http://www.charlotteobserver.com/breaking/story/516987.html
This train is owned by NCDOT. Notice the paint job on the damaged engine. The light passenger load was probably because North Carolina was having a "snow day". A winter storm (by southern standards lol) had moved through overnight so all the schools and many businesses were closed.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Quote from the article:
"The Piedmont, which runs each morning from Raleigh to Charlotte and returns each evening, was carrying 10 passengers, Black said. Most were taken by taxi to Charlotte, but some were picked up by friends in Harrisburg."
10 passengers -- OK, it was a off day in the Carolinas because of a storm, but 10 passengers is still miserable ridership. It would be cheaper for North Carolina to simply hire that taxi service to give them door to door transportation.
That is not a normal passenger load for the Piedmont. The train is a 4 car consist, 1 baggage and 3 coaches and is normally high enough load that NC is in the process of adding another train at mid day.
It connects Charlotte, the largest city in NC with Raleigh, the state capitol. Charlotte is the second largest banking center in the US, Headquarters of Bank of America and Wachovia and a Federal Reserve Bank are here, and we all know what is going on in THAT sector right now. Several colleges are along that line.
People from the Dakotas really would be amused to see the way NC reacts to even just the threat of snow. We don't even plow or salt the majority of roads. The interstates and some main roads are plowed or salted, but the cities just shut down and wait for it to melt. That seldom takes more than a day.
Harrisburg is a suburb of Charlotte.
We have our own set of problems with the snow. Our Interstates have gates at the entrances. When they are closed, it is a signal conditions are so bad the plows have been told to stand down, and if you get into trouble on the road no emergency vehicle is going to operate to come to your rescue. When the plows resume work, they are careful around snowdrifts as each could contain an automobile.
I'm glad the Piedmont is doing well enough to add another train. For regional trains (and perhaps for the LD ones as well) frequency seems to be one of the keys to acceptance by the public.
I understand. I am originally from upstate New York, I worked for many years in an area that gets 100 inches of snow a year. I have been in Charlotte for 15 years and am still amused that ONE inch of snow can bring the city to a standstill. Even when it snows, about once or twice a year, it is usually gone by 2 PM.
This is the Piedmont pulling into the Charlotte Station:
Notice the baggage car has not yet been rehabilitated and that is not the engine that hit the truck. NCDOT has 3 engines, and more cars being overhauled. When they are done, they will add the additional train, scheduled for sometime this spring. If 10 passengers was a normal load, they would only be pulling one coach. Notice that they day this picture was taken they were pulling four coaches.
Phoebe: You are right about snow. Here in ATLANTA everything stops with one inch and watch out for any ice Ah - la - KY this past Jan. It all comes down to being used to snow. EX: Look at the whole of Great Britian right now!!!
Dakguy201 I'm glad the Piedmont is doing well enough to add another train. For regional trains (and perhaps for the LD ones as well) frequency seems to be one of the keys to acceptance by the public.
The average load factor on the Piedmont during FY 2008 was 43.2 per cent per passenger mile. Undoubtedly, the train carried a heavier load on certain days, probably the weekends, but this appears to be a lightly patronized train. The Piedmont lost 11.1 cents per passenger mile before interest and depreciation.
The Carolinian did better. It had an average load factor of 60 per cent and only lost .5 cents per passenger mile before interest and depreciation.
The Crescent, which loses 25.9 cents per passenger mile before interest and depreciation, had an average load factor of 50.9 per cent.
Most public transport agencies are reporting a significant decline in the number of their riders for the fourth quarter of 2008. Amtrak has not released its rider figures for the last quarter of 2008 or the first quarter of FY 2009. The decline in public transport ridership is probably due to the significant drop in gasoline prices and the impact of the recession.
Sam1 The average load factor on the Piedmont during FY 2008 was 43.2 per cent per passenger mile. Undoubtedly, the train carried a heavier load on certain days, probably the weekends, but this appears to be a lightly patronized train.
The average load factor on the Piedmont during FY 2008 was 43.2 per cent per passenger mile. Undoubtedly, the train carried a heavier load on certain days, probably the weekends, but this appears to be a lightly patronized train.
