.
Amen. I agree. I will say no more for fear of derailing the thread.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
"Home of the afraid", what is that supposed to mean? Something about TSA?
The TSA is an issue because airplanes is what we do over here, and the "bad guys" go after our airplanes. If you have seen the news from Mumbai (Bombay), India today, you would have seen pictures of blood covering the marble floor in a train station because trains is what they do over there. But if there are people who hate enough, planes, trains, American, person living in India, white, person of color, West, East, it makes no difference.
If there is a case to be made about trains, and especially LD trains on the questions of aesthetics and national heritage, go ahead and make that case. Yeah, there are a lot of people who share your gripes about flying, only most of them are not convinced trains are the answer either. Calling people cowards for not being forthcoming with the the level of support for Amtrak we want, don't know how that is going to change any minds.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Americans ARE cowards, We are giving up everything that made us unique out of irrational fear.
Violence is not new in society. London, during WWII had an attack worse than 9/11 almost every night.
Do you listen to any news beside's Fox? The Muslims have been saying they were going to attack Americans if we didn't stop our attacks inside Pakistan. When you send your military half way around the world to attack people, you shouldn't be suprised when they fight back.
30,000 people a year die on the highway, are you afraid to get into a car?
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt, 1783
The fear and confinement to which I refer are the burdensome regulations that are the necessary response to terrorism. We are restricted in sizes of toiletries, and told not to congregate in the aisles. Tight air travel security is necessary because of the unique characteristic of airplanes that they fall so hard and far.
Because we do not have high speed rail, our travel freedom is restricted.
From your remarks, I am making the inference that you are unhappy about a number of things, and you can tell me if I guessed wrong.
You are unhappy that your fellow American citizens, taxpayers, and elected representatives are not forthcoming with what you believe to be a necessary level of subsidy money for Amtrak. You are unhappy with TSA and believe that the current level of airport security screening is an over reaction to what you believe to be a one-time event. You are unhappy that our government is waging war, believing not only that the war is wrong, but that it is taking money away that could go to trains. You are unhappy with airline travel and wished that the alternative were more widely available. You are probably also unhappy that even among people who like trains, that is the people posting here, there is not uniform agreement on Amtrak subsidies and HSR.
I make these inferences because I have associates in the brick-and-morter advocacy world who express many of the same sentiments. Come February, I exhibit a small model train layout at a large model train show, featuring the Talgo, representing a type of modern, high-speed train that increased Amtrak funding could bring to our community. The audience is not mainly train advocates or even model railroad people -- it is mainly young familes with small children who come to see all the model trains.
My main goal at this event is to create a positive impression of the benefits of corridor train service to our community. To further that goal, my hope is that my colleagues maintain their "public face" and not make statements that "Americans ARE cowards" or otherwise express their frustration with TSA, airlines, American politics in general, that the Amtrak money we want has not been forthcoming, in this setting.
Two unrelated arguments.
My statement about the neurotic paranoia gripping the country has nothing to do with my advocacy of high speed rail. And TSA (for whom by brother-in-law works) is only one facet of the paranoia.
Yes, I am embarrassed that the rest of the world is leaving us behind in trains, cars, electronics, cameras, medicine, etc. We used to be the leading edge, now we have become the caboose.
We do, however, have the most sophisticated weapons. I wonder what that says about us?
Yes, I am embarrassed that the rest of the world is leaving us behind in trains, cars, electronics, cameras, medicine, etc. We used to be the leading edge, now we have become the caboose. We do, however, have the most sophisticated weapons. I wonder what that says about us?
I teach at a university, and from my vantage point, I don't know anything we do here from cancer research to combustion in Diesel engines that is not leading edge. We even have an EV-1 on the engineering campus, donated by GM to further our program in advanced hybrid vehicles -- the picture of me standing next to one didn't upload as part of my "signature" for some reason.
And judging from the many races of people I see each and every day, some speaking languages I recognize, others speaking languages I don't even know what they are, I see the rest of the world coming here to be at that leading edge.
What does it say that we have the most sophisticated weapons? That was certainly not the case just prior to WW-II, and many brave Americans paid with their lives at Pearl Harbor and in the Phillipines for that. Why do we have the most sophisticated weapons now? Part of it was after reaping the fruits of isolationism, naive reliance on diplomatic agreements, and of a peace dividend where military preparedness was reduced, we vowed never again.
