Building our infrastucture instead of giving huge tax breaks to the richest 1% of the population, building our infrastructure instead of invading and occupying a country on the other side of the world, building our infrastructure instead of angering Russia by building missles on their border, building our infrastructure instead of maintaining military bases all over the world, continuing the 3 consecutive years of balanced budgets he inherited instead of running the deepest deficit budgets in history every year he has been in office, might have prevented this economic mess.
A new rail project would be a much better investment than a new aircraft carrier. Think about how many miles of rail we could lay with the money we are paying to maintain Bush's private army, Blackwater Security.
How will writing huge checks to banks, investment houses, and car companies alter the fact that people cannot make their mortgage payments or afford to buy cars?
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe Vet Building our infrastucture instead of giving huge tax breaks to the richest 1% of the population, building our infrastructure instead of invading and occupying a country on the other side of the world, building our infrastructure instead of angering Russia by building missles on their border, building our infrastructure instead of maintaining military bases all over the world, continuing the 3 consecutive years of balanced budgets he inherited instead of running the deepest deficit budgets in history every year he has been in office, might have prevented this economic mess. A new rail project would be a much better investment than a new aircraft carrier. Think about how many miles of rail we could lay with the money we are paying to maintain Bush's private army, Blackwater Security. How will writing huge checks to banks, investment houses, and car companies alter the fact that people cannot make their mortgage payments or afford to buy cars?
The question was what type of passenger rail system should the U.S. maintain and possibly expand, i.e. more corridors, high speed rail, implementation of the Vision Report, etc. I don't see anything in your comments that even remotely begins to address the issue.
Sam:
Actually, I was responding to:
"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".
But I apologise to you and everyone else in here. I said I wasn't going to go off on that tangent. You caught me in a moment of weakness.
.Building our infrastucture instead of giving huge tax breaks to the richest 1% of the population, building our infrastructure instead of invading and occupying a country on the other side of the world, building our infrastructure instead of angering Russia by building missles on their border, building our infrastructure instead of maintaining military bases all over the world, continuing the 3 consecutive years of balanced budgets he inherited instead of running the deepest deficit budgets in history every year he has been in office, might have prevented this economic mess.
I want to talk about the Iraq War head on. There are many in the passenger advocacy community who are angry about the Iraq War, not only do many see the Iraq War as wrong, and not only has President Bush waged war on Iraq, his administration has also waged war on Amtrak, and I see people in both the virtual and bricks-and-morter advocacy communities who keep coming back to that theme time and again. This form may be moderated to keep a lid on this, but it is really hard to keep passenger train advocacy people from talking about it because many feel this way.
Iraq is not the only country that the U.S. has "invaded and occupied" in recent times. Iraq gets special consideration because the cost to the U.S., not the cost to the invaded "other" or the rest of the world, but specifically, the cost to us has been large. It also has been correlated with an effort to do away with Amtrak.
My uncle, who sheltered my father during WW-II when he fled his native Croatia after the occupying German authorities executed my grandfather, that uncle died in recent years of the complications of circulatory disease, in pain, without medicine on account of U.S. sanctions, and without heat, on account of NATO bombardment of power plants. I finally sent some money to my uncle, not knowing if it was enough to help, but also first checking with the expatriate community to see whether I was violating U.S. sanctions to do this and would end up "helping the FBI with their investigations." That military action is "off the radar screen" on account that it didn't have anything to do with the current administration trying to cancel Amtrak, and the costs to U.S. citizens in blood and treasure were much less.
While one man died in pain without medicine or heat for his apartment as a consequence of U.S. policies, his second cousin resides in a nursing home in his final years, able to pay for his care and medicines without having to go on Medicaid, owing to U.S. policies -- it is not just the richest 1 percent who benefited from tax breaks on sales of assets but also seniors who need to pay for their care. He also benefits from the Senior Prescription Drug Benefit, something that could pay for HSR many times over. I guess we could raise taxes, have more people not able to afford their care in old age, and pay more out in Medicaid, but the government gives and the government takes and it all works out to the same purposes in the end.