Last year the Piedmont managed 64,600 passengers on a route that has another train. The most popular city pair was its endpoints, which helps in "right sizing" the consist. That is not as good as Michigan's Pere Marquette which run a similiar distance with 109,000 passengers in 2008, but it is not bad.
Don't worry about Sam. Sam thinks that any mass transit system that doesn't make a profit is a waste of money and should be shut down or have the fares raised substantially so that the public does not have to contribute. While I disagree, it's not really a complaint. A great many people feel that way about a great many programs.
"Don't worry about Sam. Sam thinks that any mass transit system that doesn't make a profit is a waste of money and should be shut down or have the fares raised substantially so that the public does not have to contribute. While I disagree, it's not really a complaint. A great many people feel that way about a great many programs."
Actually, Sam believes that intercity passenger rail should cover it variable or operating costs. I also believe that it should contribute something to the fix or capital costs, i.e. the NEC. I have never harbored delusions that passenger rail could make a profit.
Local transit is a utility. I have never suggested that it make a profit. I have, however, suggested that those who support it be aware of the costs, inasmuch as the money comes largely from people who don't use it.
Those who ignore the costs associated with their pet projects, i.e. intercity passenger rail, either don't know how to read a financial statement or don't care to. They are perfectly happy to have money taken out of other people's pockets to support their interests. Also, because they don't pay attention to the finances, they oftentimes push for their transport solution, e.g. light rail, whilst frequently overlooking more cost effect technologies, e.g. rapid bus technology.
To imply that the Piedmont is well patronized and is the justification for adding another train between Raleigh and Charlotte is not supported by the ridership data. Neither is the claim that 10 passengers on the train that hit the truck in question is unusual. If the average load factor is 43 per cent, there are probably many days when the train carries fewer passengers than could be accommodated on a bus.
From a NCDOT press release:
RALEIGH — Gov. Mike Easley today announced that a third intercity passenger train between Raleigh and Charlotte will be added to the current service to help meet growing demand as well as ridership increases. The new train service will run at midday, with departures from Raleigh and Charlotte.
From October 2007 to April 2008, ridership was up more than 22 percent with 197,126 travelers riding either the Piedmont or Carolinian trains. On the Piedmont (trains 73 and 74) ridership was up almost 26 percent from 28,309 to 35,681 passengers; the Carolinian (trains 79 and 80) was up 18 percent from 136,358 to 161,445.
I absolutely stand by my claim that 10 people is not a normal load for the train and I do not believe that a bus could handle the passenger load or for that matter that the people who ride the train would take a bus.
1. I was on both #80 and #73 today- On #73 we had probaly a 90% load in 3 coaches coming into Charlotte. With turn over between Raleigh and Greensboro, in particular, we probaly had over 100% for the whole trip.
2. I have worked #79/80 for 4 years now and February is a very, very slow month on both #73/74 and #79/80. Come back in March when the CIAA and ACC tournements are in Charlotte. Extra cars those weeks.
3. Despite the comment about the bus, if there was not a train, these people would be driving, not on the 'hound or Carolina Trailways.
4. Many people in NC are looking forward to the mid-day train, including the Duke Power execs. that were on #80 today to Raleigh, after all, we are the ones paying. Sam can only speak for TX.
matthewsaggie 1. I was on both #80 and #73 today- On #73 we had probaly a 90% load in 3 coaches coming into Charlotte. With turn over between Raleigh and Greensboro, in particular, we probaly had over 100% for the whole trip. 2. I have worked #79/80 for 4 years now and February is a very, very slow month on both #73/74 and #79/80. Come back in March when the CIAA and ACC tournements are in Charlotte. Extra cars those weeks. 3. Despite the comment about the bus, if there was not a train, these people would be driving, not on the 'hound or Carolina Trailways. 4. Many people in NC are looking forward to the mid-day train, including the Duke Power execs. that were on #80 today to Raleigh, after all, we are the ones paying. Sam can only speak for TX.
I quoted figures from Amtrak's management and operating reports. If you think that they are wrong, you should contact Amtrak and ask management to correct them.
I don't have to live in North Carolina to be able to read a financial and operating report.
You have no idea whether the people on the train would drive, fly, or take a bus if the train did not exist. Your view is speculation.