The other part of it was that a certain Central European nation embraced a kind of racist vision and vented its frustrations against a certain ethno-religious minority. Many of them with the education and job skills that allowed them to leave did just that. Long before that racist vision turned to wanton killing, many could see what was going to happen. And they came here. And they helped give us the world's first atom bomb. And the world's first hydrogen bomb. And many other technical advances, both military and non-military in nature. And if it were not for these events outside our borders, America might still be an agricultural backwater, a sort of fly-over continent, where the nations leading in engineering and scientific discovery were France and Germany.
As to the fears that we are becoming like that certain Central European tyranny, my parents lived under the heels of that tyranny as conquered peoples and knew what the real deal was. I also don't see anyone leaving here in haste, and I see a lot of people trying to get in, many of whom we are treating badly for their efforts.
What does it say about us that we have the most sophisticated weapons? Being of immigrant refugee heritage myself, it says that America is still a land of freedom and a refuge to people cast off from distant shores. When a military tyranny rises up, the people who have the smarts to engineer the best weapons make their way over here.
What does it say about us that our car industry is struggling? The Wall Street Journal reports that the car companies in Germany are also in financial trouble. But there is a portion of the US auto industry that is still doing OK, but it goes under names like Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. Not only do they have assembly plants in Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and other places, but many of the car designs come from studios in California. The names are East Asian, but these car companies are multi-national.
What does it say about us that we lack HSR? Both here in the US and in Europe, most passenger miles take place in private automobiles (90 percent vs 80 percent). Here in the US, the remainder of passenger miles not in an auto take place by air (about 10 percent) with a smattering of bus (less than 1 percent) with a frisson of Amtrak (.1 percent). In Europe, the non-auto share of passenger miles (20 percent) is pretty evenly split between air, train, bus, and ferry boat (roughly 5 percent share each). The largest growth has taken place in their domestic airlines with a slight decline in train travel overall in percentage terms.
Are you embarassed because the US is behind Europe in ferry boats? Are you embarassed because the US lags Europe in patronage of intercity bus (I believe that the motor coaches buses used here are European designs if not outright imports)?
I take it that trains are the things you are most worried about. Passenger trains may yet get to play a major role moving people in the US as our population grows as more people in the world move here (projected to to reach a half a billion within our lifetimes, largely driven by immigration). As advocates, I think we can move in that direction a bit more quickly if we adopt a more positive attitude.
Paul Milenkovic Yes, I am embarrassed that the rest of the world is leaving us behind in trains, cars, electronics, cameras, medicine, etc. We used to be the leading edge, now we have become the caboose. We do, however, have the most sophisticated weapons. I wonder what that says about us? I teach at a university, and from my vantage point, I don't know anything we do here from cancer research to combustion in Diesel engines that is not leading edge. We even have an EV-1 on the engineering campus, donated by GM to further our program in advanced hybrid vehicles -- the picture of me standing next to one didn't upload as part of my "signature" for some reason. And judging from the many races of people I see each and every day, some speaking languages I recognize, others speaking languages I don't even know what they are, I see the rest of the world coming here to be at that leading edge. What does it say that we have the most sophisticated weapons? That was certainly not the case just prior to WW-II, and many brave Americans paid with their lives at Pearl Harbor and in the Phillipines for that. Why do we have the most sophisticated weapons now? Part of it was after reaping the fruits of isolationism, naive reliance on diplomatic agreements, and of a peace dividend where military preparedness was reduced, we vowed never again. The other part of it was that a certain Central European nation embraced a kind of racist vision and vented its frustrations against a certain ethno-religious minority. Many of them with the education and job skills that allowed them to leave did just that. Long before that racist vision turned to wanton killing, many could see what was going to happen. And they came here. And they helped give us the world's first atom bomb. And the world's first hydrogen bomb. And many other technical advances, both military and non-military in nature. And if it were not for these events outside our borders, America might still be an agricultural backwater, a sort of fly-over continent, where the nations leading in engineering and scientific discovery were France and Germany. As to the fears that we are becoming like that certain Central European tyranny, my parents lived under the heels of that tyranny as conquered peoples and knew what the real deal was. I also don't see anyone leaving here in haste, and I see a lot of people trying to get in, many of whom we are treating badly for their efforts. What does it say about us that we have the most sophisticated weapons? Being of immigrant refugee heritage myself, it says that America is still a land of freedom and a refuge to people cast off from distant shores. When a military tyranny