I hope some may see why I have a different perspective when the cost or the "wrongness" of the Iraq War is casually brought up when the agenda is about passenger trains. If one thinks it is simply a matter of being "for" or "against" the war, well, American society with its broad arms welcoming refugees from all over the world (my parents, among many others), make matters more complex than that.
I deeply regret the cost to American soldiers and to the American taxpayer of the Iraq War, but the effort of the Iraq War has been to maintain a unitary Iraqi state. Maybe intervening in Kosovo and intervening in Iraq were both wrong, but the Iraq War has been so much more expensive in American blood and treasure on account of the effort to maintain a unified Iraqi state; I had hoped against hope that we would have supported the same for Yugoslavia. If we followed the same policy of break-up into many countries in Iraq, we could have walked away from that situation years ago.
It is my hope that we can get back to trains and discussing the cost-benefits of HSR instead of just being mad at everyone that we don't have it.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
The military occupation of Iraq gets "special consideration" because it is ongoing and because it has been immoral from the start, and it was not the only thing I mentioned. Nor did I place the blame solely on this sad excuse for a president. Congress, both sides of the aisle, shares the blame.
My only reason for bringing it up was to illustrate our horribly misplaced priorities. Notice that I used the term infrastructure, not high speed trains. The railroads, roads, waterways, and bridges are all being neglected while the transportation trust fund is used for things like a walking trail in the Great Smokey Mountains, a bus stop in front of the Anchorage Museum of History and Art -- with electronic signs and a heated sidewalk... for $1.5 million, a Packard Museum in Michigan, and an Erie Canal Museum in New York, etc.
Now, regardless of any future posts, I am done with this subject.
Phoebe Vet The military occupation of Iraq gets "special consideration" because it is ongoing and because it has been immoral from the start, and it was not the only thing I mentioned. Nor did I place the blame solely on this sad excuse for a president. Congress, both sides of the aisle, shares the blame.
Phoebe,
Opinions are like a-- holes, we all have one. However I think most of us would be more interesed in your thoughts about HSR or just plain passenger rail than in you off topic political biases.
Mark
I ulitimately propose a massive public works expenditure on magnetic levitation, but here limit my comments to the interim subject of high-speed rail. See last paragraph for funding source.
Paul -- you said that costs of high speed rail would be far more than the benefits because high-speed rail is a narrowly-defined, focused project. That is why I am proposing a far-reaching vision of the future.
This includes recognizing the importance of chatting in the lounge car. Cars are great for shopping and a source of important freedoms, and airplanes are the only feasible tool for some long distance travel. But Americans have completely lost sight of the social importance of travelling by high-speed surface transportation. We are not even aware of how much our freedom is being restricted.
" New York to Washington, Chicago to Milwaukee, Los Angeles to San Diego, Dallas to Fort Worth, Austin to San Antonio, etc., make sense." Add in the three C's in Ohio; Boston and Portland, ME; St. Louis; Detroit; Toronto; Vancouver: Seattle and Portland, etc (all the existing "corridors") and you practically have a national rail network. These corridors will and are being developed. But why try so hard to leave out the links of a true national system? Why must it be impossible to go by train from Cleveland to Buffalo, or Chicago to Miami? Even at a modest speed, Chicago to Washington should only take ten hours. Believe me, spending a night on a train going to Florida is great!
The environmental crisis to which I refer involves becoming completely out-of-touch with the greatness of our land. This is the essence of climate change, species extinction, and (all too often) death from natural disaster.
I propose a nationwide, electrified rail track network maintained by taxes. (Ultimately, magnetic levitation should be developed). This would be powered by a nuclear fusion energy system. The use of a non-polluting power source would provide greenhouse benefits by almost eliminating use of coal and drastically reducing need for petroleum. (References: please see USGS Report 95-4213; then ask me where I have a stash of 20% of the world's pennies (copper), 80% of the world's nickel, and manganese and cobalt exceeding known land resources; then read "International control of tritium to foster nuclear disarmament," Science and Global Security 5; pp. 131-203 (1995); then I'll tell you about the letters I have from DOE and Congress. Yes, I am not stupid, this is feasible.)
