Well this has been kind of a shock- Obama has begun to prove his 'change' thing. I was a bit worried for a while there.
We hear that a lot of the cash goes to the Las Vegas-Los Angeles route but I never heard about that before. I hope some of it goes to Midwest HSR.
lattasnip9 Well this has been kind of a shock- Obama has begun to prove his 'change' thing. I was a bit worried for a while there. We hear that a lot of the cash goes to the Las Vegas-Los Angeles route but I never heard about that before. I hope some of it goes to Midwest HSR.
California passed there HSR bill in November that approved $10 billion in bonds to get the project started. It is estimated that California will need an additional $30 billion to complete the system over the next twenty years. The feds will earmark a large chunk of the stimulus HSR to California so that project that will employee up to 100,000 directly and indirectly can get started. Recent article in the local paper says that now is the perfect time to get the San Francisco - Los Angeles segment started due to the depressed real estate market that will mean right of way can be purchased for half or less than originally thought. The proposed 220 mph California HSR system should have no trouble selling the 10 billion in bonds beginning in March. The estimates for acquiring the right of way are now put at 8 billion instead of the original 16 billion. It is believed that real estate for large portions of the proposed right of way were already purchased by the state over the last eight years that property being along the Peninsula rail right of way under the guise of expanding the existing commuter rail to four tracks. The proposed HSR will run non stop between San Francisco and San Jose where the Caltrain will act as a feeder system to and from HSR for passengers to and from peninsula communities.
It is also believed the state already owns the right of way as far as the Central Valley via the Pacheco Pass and also the land over Tehachapi. With the depressed land prices in California at the present time and particularly in the Central Valley those lands between the east side of Pacheco Pass and Bakersfield can probably be had quite cheap. In fact the most expensive real estate will be that in the LA area itself.
Personally I think the Sacramento - Stockton - Merced connector lands ahould be acquired at the same time with real estate the way it is at the present time. The San Diego portion should also be acquired at this time as well so the real estate can be acquired at the cheapest possible prices. I believe the $10 billion in bonds will be snapped up very quickly and that actual construction can begin within two years or less. Most of the concrete will come through the Port of Stockton and this too can be had very cheaply at the present time again due to the economy. I believe that the concrete ties will be built somewhere in the Central Valley and most of the prestressed concrete overpasses and bridges will also be built probably close to the Port of Stockton. My reason for stating this is the Port of Stockton built the new concrete bridge sections for the Bay Bridge and that modern facility is empty doing nothing at the present time but it is certainly capable of building any size concrete bridge sections necessary. At the present time there are at least four tunnel boring machines sitting idle that can be brought to California on short notice for all of the tunnel work necessary for the California HSR. Some estimates say as many as 70,000 to 140,000 well paying jobs can be created if work starts soon.
Al - in - Stockton
A "mere" $150 billion of the new stimulus package is meant for infrastucture, and that money will "spend itself" quickly. Top priorities will be things like replacing Interstate bridges that were never meant to last forty-plus years (remember Mpls?), improving "dead man's curves" on regular, overcrowded roads, and possibly getting a more permanent fix on killer potholes or maybe some levee or dam enforcement.
There might not even be enough money to build entire new commercial-airport runways (sorry, Mr. Daley), or replace crumbling highway intersections (it now costs $1 billion, all told, to link two eight-lane Interstates), or even upgrade 60- or 75-mph Amtrak routes to 90 mph, though maybe some road-crossing signals can be improved. You'll note that West Coast Al correctly pointed out that $10 is required to get any new CA HST up and running -- has anyone even dared dream what it will cost in total? Forty, fifty bill?
Public works just cost a heck of a lot more than they used to. Just today I read that a man named Hausmann, in the mid-nineteenth century, basically upgraded Paris from a large medieval village to a modern city: he razed twisty old lanes and replaced them with broad avenues (17 new miles of streets and 40 of pavement), built blocks of flats to a common height, new bridges, etc., and got Paris to where the central area still looks a lot today as it did back then. This cost over five trillion francs in Second Empire currency, which today has been estimated to be worth $1.5 billion. IN TODAY'S MONEY! Amazing. - a.s.
Just heard that it's $8 billion for High-Speed Rail.
An explicit limit placed on how much can be allocated for NEC, I think it's 40%.
While rail infrastructure would be a sensible thing to upgrade. This bill is much more about nonsensical expenditures than about ones that will be beneficial in the long run. As mentioned before, only a small slice of the pie is going to be spent on infrastructure. To be perfectly honest I would expect another round of "stimulus" in the not too distant future. Maybe that one will actually be read before it is passed. Maybe it will have some more rail related monies.
Does anyone know how much it cost the PWA (or maybe the WPA) to electrify the Pennsy from Washington to NYC/Penn Station circa 1935? The GG-1 IIRC was specifically commissioned to haul passenger trains to higher specs than steam.
If the proposed California HSR project is built for $40 billion, as claimed by Al, the cost to finance the project (capital and interest) over 30 years, assuming a weighted average cost of capital of 5 per cent, which may be low, will be $178.7 billion. Few projects of this magnitude come in on time and within budget, so the actual cost of the project could be considerably higher.
Amtrak has an unamortized investment in right-of-way and property of $8.4 billion. It also has $4.4 billion of accumulated depreciation on the books. Although the financial statements don't show how much of this investment was for the Northeast Corridor, it is probably fair to say that 75 per cent of it is worn by the NEC. This means that Amtrak's cost to upgrade the NEC was in the neighborhood of $9.6 billion, which squares with several other estimates that I have seen.
Although the NEC covers its operating costs and contributes something to the fixed costs, the fare box does not cover the fixed (capital) costs of the NEC. To cover the total costs of the NEC, Amtrak would have to raise its NEC fares well above the cost of flying or driving.
The California HSR project, which could cost 18.6 times the cost to upgrade the NEC, will probably never cover its operating costs and its capital costs. It will probably require large government subsidies forever. It will be a perpetual drag on California and federal governments.
Those who are enthusiastic about the California HSR project might want to keep a few points in mind. California has a $41 billion budget shortfall. In 2008, California's venture capitalists invested more than half of their resources outside of California, whereas before hand they had invested more than 50 per cent in California. What is the reason? The business community is turning sour on California because of high taxes. How sour? Colorado has launched a series of ads inviting California businesses to relocate to Colorado where the tax burden is lower. Apparently they are getting a significant number of takers.
The plan to electrify the Pennsylvania Railroad from New York to Washington and Philadelphia to Harrisburg was finalized in 1928. It was the brainchild of William W. Atterbury, who became President of the PRR in 1925. At the time of its undertaking in 1928, until its completion a decade later, it was the largest capital project of an American railroad.
According to Michael Bezilla, Pennsylvania State University, in a paper that was included in Railroad Electrification Stragegy; the cost to electrify the aforementioned lines was approximately $250 million. It does not include the cost of the locomotives. This translates into approximately $4.09 billion in 2008 dollars.
Portions of the railroad had been electrified prior to 1928. This cost is not included in the $250 million, which appears to be an estimate as opposed to a an audit of the actual construction costs.
The electrification in the New York area, which was a third rail scheme, could not be used for the wire that was strung between New York and Washington. The electrification of the Philadelphia commuter system prior to 1928 was with overhead wire. Some of it may have been incorporated into the electrification of the NYC to Wahsington line. Whether these costs are included in the $250 million is unknown.
By 1928 the railroad had cleaned up its balance sheet, and management believed it could fund the project with private capital. However, it had not reckoned with the 1930s depression. Utimately, the railroad had to borrow $100 million from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and the Public Works Administration to complete electrification of the line between Philadelphia and Washington and Philadelphia to Harrisburg.
I don't know . Like the TRAINS artical says, in order to see change in Amtrak first you will have to reform transportaion polliceys. That is unless a non government subsadised company builds the line and operates it not Amtrak. I wouldn't mind a high speed rail system in the mid west if it doesn't look to futureistic like those butt ugly things called the Maglev, witch I don't think is a train at all, or what ever else looks remnacent of a duck with it's head smashed in.
The road to to success is always under construction. _____________________________________________________________________________ When the going gets tough, the tough use duct tape.