rises up, the people who have the smarts to engineer the best weapons make their way over here. What does it say about us that our car industry is struggling? The Wall Street Journal reports that the car companies in Germany are also in financial trouble. But there is a portion of the US auto industry that is still doing OK, but it goes under names like Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. Not only do they have assembly plants in Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and other places, but many of the car designs come from studios in California. The names are East Asian, but these car companies are multi-national. What does it say about us that we lack HSR? Both here in the US and in Europe, most passenger miles take place in private automobiles (90 percent vs 80 percent). Here in the US, the remainder of passenger miles not in an auto take place by air (about 10 percent) with a smattering of bus (less than 1 percent) with a frisson of Amtrak (.1 percent). In Europe, the non-auto share of passenger miles (20 percent) is pretty evenly split between air, train, bus, and ferry boat (roughly 5 percent share each). The largest growth has taken place in their domestic airlines with a slight decline in train travel overall in percentage terms. Are you embarassed because the US is behind Europe in ferry boats? Are you embarassed because the US lags Europe in patronage of intercity bus (I believe that the motor coaches buses used here are European designs if not outright imports)? I take it that trains are the things you are most worried about. Passenger trains may yet get to play a major role moving people in the US as our population grows as more people in the world move here (projected to to reach a half a billion within our lifetimes, largely driven by immigration). As advocates, I think we can move in that direction a bit more quickly if we adopt a more positive attitude.
I don't always agree with Milenkovic's views on passenger rail issues, but I respect them. He always presents logical and well support arguments for his point of view. This argument is a good example. If everyone posting to Trains' Forums followed suit, the level of discourse would be enhanced immeasurably.
Again, I would like to make the point I have made several times. The National Park System does not pay for itself. And if its cost were divided among just those people who used the park (one year's costs for one year's visitors) the subsidy probably would be quite high. But we support the system because it brings side benefits. I believe a national railroad passenger intercity train service does the following.
Opens up the country for many disabled and elderly who cannot fly
Increase tourism, including tourism by overseas visitors
Provides emergency service when planes cannot fly and during national emergencies such as floods.
Provides a framework for uniting the regional high speed and commuter services that are absolutely necessary to avoid highway and airport congestion and even grid-lock
On a per citizen basis the existing subsidy seems reasonable and not out of line with the benefits the overall nation receives.
I keep telling myself to walk away from the political portion of this argument, but it is difficult, because I feel very strongly about it, as you can probably tell. But it is not in any way related to my support for passenger rail.
This is not a quetion in support of an argument, but rather is actually just a question:
Trucking companies and bus companies do not own and maintain the roads.
If the railroads did not own and maintain the rails but rather paid the same tax per gallon or eqivalent per killowatt hour for electricity, what would be the subsidy required by passenger rail service?
Phoebe Vet If the railroads did not own and maintain the rails but rather paid the same tax per gallon or eqivalent per killowatt hour for electricity, what would be the subsidy required by passenger rail service?
The problem with that question is that except in the NE corridor, passenger railroads do not own nor maintain the rails. To obtain High Speed Rail perhaps a right of way will be acquired and the road constructed from scratch, as it appears California might do. However, in the majority of cases passage is rented from a freight railroad. Although the freight railroad may have an interest in improvements that aid their operations, HSR is irrelevant to them.
That didn't answer the question.
If the railroads did not own and maintain the rails. If both freight and passenger paid the same tax per gallon as trucks and buses, how much subsidy would then be required for passenger rail?
It does not cost any more per mile to build a mile of railroad than it does to build a lane/mile of highway. With the fuel tax model, the rails would be available to much smaller companies and startups.
daveklepper Again, I would like to make the point I have made several times. The National Park System does not pay for itself. And if its cost were divided among just those people who used the park (one year's costs for one year's visitors) the subsidy probably would be quite high. But we support the system because it brings side benefits. I believe a national railroad passenger intercity train service does the following. Opens up the country for many disabled and elderly who cannot fly Increase tourism, including tourism by overseas visitors Provides emergency service when planes cannot fly and during national emergencies such as floods. Provides a framework for uniting the regional high speed and commuter services that are absolutely necessary to avoid highway and airport congestion and even grid-lock On a per citizen basis the existing subsidy seems reasonable and not out of line with the benefits the overall nation receives.
The National Park Service, which last year saw more than 276 million visitors, is not designed to pay for itself. It is open to all the people.