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
As to the intangible benefits of trains and HSR, I have been to Japan twice and rode on the New Tokaido Line HSR one round trip.
The first time I needed to get to Kyoto, I went to Tokyo and took the HSR. It was a fun ride on account of the novelty of it and the sense of speed that close to the ground.
Did you know that the New Tokaido Line is a mountain railroad? The coastal land is very precious for agricultural use, and the line bores straight through the rugged volcanic mountains inland. The part that is not on viaduct is in tunnels. Japan may have given greater priority to public infrastructure projects such as this, and I understand they have ratios of public debt to GNP that make ours look good to show for it.
Don't know how much of the countryside of Japan I got to see because half the time we were underground. The thing is the world's fastest subway, don't you know it. Lounge car, what lounge car? The whole the time I stayed in my seat, five across with about the same elbow room as a jet liner, only perhaps a tad more leg room. Someone in our party walked the train and got us box lunches of eel. Not much different than a jet airliner, including pressure changes, not from the altitude but from popping in an out of tunnels and passing opposing trains. Whhuummmp!
The second time I went I also needed to go to Kyoto. This time there was a non-stop Chicago-Osaka flight. Direct air transport and a regional airport substituted for the Bullet Train ride. I did have to take an intercity bus. It was a pleasant enough ride, and riding on largely elevated highways, I got to see more of the countryside. The coolest thing was seeing the many golf driving ranges -- one could look down from the elevated highway and see golf balls shooting out from underneath. Many people in Japan take their golf game seriously and practice on driving ranges it seems.
It sure would be nice to have such a train here, when the case can be made that the economic benefit justifies the cost. Not yet having such a thing, I hardly feel that my freedom is infringed.
Maglev I ulitimately propose a massive public works expenditure on magnetic levitation, but here limit my comments to the interim subject of high-speed rail. See last paragraph for funding source. Paul -- you said that costs of high speed rail would be far more than the benefits because high-speed rail is a narrowly-defined, focused project. That is why I am proposing a far-reaching vision of the future. This includes recognizing the importance of chatting in the lounge car. Cars are great for shopping and a source of important freedoms, and airplanes are the only feasible tool for some long distance travel. But Americans have completely lost sight of the social importance of travelling by high-speed surface transportation. We are not even aware of how much our freedom is being restricted.
OK, put a lounge on an airliner and get the same social benefit.
What is intrinsic about a train that makes lounge cars more feasible than the lounge that used to be in 747s? Why should a train coach seat on a high speed train be more spacious than that in an airplane?
People vote with their dollars everyday for small, cramped airline seats. There is almost always a come-on to get people to upgrade from coach for something like $40-80. The airline push it when you book, when you check in, but hardly anybody bites. I don't think most people all that dumb or naive not to know exactly what they are getting for their money.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I have not heard of an electric, non-polluting airplane. I suppose some type of "beam" might work, but there might be adverse health effects. Indeed, we barely have data on long term exposure effects for mag-lev drivers.
One of the many benefits of surface transportation is that you meet people who live in the places through which you travel. However, there is a safety problem with lounges on airplanes.
705 miles from Washington, D. C., to Chicago could easily be done in ten hours on existing rail infrastructure. Chicago to Detroit in an hour? Not quite yet, but possible. New York to Boston or Washington in two hours will indeed be difficult.
Paul Milenkovic Japan may have given greater priority to public infrastructure projects such as this, and I understand they have ratios of public debt to GNP that make ours look good to show for it.
Japan may have given greater priority to public infrastructure projects such as this, and I understand they have ratios of public debt to GNP that make ours look good to show for it.
Indeed, Japan's national debt was 150 per cent of GDP as of March 2007. It has fallen somewhat since then. By comparison the U.S. national debt is approximately 77 per cent of GDP. With the anticipated increases in the federal deficit for FY 2009, it will be approximately 87 per cent of GDP. When state and local debt is added to the mix, government debt in the U.S. will be approximately 101 per cent of GDP at the end of FY 2009.