People have a tendency to generalize specific situations, i.e. projecting a high load factor on one day to every day or vice versa. Again, the average load factor on the Piedmont in FY 2008 was 43.24 per cent. The train carried an average of 90 passengers over at least one segment of the trip.
The average number of passengers on the Piedmont were approximately 55 per cent of the capacity of one U.S. Airways flight between Raleigh and Charlotte.
What would happen to the load factor if the 11.1 cents subsidy per passenger mile, before interest and depreciation, was eliminated? In other words, what would happen if the passengers were required to cover the train's operating costs through the fare box? My guess is the load factor would drop dramatically.
Ralph:
Aren't you glad people in Texas don't get to decide what transportation options we have in North Carolina?
Phoebe Vet Ralph: Aren't you glad people in Texas don't get to decide what transportation options we have in North Carolina?
Aren't you glad that I can recognize unsupported opinions (puffery) and try to set the record straight with facts published by Amtrak or other authoritative organizations.
If you don't have any factual information to challenge my posts, the best strategy is to say nothing. Taking a swipe such as this is uncalled for.
The guy from Dakota was questioning the load factor on the Piedmont. I was responding to him. Not to you!
Speaking of Amtrak, according to its year end FY 2008 operating report, the number of passengers carried on the Piedmont in 2008 was 65,941. This is quite different from the governor's figures. I'll go with Amtrak's numbers.
Actually your most recent post was not to the guy in South Dakota, it was to Mathewsaggie, who lives right here in the Charlotte area. From your perch in Texas you told him that his observations didn't square with your statistics and were therefore wrong. We actually ride the trains that in your opinion should be replaced by a bus. We can see first hand how many people are on the trains. Unlike the USAir flight from Raleigh to Charlotte, the train makes stops in smaller towns along the way. There is no USAir service from Charlotte or Raleigh to those small towns. It is unrealistic to expect every seat to be occupied for the entire trip from end to end, so of course the seat mile occupancy does not approach 100% from end to end. In fact, if every seat is occupied when the train pulls out it probably means someone was turned away. Unlike the airline, when the Piedmont is over booked, they don't turn people away, they put on another car. We like and use our trains and our light rail, and we don't care whether or not you approve.
Phoebe Vet Actually your most recent post was not to the guy in South Dakota, it was to Mathewsaggie, who lives right here in the Charlotte area. From your perch in Texas you told him that his observations didn't square with your statistics and were therefore wrong. We actually ride the trains that in your opinion should be replaced by a bus. We can see first hand how many people are on the trains. Unlike the USAir flight from Raleigh to Charlotte, the train makes stops in smaller towns along the way. There is no USAir service from Charlotte or Raleigh to those small towns. It is unrealistic to expect every seat to be occupied for the entire trip from end to end, so of course the seat mile occupancy does not approach 100% from end to end. In fact, if every seat is occupied when the train pulls out it probably means someone was turned away. Unlike the airline, when the Piedmont is over booked, they don't turn people away, they put on another car. We like and use our trains and our light rail, and we don't care whether or not you approve.
My initial response was to Dakota Guy's post re: number of people and load factor on the Piedmont. I further responded to Mathewsaggie, who posted impressionistic data about the load factor on the Piedmont; that is to say, personal impressions as opposed to hard data regarding the loads on the train.
Again, the statistics are not mine. They are Amtrak's official statistics. Unless you or Mathewsaggie rode the train both ways every day and did a count of the passengers, you would not know how many people ride the train. Even a train conductor, who does not work every train every day, would not have a complete picture of the load factor.
With a 43.2 per load factor one can be assured that every seat is not occupied every day. In fact, based on these statistics, it only would be on a few occasions that every seat is occupied for any segment of the run.
The one way fare from Raleigh to Charlotte on the Piedmont is $25. The subsidy is $19.20 before interest, depreciation, and other charges. If Amtrak charged enough to cover just the operating costs of the train, the fare would be $44.20. By comparison it would cost me $42.63 to drive my car from Raleigh to Charlotte. And that is the fully allocated cost with only one person in the car.