The park service budget for 2008 is $2.75 billion. But the net cost to the taxpayer, after subtracting entrance and concessionaire fees, is approximately $1.12 billion, which results in a subsidy of approximately $4.08 per visitor. This compares to an Amtrak system subsidy of $53.48 per passenger in FY 2007, with a whopping average subsidy of approximately $135 for each long distance rider. Amtrak carried slightly more than 25.5 million passengers in FY 2007.
To compare the National Park Service to a transport system is mixing apples and oranges. The parks are open to and used by a high percentage of Americans. Amtrak is used by a much smaller percentage of the population that depends on many non-users for its support.
Those who argue that trains open up the country for many disabled and elderly who cannot fly, increases tourism, provides emergency services, and provides a framework for uniting the regional high speed and commuter services that are necessary to avoid grid-lock should quantify the value of these features of passenger rail.
Phoebe Vet That didn't answer the question. If the railroads did not own and maintain the rails. If both freight and passenger paid the same tax per gallon as trucks and buses, how much subsidy would then be required for passenger rail? It does not cost any more per mile to build a mile of railroad than it does to build a lane/mile of highway. With the fuel tax model, the rails would be available to much smaller companies and startups.
Woodside Consultants, amongst others, believes the freight carriers that hoist most of Amtrak's trains charge transit rates that do not cover the full cost of moving the passenger carrier's trains over their systems.
If the government owned the rails, as it does the highways and airways, and it charged rates designed to recover the cost of the facilities, the cost structure for passenger trains would be little different than the current cost structure. In fact, it could be worse if it is true that the hoist rails subsidize indirectly Amtrak. This would be true if all forms of transport wore the same fuel taxes.
In most European countries, as well as those in Asia, the rail infrastructure is owned by the government. And in many instances the government supplies the electric power for electric powered trains or subsidizes the cost of diesel fuel. Yet passenger trains in these locales require the same level of subsidy or more than trains in the U.S.
If the railroads did not own and maintain the rails. If both freight and passenger paid the same tax per gallon as trucks and buses, how much subsidy would then be required for passenger rail? It does not cost any more per mile to build a mile of railroad than it does to build a lane/mile of highway. With the fuel tax model, the rails would be available to much smaller companies and startups.
I wonder about those exact same questions.
I am going to toss out some rough-round numbers here, and I am sure they have shifted with both the increase in Amtrak load factors counteracted by he increase in Amtrak fuel costs.
A ticket on the Hiawatha costs/used to cost $20. The State of Wisconsin and State of Illinois chip in another $10. If you believe RPS to be accurate, and we can talk cost-shifting until the cows come home, but on a network basis, Amtrak has to pay its bills and it pretty much knows how much money it spends. Taking RPS as a given, I have seen some form of the cost of the Hiawatha ride at $50, indicating that Amtrak is chipping in another $20.
Out of that $20 ticket, or $50 ride that includes $30 in State and Federal subsidy, my understanding is that about $2 goes to Canadian Pacific Railway. In other words, I had seen that the track payment for this service is about 1 million/year, and if someone has more recent and accurate figures, lay them on me. The amount of subsidy is multiples of the cost of trackage rights.
If trains could somehow, sort of break even in an above-the-rails sense, I think a lot of people would be receptive to a kind of social contract that the government would pay for the tracks, a for-profit company or a government agency receiving modest levels of subsidy would take charge of everything above the wheel-rail contact patch. I think we have something like that with Amtrak in the NEC. Amtrak charges an arm and a leg to ride the Acela and a somewhat more modest amount for Regional. They break even or turn in some form of profit on an above-the-railhead basis.
What is so expensive about railroad passenger transport? The Hiawatha doesn't offer baggage service, lounges, sleepers or any of those amenities -- food service is a cart through the aisle where you buy stuff. What the State of Wisconsin is willing to chip in, and they get a lot of that money because the Milwaukee-Chicago corridor is an Air Quality Non-attainment Area and they can get funding to get people out of cars to reduce air pollution, that money should pay for what CP Rail wants and then some. Beyond that, the Hiawatha should have costs comparable to a bus company running the same route, and as far as I can tell, their above-the-rails costs are multiples of a bus company.