The Japanese have one of the highest income tax rates in the world. Their top marginal tax rate is 50 per cent whereas the U.S. rate is 35 per cent. When local taxes, which are embedded in the Japanese rates, are added to the U.S. rate, the top marginal rate is over 40 per cent but well below 50 per cent. A one for one comparison is difficult because of different tax structures in Japan and the U. S., but the Japanese, like most European countries, pay considerably higher taxes than the U.S. This is how they pay for their vaunted passenger rail systems.
Japan has been in an economic slump since 1990, in part due to a banking failure, high savings rates, and high taxes. Its GDP grew only slightly from 1990 to 1999, with no growth from 1999 to 2006. I don't want to see the U.S. economy emulate the Japanese economy.
America can build all the HSR that its advocates desire as long as its citizens, including the advocates, are willing to pay considerably higher taxes. HSR cannot be built or operated without massive infusions of government monies. I don't believe most people want to go that route.
"Make no little plans, they have no magic to stir men's blood and will probably not themselves be realized." (Daniel Burnham, architect of Washington Union Station).
Unless we make some leaps forward, we will always be in catch-up mode; there will never be a public transportation network. So few Americans know how far we are behind other nations. I remember my grandmother's telling me that she didn't like trains because of all the smoke and cinders. It was not senility but the reality of modern transportation that prompted this. If she had ridden the Sunset from Florida to LA and then flown (or taken a ship!) to Hawaii to visit us, I am sure that she would have told me she enjoyed the ride.
It is actually illegal for me to take a ship to Hawaii to visit my mother. It has been rightly deemed "unsafe" for me to get out of my seat and talk to a group of other pasengers while on an airplane. We have definitely suffered a reduction in mobility. By the way, I will provide complete references on request; I think I posted copies of letters on another forum.
Whummmpp?
What's that?
Don't trains go glickety clack?
I have not heard of an electric, non-polluting airplane.
I have not heard of an electric, non-polluting electric power generating plant either (cue drummer in band for rim shot).
Seriously, folks, I see a brand new electric power plant on my drive to work -- it is, in fact, part of a heating plant for where I work. What drives the generators and provides heat to raise steam for the heat in my office . . . is a pair of airplane-type jet engines! (cue another rim shot).
OK, there are wind generators, but owing to the mismatch between when the wind blows and when the trains and other electric loads run, those are probably only good for 20 percent of total generating capacity if there is an all-out effort to install wind generators.
I suppose the California HSR will be electric, but electric wires add to the cost, look ugly as all heck (yeah, but so do overhead transmission wires, and with a major windpower program, we will need more of those to wheel power to different places to better match wind with demand).
NARP snarked on its Web page upon noting the passing of TurboTrain designer Alan Cripe, that shortly before his death, he was trying to block the extension of catenary north of New Haven for the Acela project, arguing that gas turbine trains were more cost effective. Alan Cripe was probably right on that one. Even with the high cost of fuel, turbines, especially using accessories like regenerators or switching them on and off with demand, may be a lot cheaper than new catenary.
On the question of nuclear power, John Rowe, CEO of Exelon, gave a speech where I work and explained that getting nuclear plants will take some time. There are restrictions on where you can have them (people don't like to be neighbors to them, perhaps for a combination of rational and irrational reasons), and these sites also need access to the large amount of cooling water required for a powerplant running a saturated steam cycle (for you steam locomotive fans, nuclear plants are temperature limited owing to materials limitations of containing the nuclear fuel, and they use water separators instead of superheat).
Don't know much about fusion power apart from the people where I work who study this kind of thing, but one person tells me that an economically-feasible fusion plant would be at least 10 times the size of a fission plant. That might make the siting even more challenging in terms of cooling water supply and transmission line capacity to connect a concentrated source of electric power.