I did notice that 1.3 billion was going to Amtrak. I'm not sure if that is included in the 8 billion stimulus or not. I think that not only passenger, but freight routes should be upgraded. I mean, except for the Transcon, The Central Corridor in Nebraska, the Northeast Corridor and a few others, we don't have a lot of high capacity, high speed lines in the U.S. Certainly nothing like what Europe has for high speed lines. I think the stimulus will help, but so much more is needed. I am encouraged with what Norfolk Southern is doing with its Piedmont Sub and Heartland Corridor. Since in my mind, the economy will only recover, 1. If God wants it to and Second, if Obama will pour plenty of resources into railroad lines. Let's face it. Some of American rails have not been improved much since the 1950's and 1960's.
Oh by the way, in Norfolk, VA where I'm familiar with, Norfolk is building one of those futuristic rail lines!
danny48JJ Oh by the way, in Norfolk, VA where I'm familiar with, Norfolk is building one of those futuristic rail lines!
The one good thing about the much longer Los Angeles - Bakersfield proposal for the California HSR Corridor, even if it is somehow cheaper, is its use for Los Angeles - Las Vagas trains. LA-BA would seem to be a priority first phase with interim 150 mph non-electrified service to enable auto-competitive routes from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, Chico, and Oakland. Existing lines from Bakersfield to Stockton, Oakland, and Sacramento would be upgraded to 110 mph where possible for pre-HSR and regional services.
I suppose the next priority would be the section between Fairmead and Gilroy with interim 150 mph non-electrified service for Los Angeles - San Francisco and Los Angeles - Oakland services.
Interim services would take advantage of phased implementation rather than wait twenty years with completed sections idle. From what we heard from Assemblywoman Fiona Ma last Friday, the HSR Corridor could take twenty years to build, so seven years for a first phase would be pretty good - two years for engineering and bid letting, three years for grading, bridging and tunneling, and another two years for track and signaling would seem reasonable. In ten years time the second phase could be completed. Even if an intitial stimulus of two concurrent phases came to pass, the project could still spread over 13-15 years with 6-8 years of interim service.
Sam1 The California HSR project, which could cost 18.6 times the cost to upgrade the NEC, will probably never cover its operating costs and its capital costs. It will probably require large government subsidies forever. It will be a perpetual drag on California and federal governments.
I think Sam is correct. My mental image of California high speed rail construction is a Boston "Big Dig" being executed by surfers! In any event, I don't think anyone expects it to cover capital costs.
Getting California HSR out of Los Angeles could be expensive; but the project description refers enigmatically to shared facilities with commuter rail. Going up the Central Valley will be a veritable piece of cake. It's unfair to characterize the whole project as being a Big Dig West.
Speaking of construction costs, the "Initial Phase" will take roughly $10 billion each from a Federal grant and State and private bond financing. With expected annual operating profit of $1billion, it could take 30 years just to retire private financing or maybe 100 years for the whole package. Will investors care to see the end or will this be a legacy for great-grandchildren? Samantha calculated well over $100 billion in financing costs! Not surprising if you've ever bought a home.
Could some kind of emission or other credit be sold to finance transit and intercity rail passenger service?
What about a gas-guzzler tax for transit and intercity rail passenger service?
How could the value of increased safety be captured for transit, intercity rail, and airline travel?
Any other ideas?
I'd be kind of shocked to see any true HSR projects get much of the $8B. My impression is that CA is still quite a ways off from moving dirt around and providing many jobs, which is the whole point of the stimulus, no? And, $8B does not buy much HSR, but it buys a whole lot of incremental improvement.
I'd look for IL, WI, MI, OH, VA, WA, NY, PA and NC to get the lion's share of the $8B as they are all much closer to "shovel ready" with incremental improvements to existing (or existing currently frt only) routes.
California should be able to score some more equipment and expand on current service, too.
Everybody else is not far enough along to qualify. The money will be all gone before they can say "boo".
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Any rolling stock to come out of that $8B? The story I heard is that the Stimulus Bill is for infrastructure meaning the tracks and would not cover trainsets, whether new or rehabs of the Beech Grove dead line, of which there is a short supply.
I know that the track work is the expensive part (the Midwest Rail Initiative was maybe 90 percent track and 10 percent equipment), but if you don't have any railroad cars, people aren't going anywhere.
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 am unfamiliar with any plan by the MRI. 90% "track" costs would suggest including curve easement and relocation, grade separation and closing at-grade public and private crossings, almost equally expensive for Chicago - Saint Louis, electrification, and signal and communication as well as the actual track improvement for existing rail lines.
I know that dynamic wheel-rail forces increase exponentially with speed. My engineering stopped short of getting the equations for those calculations based on the combined track modulus (stiffness factor) for rail and ballast. A passenger train car weighing half that of a freight car causes more degradation to the track by going twice as fast, and 2.5-3 times faster (150 mph) is worse still. Currently, the P42 has almost as much weight on axles as freight locomotives. Let's drop how HSR track needs are incompatible with freight. Of course, the combined volumes of freight and passenger traffic will affect maintenance cycles for a given stretch of track. Railroads surface and line tracks to the highest level to minimize the rate of degradation and frequency of resurfacing and relining to maintain Class IV or Class V compliance.
If I could make mention of two items:
[1] Will the California HSR project be earthquake proof? May sound like a stupid question, but the Golden State does seem to get a lot of them.
[2]Danny48JJ: your suggestion that passenger and freight routes should be upgraded is a no brainer. However, should tax $$ be given to for profit freight companies to fix their tracks, with no strings attached? I think not. If tax money should be spent on all rail lines, as I believe it should, the "string" that should be attached is some movement towards an interstate railway system.
We all recognize (and take for granted) the benefits of an interstate highway system. Most of us can picture what America would look like if I-80, I-10, or I-95 were owned by JBHunt, UPS, or FEDEX. With regards to the statement you made that HSR in America is nothing like Europe, Danny, bulls eye! You have hit the nail right on the head. HSR isn't even anything like the interstate highway system in America! Can anyone imagine what would happen if I-80, I-10, and I-95 were the only highways where vehicles could average 65 MPH, and all the rest were below this speed? Or were kept at 50% operational condition? An interstate railway system will allow railroads to hit every part of the country (lower 48), and would allow Amtrak, which is the passenger railroad industry, more mobility and choises as to how, when, and where to offer services. In addition, an interstate railway system would allow current commuter rail organizations to expand their services. Think about it: METRA would be able to run a train or several in and out of the CHI area during a nasty blizzard, [when Ohare and other airports are closed], and connect CHI with DC, NYC, or even DEN. How many people remember the Christmas Blizzard of 2007 that shut down Devner? Yeah, I know there are a lot of miles between DEN and CHI. But, if the people stuck in Denver for 24+ hours had had the opportunity to get on a train and 20 hours later be in CHI, don't you think they would have jumped at the chance? We Americans like to move! We don't like to sit still! We also do not like to use any product or service rthat is considered "slow".
Another interesting topic with regards to Stimulus/HSR/Amtrak is the need to broaden the passenger railroad transportation industry. As mentioned before, Amtrak is the only passenger railroad in America. We all know the reasons why: cheap fuel costs=cheap air fares, cheap auto travel. We also know that the days of cheap fuel are going, going, gone. (1)Should federal stimulus $$ be spent to prop up the air travel industry? How much $$ will the air travel industry then spend to lobby against federal $$ for Amtrak? (2)Over the road companies will get federal stimulas $$. Then they will also lobby to see that Amtrak gets little or no federal $$. Our tax money is wasted! Lets level the playing field once and for all, and allow the capitalistic system to work. We spent how many federal and state tax $$ to build all the airports in America? We spent how many federal and state $$ to build the interstate highway system? Are we sure we can't afford a similar amount for an interstate railway system? I know it's a lot of money, but hey, we should be investing in our country, and its future. What was it the president of the USA Chamber of Commerce said last summer? Transportation is broken in America, and we are going to have to fix it. And, we are going to have to pay for it! A show of hands, please. How many want to spend tax money on an interstate railway system? Now, how many want to spent the money bailing out the dying air travel industry? How about the dying over the road industry? Another nasty overseas war?
Speaking of Amtrak, they are invited to compete for the HSR projects, but the stimulus bill does not say that Amtrak is to be designated to be the owner nor as the operator of any of the HSR projects. They are eligible to bid for the projects in an open competition.
I think that says a lot!
Paul Milenkovic Any rolling stock to come out of that $8B? The story I heard is that the Stimulus Bill is for infrastructure meaning the tracks and would not cover trainsets, whether new or rehabs of the Beech Grove dead line, of which there is a short supply.