What gives? Don Oltmann might be on to something -- based on staffing levels at Beech Grove, it seemed that the maintenance hours per passenger mile on passenger cars exceeds by some margin that of airliners, and airliners are considered to be high-maintenance piece of equipment because as noted earlier on this thread, we cannot let them fall out of the sky. I am not faulting the men and women of Beech Grove that they are not working fast enough -- there may be something intrinsic to current generation railroad passenger cars that they need a lot of TLC.
Why should a railroad line be any different than a highway, and why could we not operate such a thing "open access."
The one way a railroad line is different is that one can consolidate a large number of individual railroad cars into a train, one has to maintain adequate separation of those trains. Buses on a highway can operate on much shorter headway with the other cars, buses, and trucks on the road. Part of this is that a rubber-tired bus can stop quicker, part of it is that a bus can swerve around a car stalled on the highway in a way that a train cannot. Thus trains are a highly "batched" mode of transportation and achieve efficiency by a high degree of batching, placing railroad cars into trains. By the same token, a single train occupies a much greater chunk of a rail line's capacity than bus does of a highway. This may place restrictions on "open access."
The big economy Amtrak achieves outside the NEC is that it only needs to pay nominal trackage fees to share rail lines with freight instead of having to "own and operate the entire highway." We can argue whether those fees are too high or too low, but I don't think they are that big a slice of Amtrak's total cost picture.
In return, Amtrak has to indeed share the tracks with freight, and outside the NEC (and Hiawatha Corridor), Amtrak is chronically late. Amtrak blames the railroads for "freight train interference", the roads blame Amtrak for "missing their assigned slot" and thus getting caught in the flow of freights that maintain much lower over-the-road speeds.
Maybe understanding Amtrak's cost structure is too tall an order for railfans, but understanding railroad dispatching and "slots" is probably well within the capabilities of the railfan community. I think we need to use our scanners and schedules and railfan train-chasing ability to get an independent view on why Amtrak has late trains and what it would take to run the trains on time.
Well, I have to respond to Paul Milenkovic's comment, "Am I embarassed that the US is behind Europe in ferry boats?" YES, YES, YES!
The Washington State Ferry (WSF) system hauls as many passengers as Amtrak (about 25 million per year). It is in an equally shameful condition -- and I do NOT blame it on the good WSF workers, any more than I blame airport security invasion of privacy on TSA.
The sad condition of our ferry system became clear after some highly publicized events highlighting the rough conditions that the boats occasionally encounter. I think this inspired tighter inspections; in any case, it was found that the Steel-Electric class, built in 1929, was unsafe. These were "the oldest operating auto ferries in the world." Their wooden superstructure was replaced in the 1980's, but the original hulls were found to be in poor condition. Although the impacts were felt throughout the system, the biggest problem was on Whidbey Island, where the Steel-Electrics were the only boats with a sufficiently shallow draft. The poor condition of the ferry system impacted our national defense, since Whidbey Island has a crucial Naval Air Station with workers who commute by ferry.
And our ferry system has another problem -- the fare collection system was restructured recently, and instead of "off the shelf" technology, it was decided to "invent the wheel." While transit systems all over the world use magnetic-stripe tickets, WSF designed a bar-code ticket system. Of course it was delayed and there were cost overruns. But the new system has yet to provide the much-needed benefit of allowing reserved space. Thus, the prospect of spending six hours waiting in line for a boat at the start and end of a weekend getaway convinces some that they don't want to travel, and has an economic impact.
Another problem is that all the tickets look the same. An agent once accidently gave my wife a $10, single-use passenger ticket instead of a $125, five-use auto ticket. The old system used a book of color-coded, clearly labeled tickets. And while magnetic-stripe tickets print the remaining value after each use, it is a mystery how many uses are remaining on the bar -code tickets (I guess one can call WSF or look it up online...).
There are so many ways in which our country is not responding to its transportation needs!
I respect the opinion that debating a national, high-speed rail network detracts from local needs. But unless we take some forward leaps with transportation, we will always be in catch-up mode.
Indeed, local or corridor problems will be solved out of dire necessity. For example, another Talgo between Seattle and Vancouver is planned for next year. But only because the Canadians are paying for infrastructure improvements to help their Olympics earn money! And am I the only one who fels a bit of shame that we must buy Talgo trains from Spain, when they were invented in the United States?
For more than a century, railroads "subsidized" passenger service. When this became too much of a burden, the system deteriorated and the government took over -- but it has continued to deteriorate instead of being improved.