As is the case with many Americans, so goes the claim, North Carolinians love their trains. However, the love affair is suspect. Only a small percentage of the population uses them, and then only because they are the most heavily subsidized form of public transportation in the country. The love affair does not include paying fares sufficient to recover their operating costs let alone the fully allocated costs. If they had to cover the cost of the service, I suspect the average load factor on the Piedmont would be considerably less than 43.2 per cent.
Like NARP, many people who post to these forums offer opinion to support their views without telling the whole story. Frequently they don't even have the correct information. When I see that I set the record straight.
Clearly, if people want to subsidize trains, that's their prerogative. A key question, however, is how many understand the amount and nature of the subsidy. I suspect that most people have no idea how much it costs to subsidize intercity trains and light rail.
Sam1 You have no idea whether the people on the train would drive, fly, or take a bus if the train did not exist. Your view is speculation.
Sam,
To praphrase Voltaire, I may not always agree with what you have to say but I always respect your right to say it. Particularly since your opinions are always backed by facts and figures that I've never had reason to doubt. However, I don't think the majority of LD train passengers would consider bus travel except as a last resort. There's another fairly significant group who either dislike flying or are unable to make a LD auto trip (lack of a car, health limitations, etc.).
A couple of years ago the wife and I were waiting at Marshall to board the Eagle for a trip to Chicago when we were told it had burned out a traction motor and Amtrak was substituting busses fot the train that evening. We hastily requested a refund for our tickets and headed back home to Shreveport. We hit the road about 3:00 am the next morning and drove straight through in order to get there in time for a family wedding rehersal dinner that evening. Thank God the breakdown happened around Longview and not after we were on board the train and would have no option but to ride a bus all the way to Chicago.
Mark
I think you have to take a longer view with respect to what NC is doing and why. The issue NC has is that the I-85 corridor from Raleigh/Cary through Greensboro and Highpoint down to Charlotte is becoming congested, despite some big-time investment in more lanes on I-85. In order to keep the corridor economically healthy and growing, they decided that it would be a better investment of their infrastructure money to develop a rail corridor instead of plowing too much more money into I-85. Perhaps, part of the decision for rail was based on the traffic inducement that comes with suburban sprawl when you build highways and the choice of rail was to help shape land use and preserve existing highway capacity to some extent - I don't know.
NC has chosen an incremental approach, with small investments in equipment and ROW to increase capacity and decrease trip times on the route. A key part of being able to get this work done is that they own the railroad and they had pretty good leverage with NS when renewing the lease a few years back. This has helped them move ahead faster than others.
Raleigh to Charlotte is a nice corridor, but all by itself, it's potential is rather limited. Only when it gets to part of a useful network will it really have a chance of covering it's costs. Unfortunately, the surrounding states either have been dragging their heals, stubborn, asleep, or all three, so NC is stuck waiting for their neighbors to get busy. The biggest help would be getting VA to get started on getting Raleigh connected to the NEC with their piece of the SEHSR project. The Macon/Atlanta/Charlotte study showed much better ridership when this piece was completed versus without. It would certainly help if SC thought that Greenville and Spartansburg were worthy of continued growth. I-85 through SC is the least modern and toughest piece of the road to navigate. And, it would help if somebody would just wake Gov. Rip-Van-Purdue up from his 6 year nap to help keep Atlanta from completely chocking to death on traffic.
So, if the Piedmont isn't putting up good numbers at present, it may be better to just look at the train as a "foot in the door" for something much bigger and better to follow.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Oltmannd:
Most of the time, the Piedmont and Carolinian are enjoying decent loads. There, of course, better times than others. When the State Fair is open, both of those trains add an extra stop at the fairgrounds. I-85 here in the Charlotte area is 8 lanes in some places. They just completed yet another big widening project, but they are also spending a lot of money upgrading the track between Charlotte and Raleigh.
While the anchor of environmental regulations is dragging them down, VA and NC are working on the SEHSR project:
http://www.sehsr.org/fieldwork.html
http://www.sehsr.org/railandhywdesign.html
http://bytrain.org/track/
That just released study on extending it to Macon via Atlanta is the first thing I have seen on that segment that didn't start with "eventually", and I think it's a great idea. I can't imagine why it was not included in the original plan. I suspect it had something to do with SC's lack of enthusiasm. Right now the only train service between Charlotte and Atlanta is the Crescent, which comes through Charlotte at aprox 2 AM in both directions, and the Crescent doesn't go through Raleigh. Perhaps it would be a good extension for the Carolinian until the SEHSR is completed.