I am trying to remember where I read this, might have been AvWeek but American Airlines a while back put a small lounge in one of their types of jet. Given that space on a jet is at a premium, they calculated exactly how many seats they were willing to give up and they put in a tiny lounge, and it was immensely popular. I think the story was that they had to take it out -- it was back in the days of airline fare regulation, and other airlines complained to the regulators that it was an unfair provision of extra service for the same ticket price. But that was before price competition came to the airlines.
Whummmpp? What's that? Don't trains go glickety clack?
I don't know of trains on CWR that go clickety-clack, and the New Tokaido Line was among the pioneering applications of concrete ties, spring clips in place of spikes, and welded rail.
The Bullet Train enters and exits numerous tunnels at 150 MPH+ -- it also has a 300 MPH+ closing speed with opposing trains on the next track.
I read a long time ago in Railway Age or some such place that the train cars have pressurization valves that close to mitigate the ear popping from these events, but train meets along with tunnel ingress and egress still gets your attention.
In terms of the urgency and the matter of "being left behind", whatever technology is developed will be developed. Most of the cost is in civil engineering and not in the trainsets anyway. Voters in Texas, I believe, and in Florida were hesitant of spending public monies on something for which they judged there would not be the ridership to justify the amount of money. Why can't we accept the decisions of voters that these markets weren't quite "ripe" for HSR and continue to make the case for trains?
We are mad at "the politicians", "the Highway Lobby", "Americans with their love affair with the car." Yes, democracy has been imperfect, and a less-than-smart electorate has put in office less-than-smart leaders leaving us with problems, no worse than many faced in the past. What do people in the advocacy community want, Plato's philosopher kings?
I have traveled on subways in Boston, Montreal, New York, Washington, Chicago, San Francisco, and London; and used MBTA, Metro North, New Orleans streetcars, Cal Train, and MAX (spelling on the latter?).
My allusion to using deep-sea minerals off Hawaii to pay for this was certainly unrealistic; it was meant to illustrate that there are resources being ignored for political reasons (in this case, the reason being the UN Law of the Sea, which was designed to stabilize global trade patterns in metals). For mineral quantities and an explanation of the UN Law of the Sea, read J. Schneider and H. Thiel, "Environmental Problems of Deep-Sea Mining," Manganese Nodule Belt of the Pacific Ocean, Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke Verlag, 1988, pp. 223-228.
I will never forget the first time I was riding a high-speed train and it passed another train. It was on the Edinburgh - London line, on an Intercity 225 (is this currently known as the 221 series?). The experience of zipping across an ancient viaduct at high-speed is an unique connection of history and modern technology. (On Acela, this is ironically one of the few high-speed sections). America really needs to promote our surface connections. Poem edited to correct meter:
Whummmppp?
What was that?
Chug a lug
Or clickety clack?
Maglev I have not heard of an electric, non-polluting airplane. I suppose some type of "beam" might work, but there might be adverse health effects. Indeed, we barely have data on long term exposure effects for mag-lev drivers. One of the many benefits of surface transportation is that you meet people who live in the places through which you travel. However, there is a safety problem with lounges on airplanes. 705 miles from Washington, D. C., to Chicago could easily be done in ten hours on existing rail infrastructure. Chicago to Detroit in an hour? Not quite yet, but possible. New York to Boston or Washington in two hours will indeed be difficult.
In the near to mid-term, there will be no new electric, non-polluting trains, either. Any new corridor service will be diesel-electric, or perhaps, gas turbine-electric. Current fuel efficiency of Amtrak is not much better than airlines, so why would HSR be much different?
Maybe you didn't know, but 747s were built with lounges. Airlines filled them with revenue seats because the airlines that resisted doing so lost their passengers to those who did and offered lower fares.
Chicago to Detroit in an hour? They're 280 miles apart!
NY to Chicago CANNOT be done with any kind of equipment on any of the existing rail routes in 10 hours unless you're willing to straighten hundreds of miles of curves. 14 hours, maybe. 10 hours would require a brand new route. The PRR route is just about all curves from Harrisburg to Alliance and The Water Level Route may be level, but it's not very straight between NYC and Rochester. BTW, the rail routes from NY to Chicago are 900 for the old PRR, 960 for the old NYC - plus or minus a few.