The $8 bil is seperate from the $1.8 bil (IIRC) that Amtrak is getting. The $1.8 bil goes to Amtrak for repair/upgrades of both equipment and right of way with a cap on how much of it the NE Corridor can get. Presumably, one of the items Amtrak will accomplish is emptying the dead line at Beech Grove.
New rolling stock is a real problem as the feast or famine nature of Amtrak purchases make it very unattractive for a potential manufacturer. Obama's Chief of Staff seems to be saying that we are at the start of a substantial annual amount for rail infrastructure, but this administration is in its very early days. We'll see.
President Obama was on CNN this morning saying he would like to see high speed rail in this country and mentioning some of the other countries that have it. One of the people in the feature stated that we are 40 years behind the rest of the world in rail technology.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
P.A.Talbot[1] Will the California HSR project be earthquake proof? May sound like a stupid question, but the Golden State does seem to get a lot of them
Experts from California have consulted with the Japanese regarding necessary construction through earthquake prone areas. California already has experience with the BART tunnel and other BART construction regarding earthquakes. The California HSR system will be as earthquake proof as anything can be made
passengerfan P.A.Talbot[1] Will the California HSR project be earthquake proof? May sound like a stupid question, but the Golden State does seem to get a lot of them Experts from California have consulted with the Japanese regarding necessary construction through earthquake prone areas. California already has experience with the BART tunnel and other BART construction regarding earthquakes. The California HSR system will be as earthquake proof as anything can be made Al - in - Stockton
Earthquake proof is a moving target. What is proof at a 6.5 is resistant at 7.5 and lost at an 8.5.! Isn't it better to state any location as earthquake resistant at magnitude ( ? ).
The idea that an Interstate Rail System would allow Metra to run trains out of Chicago to New York, Washington, DC, or Denver is quite impractical. During a blizzard, ridership may plummet because people are unable to reach the station and many schools and businesses will close. While cars could be spared for a day and switched out, the locomotives could not be spared to make up relief trains. By the time the storm hits New York (and how certain would the severity be?), roads will be reopened in Chicago to allow resuming normal activity and demand for Metra services.
Americans may like to move fast; but sometimes just having a way to get somewhere without walking or taking the time to walk 200 miles is important even in this age in the US. Even so, many destinations can be reached by the existing rail network; some may warrant improvements for higher speeds; and a few may be reached affordably with new high speed lines.
Harvey:
I have read your post 3 times and I just don't understand your point. Are you saying that trains can't run during a snow storm? If that was the case, the northern states would have to shut down all winter.
Technically, passengerfan may be more precise in saying "resistant at magnitude #.#;" but even this may not reflect all the variables for a given location for a blanket definition. I think Al-in-Stockton covers the subject adequately with all that has been learned and what has not yet been revealed in "as anything can be made."
The worst train disaster to date occurred in Italy after WWII when a steam train stalled in a tunnel asphixiating 1,300-1,400 passengers and crew.
I didn't think I was implying anything of the sort. My points were intended to be that trains couldn't be spared for use elsewhere because the locomotives were still needed in Chicago to maintain service despite the weather; and that full capacity would be needed before equipment could return.
In Chicago's worst blizzards in 1967 and (1977?) Metra was the only thing running reliably. The CTA rail surface, embankment and median segments were crippled and service interrupted. In '67 I took the L to UIC, was told the school was closed, and took the C&NW to Des Plaines and home cooking. The most frustrating aspect of bad weather is that the North Western would run on time - perhaps because fewer passengers meant fewer delays in boarding.
More recently, Metra has had problems that caused delays and a few cancellations.
Someone thought my avatar was taken on the C&NW Harvard/Northwest line around Park Ridge - not so. By 1959, the only semaphores left in triple track territory were between Clybourn and Keeler. These were replaced by searchlight-type signals c.1977, which in turn were replaces by color light signals c.2003 in the bridge replacement program with some minor realignment. Beyond Keeler, horizontally arrayed color light signals were used to the end of triple track at Barrington. These had been phased out for vertical signals from Seeger northwest 7-8 years ago. Deval was converted last year; and the remaining horizontal signals may be phased out soon.
The photo was actually taken at Ravenswood (Lawrence Av, Chicago) on the Kenosha/North line. The semaphores were replaced with searchlight signals a year or two after the photo was taken. Some years after the third track was removed, mast-mounted color light signals were installed.
The third track remained on the North Line for over twenty years after a half-dozen local stations were closed. Someone finally figured out that service would not suffer with removal and a significant savings in maintenance could be realized.
This too is off-topic; but some folks are asking for additional, relocated, or restored stops on the line and restoration of the third track. A bridge replacement progam for the North Line would realign the tracks and make a third track restoration all the more difficult. The realignment would center the tracks to allow increasing the elevation for improved bridge clearances. This would minimize new or extended retaining walls.
I've posted quite a few photos on the CHICAGOTRANSIT site in UPxx Albums the photos section.
The following article appeared in the Stockton Record this AM under the headline "State vying for stimulus funds for high-speed rail"
Los Angeles(AP) - California's ambitious bullet train project is gaining momemtum thanks to the $8 billion set aside for high-speed rail development in the economic stimulus package signed into law this week.
The state is aggressively going after federal funding for the 800-mile high-speed rail line set to travel from San Francisco to Orange County.
A dozen designated high-speed rail corridors across the nation are vying for a share of the money.
Backers say the state has an advantage over other high-speed initiatives because it's already far along in planning, and several construction projects can start soon. Moreover, high-speed rail is getting unprecedented support from the Obama administration.
"We're the only actual high-speed rail project that has money and has already received enviromental approval," said Quentin Kopp, chairman of the California High-Speed Rail Authority. "I'm confident that we will be awarded a substantial amount of the $8 billion."
The high-speed railboard has already laid out plans on how to spend approximately $2 billion of the stimulus money by a 2012 deadline outlined in the stimulus bill. They include nine grade separation crossings - overpasses or underpassesthat prevent auto or pedestrian cross traffic on the train line - that have received enviromentl clearances.
Money is also needed to purchase the right of way for parts of the line, land for maintenance and storage facilities, and to create an electrical infrastructure to power the trains.
The system would connect Anahiem, Los Angeles, Fresno and San Francisco with trains running at speeds of up to 220 mph. Planners eventually want to extend the line to San Diego and Sacramento.
Amtrak invested approximately $9.6 billion to upgrade the NEC to achieve a top speed of 150 mph. Needless to say, this is well short of the $40 billion estimated cost of the California High Speed Railway Project.
Amtrak charges an average of 68.5 cents per mile for a ticket on the Acela from New York to Washington. The charge from New York to Philadelphia is approximately $1.16 per mile. These fares cover the operating expenses of the Acela and contribute something to the fixed costs, but they fall well short of covering all the fixed costs.
Presumably the high speed route from LAX to San Francisco will be between 415 and 464 miles, which is the current mileage from LAX to the Bay area via Bakersfield or the coastal route. Let's say it will be 440 miles via the high speed line.
If the California High Speed Line charges the same rate per mile as Amtrak charges for the Acela - forget trying to recover the fixed costs, a ticket from LAX to San Francisco would cost $301.40. If the higher rates where charged for shorter routes, the prices would be even steeper, as is the case for the Acela between New York and Philadelphia.
The airfare from LAX to San Francisco is $66. The average flying time is 1 hour and 20 minutes. There are 52 non stop flights a day from LAX to San Francisco excluding Southwest Airlines. Southwest has another 12 flights a day with fares ranging from $49 to $130.
If the high speed train has a top speed of 220 mph, the average will probably be in the neighborhood of 185 mph. Thus, the train will take approximately 2 hours and 35 minutes to run from LAX to San Francisco.
So why would a business person, or anyone else for that matter, want to spend 2 hours and 35 minutes on a train, at a cost of $301.40, to get from LAX to San Francisco, when he can fly there in 1 hour and 20 minutes for an average fare of $66? And save approximately $235 in the process.
I have looked at the webpage for the California High Speed Rail Project. Interestingly, these questions don't appear to have been addressed by the backers. Perhaps you can answer them with supportable data.