However, I don't think the majority of LD train passengers would consider bus travel except as a last resort. There's another fairly significant group who either dislike flying or are unable to make a LD auto trip (lack of a car, health limitations, etc.).
OK, there are people willing to ride a train, but a bus ride is a fate-worse-than-death. These people dislike flying, meaning that at least for a certain group of people, trains are more comfortable or suit their requirements better than airplanes. Also, these people lack a car or are unable to drive -- suggests to me that they are saving a whole pack of money on car ownership. If they once owned a car, it has been donated to Bart Starr's youth ranch or given to Buffy or Junior who drives off to college.
That means that there is a body of people who have a strong preference for the train over other modes. If those people have that strong a preference, why not charge higher fares on the train? Or is the preference not that strong, and if the fares were increased that people would seek the alternatives or chose not to travel?
Yes, there is the ability to afford the trip, but I think we are talking about people who can make some choices about how they spend money. If the train is a superior mode of transportation, why not make the choice to pay more for the fare?
That is kind of what has been done on the NEC. Apparently the level of service is such that the train is a preferred mode, and Amtrak finds people willing to pay the fares. If you are poor, you can save a lot of money taking the (slow) commuter trains and changing in Trenton.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I prefer taking a train to a bus. I prefer taking a rapid train, e.g. the Acela, to an airplane over distances of approximately 200 to 250 miles, i.e. New York to Washington.
I also prefer using a transport system that people are willing to pay for and is not heavily dependent on government subsidies. This is why I believe that passenger rail should be required to cover at least its operating costs.
I support the implementation of incremental rapid rail where the cost of constructing additional highway and airway space is prohibitive. Most of the monies should come from the states that are served by the system, since none of the rapid rail segments or proposed high speed rail projects serve the nation as a whole. If Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, etc. want to build a rapid or high speed rail system, they should go for it.
I have serious reservations about true high speed rail. I don't think the results justify the costs. And I think that the nation has other priorities that need to be addressed before we begin tacking down a high speed rail system that will be used by relatively few people.
It is important to keep in mind that whilst Amtrak has more than 50 per cent of the commercial transport travelers between Washington and New York, the majority of people drive, usually because they are going from one suburb to another suburb, and taking the train is neither economical nor realistic.
Interest in high speed rail is being rekindled in Texas. What the proponents are reluctant to talk about, however, is the true cost. Some of the proponents point to the recent California high speed funding plan as a desirable model.
California voters authorized the issuance of $10 billion of state backed bonds for high speed rail. What the proponents did not tell the voters is that the cost to service the bonds will come to $34.9 billion before they are paid off. This works out to $1,165 for every man, woman, and child in the state. And this is just California's initial payment on the system. It does not include federal and private financing.
Sam1 I have serious reservations about true high speed rail. I don't think the results justify the costs. And I think that the nation has other priorities that need to be addressed before we begin tacking down a high speed rail system that will be used by relatively few people.
Amen Sam. For the time being it's an unrealistic goal and HSR is little more than a buzzword. Just get the trains up to an 80mph average speed and the riders will come. That to me is doable and at an affordable cost. The price tag for true HSR would approach that of the "stimulus" legislation that is now pending in congress.
KCSfan Sam1 I have serious reservations about true high speed rail. I don't think the results justify the costs. And I think that the nation has other priorities that need to be addressed before we begin tacking down a high speed rail system that will be used by relatively few people. Amen Sam. For the time being it's an unrealistic goal and HSR is little more than a buzzword. Just get the trains up to an 80mph average speed and the riders will come. That to me is doable and at an affordable cost. The price tag for true HSR would approach that of the "stimulus" legislation that is now pending in congress. Mark
Al - in - Stockton
Sam1 I prefer taking a train to a bus. I prefer taking a rapid train, e.g. the Acela, to an airplane over distances of approximately 200 to 250 miles, i.e. New York to Washington. I also prefer using a transport system that people are willing to pay for and is not heavily dependent on government subsidies. This is why I believe that passenger rail should be required to cover at least its operating costs. I support the implementation of incremental rapid rail where the cost of constructing additional highway and airway space is prohibitive. Most of the monies should come from the states that are served by the system, since none of the rapid rail segments or proposed high speed rail projects serve the nation as a whole. If Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, etc. want to build a rapid or high speed rail system, they should go for it.