Just because the seats on airplanes are what makes money, should the airlines be relieved of paying for the wings? Our transportation decisions are not rational. The most profitable systems -- cars and planes -- get support, while a national high-speed rail system is ignored. And the worst things we have lost are a sense of pride, freedom, and geographical identity.
ANECDOTAL EXAMPLES:
PRIDE--does anyone out there honestly take pride in the comfort of a coach seat on an airplane? And while national security should be an issue on an international journey, it is humiliating that I can only take so much deodorant when I visit my sister in a nearby city.
FREEDOM -- where the only transportation option is auto travel, it is unsafe and illegal to go to dinner in a nearby city and drink some wine.
GEOGRAPHICAL IDENTITY -- the true nature of America is invisible from an airplane. Why are all those horses in a corral, with a dog food truck driving out the other end?
Paul MilenkovicWhat does it say that we have the most sophisticated weapons? That was certainly not the case just prior to WW-II, and many brave Americans paid with their lives at Pearl Harbor and in the Phillipines for that. Why do we have the most sophisticated weapons now? Part of it was after reaping the fruits of isolationism, naive reliance on diplomatic agreements, and of a peace dividend where military preparedness was reduced, we vowed never again.
Couldn't resist jumping in here...
The isolationist sentiment in the US prior to Pearl Harbor was largely due to the Wilson administration's handling of WW1. One aspect was that Wilson's administration forbade any negative talk about the war effort (e.g. J. Edgar Hoover's Secret Service) and an intense propaganda effort was waged to drum up support (e.g. George Creel) which consisted of some outrageous lies about German behavior (the Germans for the most part were acting more humanely than either the French or British). The combination of the lies and death toll was enough to turn the American public from any involvement in European conflicts - much the same way that it would be unthinkable to get into another war in Southeast Asia.
A very good source for life in the US during WW1 is John M. Barry's The Great Influenza. The book also covers the development of the American university system as a prelude to the outbreak of the "Spanish" flu (which may be more accurately be called the Kansas flu).
Now what's this have to do with High Speed Rail???
WW1 and the USRA were two of the worst things that happened to American RR's in the first half of the 20th century, stopping a lot of projects (rail mileage peaked in 1916), greatly increasing costs (inflation) without a corresponding increase in revenue, and promotion of using trucks instead of rail freight.
The Great Influenza likely had a negative impact on RR passenger travel - being much safer traveling in a private car than with strangers possibly carrying the flu virus.
I just watched a program about South Korea'a new 360 KPH high speed rail.
Even South Korea has faster trains than we do.
"Even South Korea has faster trains than we do."
Their government does not need to "justify" the economic rationality of spending billions on public infrastructure. Here in the United States, we are too stubborn to admit that the "invisible hand of the free market" is actually just (to use a polite term) "self-stimulating" industries that are eating away at our society and environment.
I dream that our new Administration will make changes that will correct our economic crisis, environmental disaster, and social decay. Unfortunately, the policies that almost every other nation has adopted are in the United States portrayed as "un-American." Soon, we will live in a land where only bankers can afford to own homes and only the wealthy will be able to buy clean drinking water. But never fear -- the rest of us will be allowed all the pleasures we need in the form of internet pornography.
My aren't we cynical.
Mark
I dream that our new Administration will make changes that will correct our economic crisis, environmental disaster, and social decay.
What is the amount that you anticipate to be spent on intercity rail (Amtrak) over what period, what percentage of passenger miles will be converted from other modes to intercity rail, and what benefit do you anticipate from that expenditure in terms of a percent reduction in CO2 emissions, imported oil, or any quantitative relating to the environmental disaster of which you speak?
In other words, if you could have a hand in policy, how much money do you want to spend on trains, and what quantifiable contribution will that level of expenditure have towards protecting the environment? The Vision Report gives a spending level along with passenger train traffic and fuel saving projections, I imagine you can still find it on the Web, and we can use that as a starting point for making the case for expenditure on trains.
You speak of making changes to correct the economic crisis, environmental disaster, and social decay. Yes, a construction program of HSR would help with jobs and the economy, but it would be fairly narrowly focused in certain construction trades for which it is not clear there is a surplus of workers without jobs, and as for fighting social decay, we are talking about early childhood education, schools, crime-safe neighborhoods, drug treatment, job training, affordable housing and health care, i.e. a lot of things that are only tangentially related to intercity trains. I am also singling out the impact of trains on global warming because it should be straight forward to quantify. I don't know how to quantify the merits of strangers chatting in lounge cars of LD trains in comparisons with the other social interventions I have listed.