Sam:
I just went to USAirways.com and checked the fares from LAX to SFO tomorrow morning. The cheapest coach fare listed is $134. First Class fares range from $574 to $1,117. Then there is the $15 fee to check a bag and $25 additional fee to check a second bag. Eight of the flights, the first class tickets are sold out. Two of the flights the coach seats are sold out. Southwest Airlines shows the anytime fare is $135 and Business Select is $145. I'm not sure what the Wanna get away fare is, but it is much lower
These fares do not include:
So I take issue with your blanket statement that the airfare from LAX to SFO is $66. While it is possible to fly the route for that fare plus the listed fees if you can give them 30 days notice and buy non refundable tickets, that is not the average fare.
Then, of course there is the convenience factor. Every train I take, I can arrive at the station 15 minutes before the scheduled departure and walk right through the station. I am treated like a valued customer, not like a prison visitor, and I can carry on two bags, unsearched. So add to your flight times the hour going through security and the 30 minutes waiting for your bags. The stations don't have to be out of town because everyone hates the noise and the low flying airplanes over their neighborhood. And finally don't forget that many people are afraid to fly but do so because there is no viable alternative. I personally know a woman who is so afraid of flying that she requires medication to tolerate the trip. She would take the train if it cost 3 times the airfare.
Phoebe Vet Sam: I just went to USAirways.com and checked the fares from LAX to SFO tomorrow morning. The cheapest coach fare listed is $134. First Class fares range from $574 to $1,117. Then there is the $15 fee to check a bag and $25 additional fee to check a second bag. Eight of the flights, the first class tickets are sold out. Two of the flights the coach seats are sold out. Southwest Airlines shows the anytime fare is $135 and Business Select is $145. I'm not sure what the Wanna get away fare is, but it is much lower These fares do not include: Federal segment fee of $3.60 that will be imposed on each flight segment. Flight segment is defined as a takeoff and a landing. Government-imposed September 11th Security Fee of up to $5 one-way, $10 roundtrip. Airport assessed Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) of up to $18. So I take issue with your blanket statement that the airfare from LAX to SFO is $66. While it is possible to fly the route for that fare plus the listed fees if you can give them 30 days notice and buy non refundable tickets, that is not the average fare. Then, of course there is the convenience factor. Every train I take, I can arrive at the station 15 minutes before the scheduled departure and walk right through the station. I am treated like a valued customer, not like a prison visitor, and I can carry on two bags, unsearched. So add to your flight times the hour going through security and the 30 minutes waiting for your bags. The stations don't have to be out of town because everyone hates the noise and the low flying airplanes over their neighborhood. And finally don't forget that many people are afraid to fly but do so because there is no viable alternative. I personally know a woman who is so afraid of flying that she requires medication to tolerate the trip. She would take the train if it cost 3 times the airfare.
The $66 fare is for April 15, 2009. It is an all inclusive fare offered by United, American, Virgin America, and Alaska Airways as quoted on Travelocity. U.S. Airways, hardly one of the nation's low cost carriers, wants $86 whilst Delta Airlines wants $97. If you only checked the U.S. Airways and Southwest sites, your search was not very robust. Moreover, quoting fares for travel the next day is over the top. Most people plan further ahead than the next day.
The base fare is $49, with the fees and taxes that you mentioned bringing it up to $66. It is designed to match Southwest Airlines Wanna Get Away fare. It too is $66 when the fees and taxes are added.
If a passenger checks a bag on any of the carriers mentioned above, except for Southwest, she may be charged a bag fee. However, most business passengers, as well as many non-business travelers, unless they plan to spend more than three or four days at their end point, which would be unusual, except for the non-business travelers, are carrying their bags on the airplane. No checked bag fee!
Less than 10 per cent of domestic passengers fly first class or business class. Therefore, using first and business class fares to compare the cost of flying to the cost of a train is unrealistic. Moreover, according to the ATA, more than 70 per cent of domestic airline passengers, including those traveling on business, buy a discount ticket, which in most though not all cases means that they bought it at least 14 days in advance. Only a minority of passengers, usually business people or people traveling on an emergency, pay the walk up fare. Most people plan their travel in advance.
April 15th is a bit far in advance. So let's take a look at a mid-week fare approximately two weeks in advance. This is a realistic planning time frame for most business people. The Southwest fares are the same for March 10th, i.e. $49 Wanna Get Away, $134 Anytime, and $149 Business Select. You can add about $17 to these fares to cover the taxes and fees. The Wanna Get Away fare is available to anyone. Southwest does not charge a checked bag fee. United, American, Virgin America, and Alaska Airways are also quoting the same fares for March 10th.
Even with the Business Select fare, a passenger on Southwest would pay $152.40 less than the pro-forma fare on the high speed train. Not a good deal! Also, please remember that the pro-forma fare is using Amtrak's Acela costs, which cover less than 50 per cent of the capital costs of the NEC. How a $40 billion dollar railroad hopes to cover its operating expenses and contribute 48 per cent to the capital costs escapes me. Well, actually, it doesn't. They don't plan to do so. They plan to lay it off on the backs of the taxpayers irrespective of whether they use it or can use it.
Clearly, there is a penalty for people who travel at the last minute. The airlines, as well as Amtrak, charge more for walk-up fares than those bought in advance. It is a function of price points generated by the seat mile yield models. Presumably the California High Speed Train system will use the same model, since it is used by practically every passenger transport system in the world.
Most Americans are willing to put up with the the airport security procedures for the convenience, safety, and economy of air travel. Last year approximately 653 million domestic passengers flew on America's domestic airlines. Most of them probably did not like the security screening, but obviously they put up with it.
Most airlines advise their domestic passengers to be at the airport at least an hour in advance of their departure to check-in and clear security. This adds to the travel time.
Let's stipulate that California's high speed train system will not have a security clearance procedure, which is problematic. Most passengers, I suspect, will arrive about 30 minutes before train time. So the incremental time to fly, depending on the airport as well as the date and the time of travel, is not an hour but rather 30 minutes.
Building a $40 billion rail system for a few people who are afraid to fly is a bit over the top. Of course, I would not have a problem with it if they funded it out of their pockets as opposed to the taxpayer's pockets.
Passenger Fan AL: You failed to mention the biggest problem in the San Joaquin valley is the weather. The whole valley from Sacremento to Bakersfield and to a lesser extent Palmdale can be fogged in for long periods of time. I can remember one period in the past of 7 weeks where there was no airline service to various citys. The airlines would not even attempt to go to fogged in destinations because of a low probability of having landing minimums at arrival times and even the 2 engine alternate airport not being predicated to be at alternate landing minimums. Hasn't hapened lately? You can bet it will. At least now you have San Joaquin service and in 10(?) years or so HSR. If you could watch AMTRAK maybe in the next fogged in period (I don't get those weather reports usually) you could check for reservations and see if they a suddenly sold out or if AMTRAK has contingency (?) plans.
Smaller communities don't have the same level of commercial air service as larger communities. It is the price of living in a smaller community or out in the country.
Alternative modes of commercial transport to major population centers, which have excellent air service, may be justified. The question is whether it should be a $40 billion railroad running between California's major population centers.
It is 49 miles from Stockton to Sacramento. It is 81 miles from Modesto to Sacramento. It is 112 miles from Bakersfield to LAX. In most instances it is an hour and half drive or a ride on a train or bus service.
Southwest Airlines has nine flights a day at $80 a pop from Sacramento to LAX. It also has numerous flights to Seattle, Portland, Las Vegas, Phoenix, San Diego, etc. Other carriers also compete with Southwest out of Sacramento.
If the justification for the high speed railroad is a connector from the cities along the line to a center with convenient air service, why does it have to run between LAX and San Francisco? Why not have rapid rail connections between the cities mentioned above and a convenient city served by good air service?
The San Joaquin's had an average load factor in FY 2008 of 38 per cent. Even allowing for higher load factors on segments closer to the Bay Area, these trains, which lost $8.7 million before interest and depreciation, are lightly patronized. The Capitols had an average load factor of 28.6 per cent and lost $14.2 million before interest and depreciation. What makes you think that the high speed rail train will do any better, especially given your argument that it will be more functional for its intermediate stops than its end points?
I have not heard from anyone who is supporting this project how they plan to pay for it, other than with government funds. Of course, in a sense, given my view that these projects should be funded by the patrons or the taxpayers in the region served; it is none of my business. Except the promoters have lined up to grab federal monies. And I am a serious federal income tax payer.