State sponsorship works well for states like California, Texas, Florida and even New York, Michigan and Illinois, but not so well for states like NC, Ohio, SC, Georgia and any along the NEC. Sometimes the sum of the parts makes a self-sufficient whole, but the pieces alone will sink. No single state's piece of the NEC would survive on it's own covering operating costs. I doubt whether NC or Ohio stand alone systems would do nearly as well as a network that integrated their routes with population corridors in ajoining states. The problem is that any state in the network would hold a virtual veto.
Examples of what can go wrong abound already. The Downeaster does pretty well, but Maine is carrying the financial load while New Hampshire is deriving a good chunk of the benefit. Closing the stops in NH would only worsen Maine's burden.
NJT and SEPTA cannot or will not figure out how to do through service at Trenton.
Conn DOT has been a thorn in Amtrak's side with their piece of the NEC, to the detriment of NY-Boston travelers.
I think leaving it all up to the states is no panacea. Perhaps the interstate highways system model is better. Regional networks that states would have some responsibility in funding and maintaining.
Perhaps something like this with some 80/20 funding behind it.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/203
Failure of the impacted states to cooperate in the support of a regional rail system is not a logical argument for hoisting it on the backs of people who cannot use it, which is what happens when federal taxpayers are required to support a regional only solution.
The NEC covers its operating costs and contributes something to the fixed costs. It relies on the federal government subsidies to cover the bulk of the fixed costs. There is no reason to believe that the New England and Middle Atlantic states would not support the NEC. If it is as valuable as its proponents claim, the citizens in the area will demand it, and they will pay the taxes to make it happen.
The Interstate Highway system is a true national system. Practically everyone can use it. The same is true for the postal system, airway system, federal courts, etc.
People in North Carolina should not be required to fund a regional railway system in Texas anymore than they should have been required to support Southwest Airlines when it was an intrastate carrier.
Since the beginning of the republic people who could not find financing for their regional projects have attempted to garner federal support for them. They claim that it will benefit everyone, although they usually lack any hard data to support it. Maybe this is one of the reasons the U.S. has a large national debt.
To be fair, Amtrak accounts for a tiny portion of the national debt and annual deficit. Although it requires a large per passenger subsidy, the amount of red ink that it spills is a drop in the federal bucket.
Sam:
Everyone pays for things they don't use or of which they don't approve in their federal tax bill. Pork reigns supreme. I would list some of the things that I am offended at paying for, but it would spin this thread off on a political tangent.
The transportation infrastructure benefits the country as a whole. Rather than complaining that everyone pays into the subsidies, my complaint is that the system is not being expanded so that it serves the entire country. A backbone of federally financed high speed, limited stop, rail among the large urban centers, and a network of state and locally financed small light self propelled vehicles connecting the smaller communities to that backbone. How much light rail could be added in the existing Interstate Highway right of way?
Sam1 Failure of the impacted states to cooperate in the support of a regional rail system is not a logical argument for hoisting it on the backs of people who cannot use it, which is what happens when federal taxpayers are required to support a regional only solution. The NEC covers its operating costs and contributes something to the fixed costs. It relies on the federal government subsidies to cover the bulk of the fixed costs. There is no reason to believe that the New England and Middle Atlantic states would not support the NEC. If it is as valuable as its proponents claim, the citizens in the area will demand it, and they will pay the taxes to make it happen. The Interstate Highway system is a true national system. Practically everyone can use it. The same is true for the postal system, airway system, federal courts, etc. People in North Carolina should not be required to fund a regional railway system in Texas anymore than they should have been required to support Southwest Airlines when it was an intrastate carrier. Since the beginning of the republic people who could not find financing for their regional projects have attempted to garner federal support for them. They claim that it will benefit everyone, although they usually lack any hard data to support it. Maybe this is one of the reasons the U.S. has a large national debt. To be fair, Amtrak accounts for a tiny portion of the national debt and annual deficit. Although it requires a large per passenger subsidy, the amount of red ink that it spills is a drop in the federal bucket.