I don't think you'd get many end-point to end-point takers, even at 10 hours trip time. After all, the 16 hr Broadway and 20th Century got beaten by prop-driven, low & slow flying aircraft. Can't make an out and back one-day business trip by train - even at 10 hrs, but you can by air.
I like the mingling-effect of the lounge car and diner on the LD trains, but on the NEC, Empire trains and particularly the Metroliners that I've ridden, it's really more of an airliner atmosphere - you sit in your seat and mind your own business.
Though, I gotta admit, this is a new arguement to me. I've never heard an advocate of tax-subsidized social mingling before!
As per today's News Wire, add Kansas City and Fort Worth to the isolated "corridors" we are going to develop while somehow neglecting a national network. Only hogs are allowed to cross our nation without changing trains in Chicago.
Paul Milenkovic I have not heard of an electric, non-polluting airplane. I have not heard of an electric, non-polluting electric power generating plant either (cue drummer in band for rim shot).
Hydro!
(cue him again).
Don--
I enjoyed the coach lounge on a 747 from Honolulu to Boston in 1974. And of course you are aware that 14 hours is a century-old time for New York to Chicago.
Every time I have been on a train with a lounge car, the tables are used by passengers for socializing and enjoying their trip. I have not been on an airplane for a few years, but I hope congregating is still not allowed because I also know a lot about details of airplane construction...
As for travel times, anyone who needs to go from New York to Chicago and back in a day needs the ability to take a plane in the absence of futuristic trains. But look at the New York to Pittsburgh section. How about the friend or relative, who is not in a hurry, and wants to go from Trenton, NJ, to Greeensburg, PA? Orbitz shows me flights taking two hours for $200, round trip. But it takes hours to get to the airports, and what if the traveler sweats a lot and needs more than three ounces of deodorant?
Pollution-free electricity:
The solution I have proposed is nuclear fusion, which is really in a development phase equal to magnetic levitation transportation. Hydro power is not "green," and indeed many of the energy "solutions" I have seen may do more harm than good. The cover story in last week's Nature is about electric cars, and I assure you that I am well informed on the topics which I discuss. Most of my fusion information has been posted on another forum, and I will provide copies of letters if you want.
Simply put, I am advocating a paradigm shift that places a new emphasis on public transportation, starting with high speed rail -- even just rebuilding Penn Station. Apparently, numerous acts of God* are not sufficient to inspire us; so I suggested a Constitutional Amendment might work.
_____________________
*That is, climate change, extinction of 25% of the world's mammals, increasing fatalities from natural disasters, insensitivity to our fellows by watching a suicide live...
A friend of mine, who does not have direct access to e-mail and the TRAINS forum, sent me this material. He addresses something most people do ot talk about--specifically, the real cost of automobile travel in the USA. His background is auditing for a state govt., and he has some engineering training:
In reading about the debates on high-speed rail in America, I am continually confounded at the ignorance of how much it costs to maintain road systems in the USA.
As a typical example, in 2004 the US governments--federal, state, and local, combined--spent about $148 billion on highways. The same boides only collected $76 billion in fuel taxes, and another 6.5 billion in tolls. The difference of $44 billion, spread over 175 billion gallons of motor fuel consumed that year, works out to a subsidy of 37 cents per gallon. This is only based on what was spent; it doesn't include deferred maintenance, 'wimpy engineering' (a la Don Phillips), or poor system design. I estimate these costs to bring the underpricing of the road system to about $1.00 per gallon of fuel consumed, and we haven't even started on external costs such as air pollution, unrecovered accident costs, and an oil war.
Include these, and you come up with a real cost of between $6 and $8 PER GALLON--which we are paying, except it is hidden in income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, insurance fees, and just plain driving hassle. In fact, it is my opinion that the death of passenger trains--and trolley lines as well--was not a natural death; it was due to the game of transportation economics being rigged against such systems--and it is still rigged today.
The information comes from USDOT, Highway Statistics (see USDOT website).