SAM1:: We are citizens of the United States not states of the US! This should mean that I should be able to fly on business to Chicago take a HSR to Sspringfield, business, take a HSR to Jefferson City, Mo. conduct more business take a HSR Flint, MI conduct more business take HSR to Utica, NY conduct more business. Then take HSR to Trenton, business, then HSR to Petersburg, Va, business then HSR to Charlotte, business, then fly to Austin, business, HSR to Tulsa, HSR to DFW, business, then fly home. We need a single integrated transportation system not a hodge podge. Figure out all my extra time and days using the above example. Now a local (state or reginal) will leave too many holes. Look what happens in Europe every time another HSR route is completed in any country. It will be interesting when Spain completes their' route to France.
Hello all,
First and foremost, I'm brand new to this forum and fairly new to the railroading world as an enthusiast. With that being said, it seems to me that both trains and aviation are very strongly linked in terms of transportation. While it may be easier to fly anywhere in the US, the trains are also a major factor.
Let's look at the issue of highspeed rail uses. From a personal standpoint, I agree that high speed trains need to become a reality here in the US. Both the MAGLEV and conventional rail trains, are a very efficient mode of transportation. Here's your major issue: to make something like this a reality here in the US, you are talking about a MAJOR overhaul of existing lines and adding new lines.
Being from Colorado, I can tell you from firsthand experience in seeing the lightrail operations in Denver that it is a VERY efficient system and is worth further development and expansion. In my honest opinion, I think that many, if not all, states could benefit greatly by having high speed commuter trains.
Let's think about this for a minute. Let's use my hometown of Pueblo, Colorado as an example. We are about 100 miles south of the city of Denver and about 130 miles from Denver International Airport. If you have to fly somewhere from Denver, you would have to drive for at least 2 hours in congested traffic, pay at least $5 per day for parking, not to mention gas prices slowly creeping up again. At this point, we have no alternative options available unless you want to pay an extra $200 or so to fly from Pueblo to Denver and then to wherever you're going.
Let's say a high speed train similar to the Acela was brought in. To build the route (assuming it's on a brand new trackline, etc), you're looking at a minimum of a year or better, a TON of jobs and people saving a lot of money in the long run. Gas prices (at least in theory) would stabilize somewhat because of the decrease in demand, traffic jams aren't as bad, and (as an afterthought) pollution decreases.
Many vaild points have been made about the pros and cons of the routes mentioned. If a high speed train is going to work, I agree that a network will need to be established rather than just a few isolated places. Your major downside to this is the fact that not all landowners will be willing to let their land go for a project like this. If everything falls into place, then it will put the US back at the top in terms of passenger train service. Right now, the sad fact stands that we are behind the times.
Bulldog: Hate to burst you hopes. As a advocate of more integrated transportation you are looking at 5 - 10 years to get your route up and running. EIS, engineering, ROW acquisition, moving utilities ( a real problem in some places), building roadbed, laying rail, building station tracks, signals, acuiring rolling stock, maintenance buildings, etc.
It is true that we have become so ensnared in bureaucracy that new infrastructure construction is all but paralyzed. It is not unique to railroads. It is the same with roads, power lines, hydro dams, and most other major construction.
blue streak 1 Bulldog: Hate to burst you hopes. As a advocate of more integrated transportation you are looking at 5 - 10 years to get your route up and running. EIS, engineering, ROW acquisition, moving utilities ( a real problem in some places), building roadbed, laying rail, building station tracks, signals, acuiring rolling stock, maintenance buildings, etc.
I think even the vast majority of "shovel ready" projects won't move a shovelful of dirt until 2011, anyway. It takes a long time just to get the money in position and let out a contract for bidding.
Lattasnip9 worried about federal money going to HSR in mid west back on 2/12/09. There have been several of you worring about HSR in California. Let me ask everyone this question: If the fed government can spend money on several 75 mph interstate highways in the midwest, or in California, don't you agree the fed gov should spend money on at least a half dozen 75 mph interstate railway segments per region? Besides; in America, we all take transportation for granted. Raw materials, finished goods, people, all need transportation. You have all heard that many states are trying to raise the "at the pump" fuels tax. When the economy gets better, and the price at the pump goes back up to $4 a gallon and more, do any of you think these states will lower their taxes? It has already been mentioned that over the road transportation has peaked, and the days of cheap fuel are on the way out. So why spend tax money on the highway system? Remember also, as less people buy fuel at the pump, the states and federal government collect less taxes to maintain the interstate and US Highway systems.
What are everyone's thoughts with taking 5-10% of the interstate and U.S. Highway budget and transferring this money (each year for the next 5-10-25(?) years) to IRSA , the Interstate Railway System Administration? Who can argue that America needs to develope passenger railroad transportation? Who will argue that the money should not go to freight railroad companies? Who will argue against keeping the freight railroads seperate from the passenger railroads? Who can argue that Amtrak should not remain the only member of the passenger railroad transportation industry? The idea is as simple as the idea of the interstate highway system. The tracks will be open to all (and no, you won't be able to drive your train to the next town to get take out, no matter how rich you are).
Maybe 75 mph isn't high speed rail to many of you, but as long as trains are perceived as slow moving to the people who currently do not take passenger railroad transportation [and it has already been pointed out that people who do not travel by train are the market share to be developed], it does not matter how fast, expensive, or ugly LLL, maglev or HSR is. If people will not ride the train, we cannot afford to spend (waste) tax money on it. I understand this might be a chicken before the egg situation, but look; A lot of Americans are still used to driving and flying. And a lot of Americans are doing neither right now! Just ask Mickey in Disney! Those businesses are dying! If Amtrak had an interstate railway system to use, they could run nonstop trains from the northern cities to the vacation spots down south. Or, another railroad could offer what Amtrak can't or won't.
I hope I didn't lose too many of you by jumping from topic to topic, so here's the bottom line: It is important to show American tax payers, American businesses, and American travelers that passenger railroad transportation can provide safe, comfortable, and timely service, and can fill many of the needs that the interstate highway system, and the airtravel industry have filled in the past. There just has to be a trial period (before a lot of tax money is spent) when Amtrak, {or some other passerger railroad} has a chance to conduct a trial service that many Americans want, and allow the media to cover all aspects of the trial. Once it's a success, Americans will do the rest. Who's worried about how much this trial run will cost the government? The Airline industry has gotten a couple bailouts from the tax payers already, right? Over the road transportation got free use of the highways for how long? I think the passenger railroad transportation indusry should get some federal money also. Giving money to the freight railroad industry ? To increase passenger traffic? What have you been smoking? (You got any left, man?) Giving money to Amtrak, while the freight railroads control the tracks? Smoke another bone, man!
Re: Blue Streak 1
We don't need to build as many miles of railways across America as we have highways, do we?
P.A.Talbot Who will argue that the money should not go to freight railroad companies? Who will argue against keeping the freight railroads seperate from the passenger railroads?
Who will argue that the money should not go to freight railroad companies? Who will argue against keeping the freight railroads seperate from the passenger railroads?
Me!
All aboard!
After a decade of quiet tinkering around the margins, the dream of making Chicago the center of a high-speed rail network finally is taking real shape, thanks to a massive infusion of cash tucked into President Barack Obama's stimulus bill.
Big clout -- by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Sen. Dick Durbin, D, and other well-placed Illinoisans -- likely guarantees that the Chicago-based network soon will get as much as $2 billion for new track, rolling stock, high-tech signals, bridges and other fixes.
If so, in as soon as three or four years, reliable train travel to St. Louis in under four hours, and Madison, Wis., in under three, will be on line, with other routes to the Twin Cities and Detroit on the way.
"The stars have started to align," says Tom Carper, the one-time mayor of Downstate Macomb who just took over as chairman of the Amtrak Board of Directors. "We'll really be able to show what we can do."
Central to what's about to happen here is the $8 billion for high-speed rail included in Mr. Obama's stimulus bill -- $6 billion literally at the last moment, when most other programs were being cut to bring the overall stimulus tab to under $800 billion.
When I first wrote about this three weeks ago, the buzz was that the money had been inserted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, and that the bulk of the $$$ would go to a proposed magnetic levitation (mag lev) from Las Vegas to Los Angeles.
But folks like Howard Learner, a long-time high-speed-rail fan who heads Chicago's Environmental Law and Policy Center, told me otherwise. And in an under-noticed interview last week with Politico, a web-based political site, Mr. Emanuel claimed paternity of the money.