This Web site is about trains. How much do you want to spend on trains, and what percentage savings in oil or carbon emissions do you plan to get? Keep in mind that absolute savings are meaningless -- if we save 200,000 barrels of oil per day and we consume 20 million barrels per day, that would be only 1 percent. A 25-50 percent reduction in oil or CO2 or some other measure would be meaningful in terms of protecting the environment.
Here in the United States, we are too stubborn to admit that the "invisible hand of the free market" is actually just (to use a polite term) "self-stimulating" industries that are eating away at our society and environment.
To suggest that the Federal government does not spend any money on any social needs and leaves everything to the free market, in my opinion, reflects a misunderstanding of what the government is doing.
The major social welfare initiative of the outgoing administration is Medicare Part D or the Senior Prescription Drug Benefit. Before that administration took office, there was a wide bipartisan consensus that many seniors rely on drug therapies for their well-being that weren't even imagined back when Medicare was enacted, but to afford those medicines, many seniors had to decide whether they wanted to eat or fill their prescriptions.
I have heard liberal critics of the adminstration complain that Medicare Part D is tilted towards "drug company profits," but even if there were price controls placed on drugs, I don't see how an alternative would have been a major saving of public money.
Governing and government is about making choices and setting priorities, much as it is for personal finances, only on a larger dollar scale. The outgoing administration had given priority to the Senior Drug Benefit over the kind of infrastructure spending you favor. Would you have preferred giving priority to infrastructure spending in exchange for delaying consideration of the Senior Drug Benefit to a following administration?
I know you will say we should have spent money on both instead of spending money on yet other things. But sometimes in politics and public life one doesn't have those choices. Do you believe it to be a national disgrace that the Federal government budgets very large amounts of money for medicine for old people and very little for trains?
Maglev "Even South Korea has faster trains than we do." Their government does not need to "justify" the economic rationality of spending billions on public infrastructure. Here in the United States, we are too stubborn to admit that the "invisible hand of the free market" is actually just (to use a polite term) "self-stimulating" industries that are eating away at our society and environment.
The U.S. National Debt is $10.7 trillion or approximately 76 per cent of the Gross National Product. Approximately $2.2 trillion is held by overseas investors. In addition, the deficits being incurred to save the financial markets, as well as those anticipated to recover from the economic recession, will add another $1.4 trillion to the national debt. This will take it to $11.9 trillion or approximately 87 per cent of GNP, and it will be the highest it has been since the end of WWII. Most of the large debt racked up by the end of WWII, of course, was incurred to help defeat Germany and Japan.
The annual interest on the debt in FY 2009 will be approximately $476 billion. State and local government debt tacks on another $1.85 trillion to the government debt load and pushes the annual combined debt service requirement above $500 billion per year. This is one of the reasons, although not the only one, why taxes represent the largest single outlay for a typical American family.
In addition to government debt, i.e. federal, state, and local, Americans are on the hook for approximately $11.5 trillion in mortgage debt, $10.1 trillion in corporate debt, $950 billion of credit card debt, and $2.6 trillion of consumer debt. This brings the total debt load to approximately $37.6 trillion or an average of $311,000 per household. The country is awash in debt.
Many economists believe that America's unbridled appetite for debt is the major cause of the recession, in large part because Americans have run out of the ability to incur any further debt or in many instances service their debt load.
These dismal numbers beg a central question. How do you suggest the U.S. should pay for high speed trains
Sam:
I agree with everything you said about the debt, but to answer your question would spin this thread off on a VERY political path. Nothing usefull would result.
Sam --
I agree with Phoebe Vet. The economic debate would go on forever. Our nation did not rise to greatness by asking, "How will we pay for this?" Our transportation policy should be, "What is the next best step?"
We need to realize that two-century-old ideals are be out of context in our modern world. Things like international futures trading and sub-prime mortgages were not significant then. But now, our economic system is failing to provide jobs, homes, health care, and public transportation. Economic arguments over high-speed rail don't make sense because our economy doesn't make sense.
Our transportation policy should be, "What is the next best step?"
So tell me, what is that next best step? How much do you want to spend on Amtrak/HSR over what period of time, and what do you propose to get from that in terms of route miles? What contribution will this make in terms of reduction of imported oil or reduction of greenhouse gases? What is your projected traffic level. How many freeway lanes will this replace?