The Highway Trust Fund went broke, and required a general revenue infusion of $8 billion in 2008. The 2007 report is still unavailable.
Questions:
How much should we charge for gasoline? How much should we charge for roads? How do we charge for roads, especially if alternative fuels or energy sources arrive, and you have vehicles such as electric cars that do not burn gasoline (no gas tax, but use road capacity)? If we charged as much as we should for roads, what difference would it make not only for passenger trains, but for local transit such as trolley lines?
This would unrig the game, and the trains, trolleys, and interurbans would again make sense economically. ...
Since the drummer is here, I should give my musical references: my great-great grandfather was a signal man (fifer) in the Union Army. I have wanted to visit his grave, but the trains go through Sandusky at an inconvenient time.
Juniperhouse As a typical example, in 2004 the US governments--federal, state, and local, combined--spent about $148 billion on highways. The same boides only collected $76 billion in fuel taxes, and another 6.5 billion in tolls. The difference of $44 billion, spread over 175 billion gallons of motor fuel consumed that year, works out to a subsidy of 37 cents per gallon. This is only based on what was spent; it doesn't include deferred maintenance, 'wimpy engineering' (a la Don Phillips), or poor system design. I estimate these costs to bring the underpricing of the road system to about $1.00 per gallon of fuel consumed, and we haven't even started on external costs such as air pollution, unrecovered accident costs, and an oil war.
Clearly, fuel taxes do not cover the total cost of driving. Accordingly, motorists don't know how much it really costs them. If they did they would probably modify their behavior, i.e. drive more fuel efficient vehicles, use public transport, etc.
Your numbers are reasonably accurate. For example, in 2007 $39.8 billion was transferred from the General Fund to the Highway Trust Fund, of which approximately $9 billion was transferred to the Mass Transit Administration. But on a per mile basis the federal subsidy received by motorists was approximately .0138 cents per mile compared to an average of 24.45 cents per mile for Amtrak's passengers. The numbers were even worse for commuter and light rail. The key is cost per mile, which is an indictor of functionality, as opposed to gross figures, which are useless for comparsion purposes.
In Texas, where I live, the state fuel taxes pay for most of the state highway system, although in a roundabout way. The country roads and 90 per cent of the cost of most city streets are paid for with property taxes. Over the past decade the state has turned increasingly to toll roads because the gasoline tax has not been sufficient to cover the cost of building the highways that the state needs.
According to the late Texas Transportation Commissioner, Texas would have to increase the gasoline tax to $1.40 per gallon to meet Texas' road needs without resorting to toll roads. This translates into 6.2 cents per mile for a typical personal vehicle in Texas. When added to the federal gasoline tax, plus the federal subsidy, the fuel tax for the feds and state would be 7.0338 cents per mile. Assuming that the per mile cost of county roads and city streets doubles the per mile cost, the total would be 14.0676 per mile, which is considerably below the per mile subsidy for Amtrak.
Translated back to gallons, this would result in a tax of approximately $3.17 per gallon. Adding it to the current price of a gallon of gasoline in Texas would bring the total to approximately $4.87 cents, which is well short of $6 to $8 per gallon.
Many supporters of expanded rail (intercity, commuter, and light), including yours truly, argue that these modes of transport would be more viable if the true cost of gasoline was passed on to motorists in the price of fuel at the pump. However, the argument misses two important points.
When gasoline gets too high, the manufactures will rush to alternative fuel vehicles and the cost of petroleum will become less important. We are seeing the makings of that move now. The other point is more subjective, but very import to consider. The average American, except for those in a few of the country's largest cities, will not give up their car to sit on a croweded train, next to a person who bathes once a week, jabbering on a cell phone and munching on a twinkie. It is simply not going to happen.
Exactly what polutants does hydro emit?