"I put it in there for the president," Mr. Emanuel said. "The president wanted to have a signature issue in the bill, his commitment for the future."
Chicago still will have to compete for funding, not only with Nevada but Florida, the Northeast Amtrak corridor and other areas.
But with a Chicagoan in the White House, his chief of staff from the same town, and the Amtrak chairman, number two Senate Democrat (Durbin) and U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood all from Illinois, you can bet your bippy this region will get its share. Earmarks or not, all those local folk aren't going to let Mr. Reid run off with the cookie jar.
Mr. Learner is hopeful of getting $2 billion to $2.5 billion of that money. Chicago also will get a share of $1.3 billion for capital improvements that will go directly to Amtrak -- $30 million tentatively is slated for a renovated Chicago maintenance facility that will renovate and repair oft-broken cars and engines -- and Mr. Emanuel said the president will ask for an additional $1 billion in each of the next five years.
So what actually is coming?
According to George Weber, who heads the railroad unit of the Illinois Department of Transportation, 4-hour service to St. Louis and 2:45 service to Springfield can be established for a cost of $300 million to $500 million. The higher figure reflects the cost of bridges over freight line on Chicago's Southwest Side that often delay Amtrak service.
The bridges, known as flyovers, wouldn't change schedules much but would make those schedules much more reliable.
While most work on the St. Louis line can be done fairly quickly, thanks to improvements already made in recent years, it could take some years to design, win environmental approval for, and build the flyovers, Mr. Weber says.
The next best bet, according to Mr. Weber and others, is the Madison line, which eventually could be extended to Minneapolis/St. Paul. From Chicago, trains would travel the same route as existing 87-minute service to downtown Milwaukee, then travel at 110 miles per hour west to Madison on tracks Wisconsin wants to upgrade.
To the east, Amtrak already owns and has begun work upgrading track in Michigan that ends up in Detroit. But officials in Indiana have not made a priority of upgrading tracks on their portion of the proposed Chicago/Detroit link, at least so far.
To those who might question whether this all is boon or boondoggle, Mr. Weber notes that ridership has soared on the Chicago/St. Louis line the last few years "despite mediocre equipment and performance." Ridership is projected to more than double again, to 1.2 million, with new equipment and faster service the stimulus money should provide, he says.
Now, we're not exactly talking bullet trains here. At best, the service envisioned under the stimulus bill will fund trains travelling at no more than 110 miles per hour.
But local train fans will take that, at least as a first step. And at a time when getting out of O'Hare seems to take at least two hours a trip, any step is helpful.
Bigger plans, for true high-speed, not higher-speed rail, could come later, Mr. Learner says. "The federal funding is a real breakthrough."
Those who are pleased by the increased spend on high speed rail or other passenger rail in the stimulus package might want to keep the following in mind. The national debt burden in the U.S., following implementation of the stimulus package, will be approximately $12.4 trillion dollars. That works out to $160,113 per taxpayer with a tax obligation. The burden will be laid off on our children and grand children.
I would be a little more enthusiastic about the spend if I thought it would result in a commercial passenger rail system that had a chance of paying at least the operating costs, although I would prefer one that paid all the costs.
To a federal government that throws money down the rat hole in quantities that you can't even comprehend, $8 billion to upgrade our passenger rail infrastructure is pocket change. If Amtrak was eliminated completely, it would not even make a noticeable blip on a graph of the federal deficit and/or the national debt. The war in Iraq alone, has a bigger number than that in the money that they don't even KNOW where it went.
What is a better investment; Amtrak, or 28 new custom made Italian helicopters for the President's use? Amtrak or ONE new aircraft carrier? Amtrak or a missile installation in Poland that is greatly angering Poland's neighbor Russia and so is ratcheting up the cold war that so many presidents worked so hard to defuse?
Sam1 Those who are pleased by the increased spend on high speed rail or other passenger rail in the stimulus package might want to keep the following in mind. The national debt burden in the U.S., following implementation of the stimulus package, will be approximately $12.4 trillion dollars. That works out to $160,113 per taxpayer with a tax obligation. The burden will be laid off on our children and grand children. I would be a little more enthusiastic about the spend if I thought it would result in a commercial passenger rail system that had a chance of paying at least the operating costs, although I would prefer one that paid all the costs.
The route mentioned in the article have a pretty good shot at covering operating costs. I'm sure there are studies out there. I'll have to check (or maybe Harvey or Paul already know).
Found it. here http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/state/docs/railmidwest.pdf p 13. Operating ratio is stated as inversve of normal railroad practice, however. The system would generate revenue 36%> than operating costs by 2025.
The promoters of high speed rail put the best spin on their numbers. I would not bet the farm that the projects will cover their operating costs. I would like to see an independent audit of the projections, i.e. an audit conducted by one of the big four accounting firms, with the fees paid by an independent agency.
One of the promoters of the California High Speed Rail claims that a ticket from LAX to SFO will go for $55. Really! Amtrak cannot cover its total NEC costs with Acela fares of $155 between Washington and New York. And its investment is less than 25 per cent of the announced investment in the California HSR project. I would love to see the audited numbers for the California projections.
Having spent more than 20 years directing audits of just these sorts of projects, I am amply familiar with how people spin the numbers, most of which are based on estimates, to make their project sound viable.
Phoebe Vet To a federal government that throws money down the rat hole in quantities that you can't even comprehend, $8 billion to upgrade our passenger rail infrastructure is pocket change. If Amtrak was eliminated completely, it would not even make a noticeable blip on a graph of the federal deficit and/or the national debt. The war in Iraq alone, has a bigger number than that in the money that they don't even KNOW where it went. What is a better investment; Amtrak, or 28 new custom made Italian helicopters for the President's use? Amtrak or ONE new aircraft carrier? Amtrak or a missile installation in Poland that is greatly angering Poland's neighbor Russia and so is ratcheting up the cold war that so many presidents worked so hard to defuse? If we drop 9 zeros we can put it into perspective: Debt will be $12,400 (in billions) The Amtrak investment will be $8 (in billions).
If we drop 9 zeros we can put it into perspective: Debt will be $12,400 (in billions) The Amtrak investment will be $8 (in billions).
What the government spends the military, education, social programs, etc. has nothing to do with what it should spend on promoting or operating a commercial activity like passenger rail. The question is whether the spend is a good investment.
Investing in a commercial activity (intercity passenger rail) that has a low probability of covering its operating costs, let alone its capital costs, is a poor business decision no matter what spin you put on it.
The amount proposed for passenger rail projects is small compared to other federal and state government spends. But one does not put out a fire by throwing just a little more gasoline on it.
As far as I know Amtrak is the only commercial activity in the U.S. that is run by the federal government, irrespective of the fiction that it is a quasi private corporation.
SAM: First no one has stated but HSR will be a social program. Those people who cannot for whatever reason own or are unable to drive a car will have the benefit of alternate transportation. ie NYC area residents, lower income persons, disabled person, those who live in non air served areas. (SAN JOAQUIN valley for example).
The second is the view expoused by you that I consider is a Balkanization idea for our various US states. President Eisenhour stated that one reason to build the interstates was the need to allow people the ability to travel this great country unimpeaded and be able to communicate. He felt that part of Europe's problems was their Balkanization. Ganted he could not have forseen Jet aircraft, Satellite comunications, fiber optics, and the resultant explosion of communication world wide. I want to be able to conduct business through out the US without having to drive. I can get billable hours that way buy not driving or taking a short haul barbie jet. The medium distances that will allow both business and pleasure travelers to not drive is also an important metric.