State boundaries are arbitrary boundaries. If Texas was divided into three states, one with a capital of Dallas, one Houston and one San Antonio, do you think any "regional" rail line would ever get on the drawing board? (much less off it?)
I think you truly an optimist if you think 9 Northeastern states could ever agree on a single taxation and funding plan for the NEC. I lived in NJ and NY far to many years to believe that could ever happen! Heck, the 5 suburban counties around Philly have huge trouble agreeing on how to fund SEPTA! Someone from Pittsburgh is going to rally around funding for the NEC in Philly? Delaware and RI "opt out" - then what?
Interstate highways, while connected in a national network are most typically used for local and regional transportation. There are few people using I-95 in SC that are going to eventually use I-5 in Oregon or I-10 in Texas - ever. There are quite a few going to the NE or to FL, though.
Georgia did not want to build their part of I-95 for a long time after the rest of the road was done. (for a lot of reasons. Some economic, some nefarious!) But, the value of I-95 with the Georgia portion was far greater to the region than without it, so it got built - after some heavy duty Federal pressure was applied.
NJ pays quite a bit more in Highway Trust fund taxes than they ever get out. Other, more rural states like Kansas, pay less. NJ drivers may drive as many miles Kansas drivers, but NJ has much fewer miles of Interstate and other US highways. Few people driving the Garden State Parkway or Atlantic City Expressway to work everyday are ever going to drive across Kansas on I-70, so why are they paying for a portion of it? Why shouldn't Kansas pay the whole amount?
Now, NJT does get a lot of Federal dollars for projects that Kansas could never be considered for, so maybe it all evens out in the end. Transport is transport, in the end....
The Northeast had a nice regional network of toll roads prior to the interstate highway act. The south was full of sleepy little cities with small populations <0.5M, Atlanta, Birmingham, Nashville, Charlotte, Dallas - generally connected by some truly rotten US highways, some of them still dirt in the 1950s. (US 29 in NE GA for example, was still dirt in the early 1960s). Then, the interstates were built, paid for, in large part, by gas taxes collected from drivers of those Northeast toll roads. The roads fueled a huge economic expansion in the south, and pretty much killed heavy industry in the Northeast. Would Atlanta have 4M people if not on the crossroads of three long-haul interstates? Would Mohawk Carpets be in Dalton, GA on I-75 or still in Amsterdam, NY? Would Atlanta have 4M people if they built out their own state highways that ended at the AL, FL and SC boarders? (particularly if AL and SC did little or nothing on their own)
If it was reasonable for the Feds to draw the lines on the map and then tax (inequitably - at the state level) and fund 90% of the interstate highway construction, then it's just as reasonable draw some passenger rail lines on the map (that serve a large majority of citizens - I'd bet that 75% of the people in the country live within an hour's drive of a line on this map http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/203) and provide funding support.
I doubt that without the Federal oversight and funding of the interstate highway system you would be living in Dallas or I in Atlanta.
The bottom line, in my opinion, is that interstate commerce and transport need Federal oversight - and Federal funding is reasonable, at the least in order to keep states from optimizing at a local level at the cost of sub-optimizing the system at a national level.
oltmannd The Northeast had a nice regional network of toll roads prior to the interstate highway act. The south was full of sleepy little cities with small populations <0.5M, Atlanta, Birmingham, Nashville, Charlotte, Dallas - generally connected by some truly rotten US highways, some of them still dirt in the 1950s. (US 29 in NE GA for example, was still dirt in the early 1960s). Then, the interstates were built, paid for, in large part, by gas taxes collected from drivers of those Northeast toll roads. The roads fueled a huge economic expansion in the south, and pretty much killed heavy industry in the Northeast. Would Atlanta have 4M people if not on the crossroads of three long-haul interstates? Would Mohawk Carpets be in Dalton, GA on I-75 or still in Amsterdam, NY? Would Atlanta have 4M people if they built out their own state highways that ended at the AL, FL and SC boarders? (particularly if AL and SC did little or nothing on their own)
Johnny
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.