JuniperhouseA friend of mine, who does not have direct access to e-mail and the TRAINS forum, sent me this material. He addresses something most people do ot talk about--specifically, the real cost of automobile travel in the USA. His background is auditing for a state govt., and he has some engineering training: In reading about the debates on high-speed rail in America, I am continually confounded at the ignorance of how much it costs to maintain road systems in the USA. As a typical example, in 2004 the US governments--federal, state, and local, combined--spent about $148 billion on highways. The same boides only collected $76 billion in fuel taxes, and another 6.5 billion in tolls. The difference of $44 billion, spread over 175 billion gallons of motor fuel consumed that year, works out to a subsidy of 37 cents per gallon. This is only based on what was spent; it doesn't include deferred maintenance, 'wimpy engineering' (a la Don Phillips), or poor system design. I estimate these costs to bring the underpricing of the road system to about $1.00 per gallon of fuel consumed, and we haven't even started on external costs such as air pollution, unrecovered accident costs, and an oil war. Include these, and you come up with a real cost of between $6 and $8 PER GALLON--which we are paying, except it is hidden in income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, insurance fees, and just plain driving hassle. In fact, it is my opinion that the death of passenger trains--and trolley lines as well--was not a natural death; it was due to the game of transportation economics being rigged against such systems--and it is still rigged today. The information comes from USDOT, Highway Statistics (see USDOT website). The Highway Trust Fund went broke, and required a general revenue infusion of $8 billion in 2008. The 2007 report is still unavailable. Questions: How much should we charge for gasoline? How much should we charge for roads? How do we charge for roads, especially if alternative fuels or energy sources arrive, and you have vehicles such as electric cars that do not burn gasoline (no gas tax, but use road capacity)? If we charged as much as we should for roads, what difference would it make not only for passenger trains, but for local transit such as trolley lines? This would unrig the game, and the trains, trolleys, and interurbans would again make sense economically. ...
What pollutants does hydro emit? Dear sir, have you never seen a hydroelectric dam? I hope you don't advocate building any more of those, because they are a major environmental impact. Most of my electricity is hydro (60% or something; I'm on the grid, so who knows?). In my area are some of the smaller dams on the Skagit River for the Seattle City Light Project, and I've been around the big dams in the Southwest US. Hydro is not without environmental impact.
I powered my home in Hawaii with wind and solar. Those resources will be of maximum benefit to the wind and solar salespeople at this time. Yes, turbine locomotives logically offer a lightweight alternative in the short term, so let's build 'em! Fix Penn Station! Let me add another nation ahead of the US in rail projects : Vietnam. For example, here is section 1-2-a of their transportation policy:
"a. The railway transport shall take a share of 25% - 30% in terms of tons and ton-kms, and of 20% - 25% in terms of passengers and passenger-kms in the total transport volume of the transport sector as a whole. By the end of 2020, the rail share in urban passenger transport shall reach at least 20% of the passenger volumes in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh city."
I live not far from a hydro dam. A large body of water is not a polutant, and is not detrimental. Our region gets great economic benefit from the lake behind that dam. The real estate near it is some of the most valuable in a several county region. Many businesses make their living on the lake. The hydro power generated at Niagara Falls in NY does not involve a dam. It uses water diverted around the falls.
Hydro does not polute. That makes it CLEAN electric generation. So your statement that there is no such thing as clean electric generation is in error. Altering the land from it's natural state is not any more significant than when the developer cleared a bunch of land to build your house.
Regarding hydro, additional dams would be very unpopular.
TIME LINE OF INACTION:
50 years ago -- global warming is proved Trains begin their precipitous decline.
40 years ago -- Pennsylnania Station torn down. Pollution is rampant, Cuyahoga river catches fire. Passenger trains at low point.
30 years ago -- Energy crisis. Amtrak gets some new cars.
20 years ago -- climate change is still debated. Amtrak continues to cut routes rather than expand service
10 years ago -- nothing done about climate change or Penn Station. US fights wars over oil. Amtrak gets 50 new sleepers but no diners, a few locomotives, and struggles for 70 mph. schedule times on NEC.
Now: still debating climate change and Penn Station. Some US states and cities developing rail projects, but no there is no clear future vision of a sustainable future. Wars over oil continues.
Without an agressive vision that we have a sustainable future, I do not see a clear future course of action.
I agree.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.