Is it going to be cheap? NO! Will it bind this whole country closer together? I BELIEVE YES! After having some 30 - 40 % of shuttle flights take 3 hours from block out to block in and the same times LAX - SFO an alternate is needed. We need to let the airlines do what they do best. LONG DISTANCE 2HR + FLIGHTS (1000 + STATUE MILES).
blue streak 1 SAM: First no one has stated but HSR will be a social program. Those people who cannot for whatever reason own or are unable to drive a car will have the benefit of alternate transportation. ie NYC area residents, lower income persons, disabled person, those who live in non air served areas. (SAN JOAQUIN valley for example). The second is the view expoused by you that I consider is a Balkanization idea for our various US states. President Eisenhour stated that one reason to build the interstates was the need to allow people the ability to travel this great country unimpeaded and be able to communicate. He felt that part of Europe's problems was their Balkanization. Ganted he could not have forseen Jet aircraft, Satellite comunications, fiber optics, and the resultant explosion of communication world wide. I want to be able to conduct business through out the US without having to drive. I can get billable hours that way buy not driving or taking a short haul barbie jet. The medium distances that will allow both business and pleasure travelers to not drive is also an important metric. Is it going to be cheap? NO! Will it bind this whole country closer together? I BELIEVE YES! After having some 30 - 40 % of shuttle flights take 3 hours from block out to block in and the same times LAX - SFO an alternate is needed. We need to let the airlines do what they do best. LONG DISTANCE 2HR + FLIGHTS (1000 + STATUE MILES).
If a government commercial activity does not cover its costs, it is a defacto social program.
None of the proposed high speed rail projects are national. Unlike the federal highways and airways, they are regional solutions.
The block to block time for flights from LAX to SFO is approximately 1 hour and 25 minutes. I made the trip three times last year and once this year. I am a former pilot, flight instructor, and ground instructor. I know a bit about aviation.
People who live in communities without reasonable commercial air service, or too far from a major center with commercial air service, usually have access to a bus. Or they can hire a driver to drive them. This may sound cold, but it is nothing compared to dumping billions on our children and grand children to pay for a transport system that will be used by a small minority of the people in the communities that it serves.
I favor passenger rail in corridors where the expansion of the highways and airways is cost prohibitive. I also favor a cheap as it can be approach. Thus, instead of building high speed rail, which is very costly, a better solution is to improve the current system, bringing it up to an average speed of say 75 mph. This would be more than adequate in most places.
Sam1 The promoters of high speed rail put the best spin on their numbers. I would not bet the farm that the projects will cover their operating costs. I would like to see an independent audit of the projections, i.e. an audit conducted by one of the big four accounting firms, with the fees paid by an independent agency. One of the promoters of the California High Speed Rail claims that a ticket from LAX to SFO will go for $55. Really! Amtrak cannot cover its total NEC costs with Acela fares of $155 between Washington and New York. And its investment is less than 25 per cent of the announced investment in the California HSR project. I would love to see the audited numbers for the California projections. Having spent more than 20 years directing audits of just these sorts of projects, I am amply familiar with how people spin the numbers, most of which are based on estimates, to make their project sound viable.
This is not a promoter's report. It is one done for the various state DOTs by expert consultants. These generally use fairly standard ridership models. Many times, these same models underestimate commuter and light rail traffic (see Charlotte, Albequerque and lately Phoenix).
This particular study used Amtrak's highly inefficient current costs to figure train operation costs, but did figure that some newer ROW maintenance methods into that part of the cost.
Of course, there is a lot of uncertainty with any new venture with long lead times. It is particularly hard to calibrate ridership models for new corridors because there haven't been any implemented anywhere! Sensitivity to trip times, frequency and price are very well known, however.
(I'm surprised you didn't take the chance to show this an example of regionalism that's working. Look at how many states pitched in to do the study....)
I spent all of last Saturday and Sunday handing out advocacy and Amtrak travel literature at the Madison Model Railroad Show. I was handing out a glossy pamphlet stating that when the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative is fully implemented, it will cover operating costs. This report is published by the compact of states (Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio) involved in this thing.
This kind of project is a two-edged sword, people. If this thing goes in an covers its operating costs, will this permanently retire the talking points in the advocacy community "Amtrak 'reform' is a plot to do away with trains", "glide-path to profitability -- how silly", "trains everywhere in the world require high levels of (direct operating) subsidy."
If this thing goes in and it is business-as-usual and needs in excess of 50% subsidy for operation, common for commuter operations and I believe true of the California trains, this will be further proof of the skeptics' belief that such projects are all wishful thinking and the reality is that trains are a high-cost mode.
The one knock I have on the advocacy community is that there is such an intensive, passionate, perhaps religious belief in the inherent goodness of trains that there are no standards we can set for trains to be a good investment of public money. If anyone suggests any standard of performance that trains need to meet, one is part of the "opposition." And the argument "oh, they waste all kinds of money on all kinds of things and why are they picking on Amtrak, only a drop in the bucket" simply does not fly, and I am getting annoyed hearing this over, and over, and over again. Every single discretionalry program in the Federal budget has advocates believing it is a "drop in the bucket and why are they picking on little ol' me?" But as the one-time Senator from Illinois said, "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty much it adds to real money."
Sam1 What the government spends the military, education, social programs, etc. has nothing to do with what it should spend on promoting or operating a commercial activity like passenger rail. The question is whether the spend is a good investment. Investing in a commercial activity (intercity passenger rail) that has a low probability of covering its operating costs, let alone its capital costs, is a poor business decision no matter what spin you put on it.
I think that one of the last Amtrak monthly reports I looked at had the Pacific Surfliners and Capitols pretty much covering their costs. Whether this was before or after CA chipped in, I don't recall.
None of the short haul routes on Amtrak come close to poor performance of the LD trains.
I would like nothing better than to see something , somewhere, get built and cover it's costs in pretty short order. That would turn 30 years of yapping on it's head! It's really important to pick the right project and do a good job with it.
I wish I had information on covering operating costs. Sam's comments have spurred me to look for answers on costs, fare revenue, and benefits from economic development, the environment and energy use with high speed rail compared to faster regional intercity services. Justification must be available for significant investments in intercity, and especially high speed, rail passenger service to achieve a majority of public approval.
Most studies I have seen, albeit now dated, for Illinois (Chicago - Saint Louis), Tri-State (Twin Cities - Chicago), Michigan (Chicago-Detroit), and Ohio (Cleveland - Columbus - Cincinnati) show the best return on investment to be at 110 mph with an average speed around 70 mph that is competitive with expressway driving. Ridership increased at least by half. High speed service doubled ridership or better; but the implementation cost was many times higher. Revenue exceeded operating costs for the improved service alternatives; but as I recall the difference was least for high speed.
The question can become whether it would cost less and result in better land use, environmental, and energy impacts to improve rail service or that of another mode, or to supplement and minimize the needs for increased capacity of other modes? It's not either one or the other; but more or less and a reason why the rail advocacy community needs to be less pedantic.
Regional corridors can overlap as is the case in the Northeast, Southeast, the Great Lakes, Kansas-Oklahoma-Texas, Florida, and California. The question of compatibility arises, especially when the discussion turns to high speed trains that require an electrification infrastructure. Travel overlaps the boundaries of electrified and non-electrified territories such as at Washington, DC currently. Equipment needs to be versatile to provide a seamless one-seat service wherever possible regardless of a change in the power mode.
I'd love to see the details on the various corridors.
Chicago - Saint Louis ($445M): This corridor would take less than $300M for 110 mph service infrastructure improvements over 70% of the the corridor. Tilt equipment would eliminate the need for curve easement or speed recovery from restrictions.
Chicago - Cleveland ($1,187M): I cannot fathom the high cost for this corridor. This works out to $3.4M a mile, including the Toledo - Cleveland stretch. Would this include a new additional track along side the existing NS tracks between Fort Wayne and Cleveland? Not be much curve easement would be needed. The map indicates that the former Wabash alignment would be used; but this line was abandonned.
Limited service from Chicago could be extended to Pittsburgh and Buffalo from Chicago. 110 mph would be practical for most of the route to Buffalo while speed restrictions for frequent curvature could be reduced with tilt trains on the existing line to Pittsburgh.
A Fort Wayne - Columbus branch offers the most direct route to this major market from Chicago. A high speed connection would be needed west and south of Upper Sandusky for a 110 mph route. This aids a secondary route to Pittsburgh as well, serving Mansfield, Canton, and other cities in route.
Detroit - Pittsburgh, Detroit - Columbus, and Detroit - Dayton - Cincinati services should be added. This would provide missing connections for the "3-C" Cleveland - Columbus - Cincinnati corridor that is not included in the network for reasons unknown by me.
Chicago - Detroit ($873M incl Grand Rapids & Port Huron): From Kalamazoo eastward, 90 mph would be the practical limit with tilt equipment without extensive and costly curve easement. The only 110 mph potential would be Indiana Harbor (East Chicago, IN) - Kalamazoo, MI with few intermediate restrictions.