We may not be able to afford it, but the incoming President has pledged from 150 billion on up to be spent on "green energy", "green infrastructure", and the like. What piece of this do you think should go to trains, and how much "green" (environmental benefit) do you expect to get from that amount of "green" (money).
I am not debating anything about the economics. What plan do you support and why? The Vision Report? More than the Vision Report?
We need a Constitutional Ammendment guaranteeing the availability of public transportation. This would require a paradigm shift in economic, social, and environmental policy. I honestly believe transportation, health care, and energy are so badly neglected in this country that only a major commitment can asure our future survival.
Cost estimates and funding sources would need to be determined using resources not available to me here on Orcas Island. I have not read the Vision Report, but as I have mentioned earlier two good first steps are repairing and replacing Amtrak's damaged cars and rebuilding Penn Station.
With that grandiose plan, I better try to get some credibility here. I am familiar with transportation, at least from the consumer standpoint. My great-grandfather was an L & N Vice President, grandfather was a railroad electrician, and one of my father's many interesting jobs was helping to plan the Bay Area Rapid Transit system. I have traveled on most of the Amtrak system, and ridden train cars ranging from Penn Central "roach coaches" in 1974 to first-class on the Acela in 2007; taken the CN Super Continental from Montreal to Vancouver in 1975; spent five weeks touring England and Scotland by rail around 1990, and took one rather miserable trip on New Zealand Railways from Napier to Wellington. I have read Trains magazine since 1973.
For almost twenty years, I had free travel priviliges on United Airlines, so I am familiar with air travel also; usually flying first class. I have taken a few long-distance bus trips, and one four-day cruise from Long Beach to Ensenada. Here on Orcas Island, we depend on Washington State Ferries. I have driven on Interstate and other highways all over the country, including the urban Northeast and the desert Southwest...
The time and resources I have dedicated to scientific research are mostly on the topic of natural nuclear fusion. With the assistance of the late Hon. U. S. Rep. Patsy Mink, Hawaii, I was able to determine that vast energy resources are being ignored for political reasons. There is ample reason to believe that transportation decisions are also not made for logical reasons. Technological advances and future progress can only be achieved with a paradigm shift.
I appreciate your time and consideration, sincerely,
Phillip Bose
Paul Milenkovic Our transportation policy should be, "What is the next best step?" So tell me, what is that next best step? How much do you want to spend on Amtrak/HSR over what period of time, and what do you propose to get from that in terms of route miles? What contribution will this make in terms of reduction of imported oil or reduction of greenhouse gases? What is your projected traffic level. How many freeway lanes will this replace? We may not be able to afford it, but the incoming President has pledged from 150 billion on up to be spent on "green energy", "green infrastructure", and the like. What piece of this do you think should go to trains, and how much "green" (environmental benefit) do you expect to get from that amount of "green" (money). I am not debating anything about the economics. What plan do you support and why? The Vision Report? More than the Vision Report?
Quick, frequent, convenient, safe, and economical passenger trains in relatively short, high density corridors, e.g. New York to Washington, Chicago to Milwaukee, Los Angeles to San Diego, Dallas to Fort Worth, Austin to San Antonio, etc., make sense. Long distance trains do not.
Does the U.S. need high speed rail? No! At least not the models that have been put together in many other countries and favored by some U.S. proponents! Unless the U.S. taxpayer is willing to pay much higher taxes, which is the case in all the countries that some of the people who post to these forums think we should emulate.
The U.S. does not have unlimited resources. Rightly or wrongly, the nation decided on a transport system built around the airplane and the car. It made the right decision.
The current economic crisis should convince all but the most Pollyannaish that the U.S. does not have the money to build and support a third national transport system, i.e. a full blown national passenger rail system in addition to its excellent highway and airways.
If Amtrak eliminated the long distance trains, it would save approximately $515 million per year. By 2050 the future value of this saving could be worth between $54 and $59 billion. Clearly, these amounts could go a long way toward upgrading America's existing passenger rail corridors and implementing new ones where they are justified. The improvements could be achieved with little if any incremental financing.
In October I took the Acela from Philadelphia to New York. The train was quick, comfortable, convenient, and safe. It is an example of where trains make sense. Taking a train from New York to San Francisco makes no sense.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.