Chicago - Cincinnati ($606M): The more appropriate primary corridor to Lexington, KY would seem to be by way of Louisville rather than through Cincinnati. More utilization of the Chicago - Indianapolis segment would be possible with the branch to Louisville that could seve a number of small intermediate cities. A Louisville branch would facilitate a round trip to Nashville, TN as well.
While restoring the Big Four Indianapolis - Cincinnati line may achieve faster overall time, it is the most costly and misses better on-line traffic potential. Tilt trains would minimize the time lost for a stretch of restrictive curvature on the existing Cardinal route; but Hamilton and Miami University in Oxford would generate additional ridership. I don't think the speed matters as much as the additional markets.
An Indianapolis - Terre Haute - Evansville branch also seems feasible and offers the possibility of limited extended service to Memphis.
Chicago - Carbondale ($232M): This line could be upgraded for 110 mph for about the same amount of money as for 90 mph. Curve easement is not an issue. Improving the speed would better facilitate a Chicago - Memphis round trip.
Other possibilities would be for a branch to Paducah, KY and Memphis using either the Edgewood Cutoff or the longer BNSF route from Centralia via Marion,IL.
A branch from Centralia to Saint Louis would offer service from Eastern Illinois.
Chicago - Twin Cities ($1,638M incl Green Bay): The plan fails to include a more populous route through Rochester, MN by way of the MDW and UP between Winona and Saint Paul. If it's about the river line being more direct, what about the detour for Madison? As it is, sustained 110 mph service along the proposed route cannot be realized without tilt trains or extensive costly curve easement for much of the route. The average speed for the route through Rochester could be improved to allow more sustained 80-90 mph running with tilt equipment. Upgrading the Rochester route would facilitate a possible Twin Cities - Des Moines - Kansas City train; however, there is little population south of Des Moines.
Limited corridor services also should be exended to Moorehead, MN or Grand Forks, ND, and to Duluth, MN.
Your negativity, like my pessimism, seems as well-founded on long experience seeing projects of all kinds. Chicago has had more than a fair share of monumental cost overruns, most lately Millennium Park and the Loop Airport Terminal. So far, $150-200M of transit money has been spent on an office tower around and above the Loop Airport Terminal; but there is no tunnel connection between CTA lines, or maybe even the 1-block tunnel, much less tracks and signals.
HarveyK400 Your negativity, like my pessimism, seems as well-founded on long experience seeing projects of all kinds. Chicago has had more than a fair share of monumental cost overruns, most lately Millennium Park and the Loop Airport Terminal. So far, $150-200M of transit money has been spent on an office tower around and above the Loop Airport Terminal; but there is no tunnel connection between CTA lines, or maybe even the 1-block tunnel, much less tracks and signals.
For that matter, whatever happened to Chicago's infamous Crosstown Fund that was suppposedly left over after a new experessway paralleling Cicero Avenue never got built? Seems in the Nineties it was turning up occasionally (bad penny, anyone?) only to vanish from practical application in times of these drearily similar budget "crises" at CTA.
HarveyK400Chicago - Cleveland ($1,187M): I cannot fathom the high cost for this corridor. This works out to $3.4M a mile, including the Toledo - Cleveland stretch. Would this include a new additional track along side the existing NS tracks between Fort Wayne and Cleveland? Not be much curve easement would be needed. The map indicates that the former Wabash alignment would be used; but this line was abandonned.
Could it be that the cost includes aquiring the ROW in this case (rather than being a tenant)?
It would be quite a bit cheaper to us the NS Chicago Line and just plop down a third track, but that means you trade Fort Wayne for Elkhart and likely lose the bulk of the Columbus - Chicago traffic.
"HSR" means different things to different people. Harvey K was using it to mean top speeds in the 110 mph range in the Midwest corridors in the above posting. In the NE corridor, they use it to mean the 150 that the Acelas reach for a short portion of their run. California seems to be referring to something over 200 for the LA/Bay area run. We end up using the same words to describe a large variety of situations.
For most corridors I suspect improvements that get the average speed into the high two digits is the realisitic goal, and even then I'm not convinced that it can be done on tracks shared with the freights.
Dakguy201 "HSR" means different things to different people. Harvey K was using it to mean top speeds in the 110 mph range in the Midwest corridors in the above posting. In the NE corridor, they use it to mean the 150 that the Acelas reach for a short portion of their run. California seems to be referring to something over 200 for the LA/Bay area run. We end up using the same words to describe a large variety of situations. For most corridors I suspect improvements that get the average speed into the high two digits is the realisitic goal, and even then I'm not convinced that it can be done on tracks shared with the freights.
When and if the extension from Merced to Sacramento gets built they will also have express trains that run from Sacramento to Stockton then onto LA. Other regional trains on the valley run will stop at Merced Fresno and Bakersfield with any intermediate traffic again being handled by the San Joaquins.
As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago the ROW was originally estimated to cost 16 Billion. There have been several reports in recent days in the area newpapers that the costs for acquiring the necessary ROW now are at 8 Billion.
I for one believe that much of the Presidents Stimulus RR billions will find its way to California with speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi putting on a little pressure.
My understanding now is that one of the biggest stumbling blocks to the California HSR is going to be a shortage of electrical power for the HSR operation. This has not been fully addressed yet.
I think the former PRR line to Fort Wayne, IN is preferable as well - not that the NS main wouldn't be an acceptable alternative.
Plopping down a third track is expensive, even with existing track beds and bridges; but $3.4M/mi?
Now assuming a third track is added along the NS between Butler, IN and Cleveland and tracks are re-spaced to 20-ft centers, that might bring up the cost. Much of the line had four tracks at one time.
The idea, if I understand, of buying additional easement along the NS would entail substantial dislocation costs as well along much of the line that would make the $1B pale in comparison. Segregating tracks for 220 mph would require the additional easement for a fourth main track and a possible secondary track to serve local freight customers; but is that necessary at this stage for 110 mph service?
Buying the former PRR (don't remember what the current short line is) should not be that much either, and relieve the freight operators of a considerable burden in serving customers.
Please don't shoot the messenger. The Midwest Regional Rail System that I'm basing my comments on calls that high speed; and the stimulus bill includes improvements for that level of service as high speed.
Many have hope that a more receptive Administration will hasten very high speed, 220 mph service.
I too think 70-80 mph overall average speeds would be a significant improvement, competitive with driving, and capable of attracting a significant increase in passengers.
oltmannd I think that one of the last Amtrak monthly reports I looked at had the Pacific Surfliners and Capitols pretty much covering their costs. Whether this was before or after CA chipped in, I don't recall. None of the short haul routes on Amtrak come close to poor performance of the LD trains. I would like nothing better than to see something , somewhere, get built and cover it's costs in pretty short order. That would turn 30 years of yapping on it's head! It's really important to pick the right project and do a good job with it.
For FY 2008 the Pacific Surfliner trains lost $14.7 million or 6.1 cents per passenger mile before interest and depreciation. The Capitols lost $14.2 million or 12.9 cents per passenger mile before interest and depreciation. The statement payments are designed to cover the losses and make Amtrak whole.
Only the NEC trains covered their operating costs. They earned $369 million or 20.7 cents per passenger mile before interest and depreciation. So far this year they are not doing as well, in large part because of the slowdown in the economy and the decrease in the cost of gasoline. The Acela's are still covering their operating costs, but the regionals have slipped into negative territory.
Phoebe Vet Sam1 What the government spends the military, education, social programs, etc. has nothing to do with what it should spend on promoting or operating a commercial activity like passenger rail. The question is whether the spend is a good investment. Investing in a commercial activity (intercity passenger rail) that has a low probability of covering its operating costs, let alone its capital costs, is a poor business decision no matter what spin you put on it. It is you who cited the huge national debt, even quoting the debt per taxpayer to support your argument that Amtrak is a terrible burden that we are leaving to our heirs. I merely pointed out that Amtrak's portion of the deficit is infinitesimal, and is worth the investment. Mass transit benefits society as a whole. That is why every municipal bus system, light rail system, and subway system is subsidized by the political entity it serves. A national rail system benefits the entire country and therefore is a proper use of federal tax dollars, no matter what spin YOU put on it.
It is you who cited the huge national debt, even quoting the debt per taxpayer to support your argument that Amtrak is a terrible burden that we are leaving to our heirs. I merely pointed out that Amtrak's portion of the deficit is infinitesimal, and is worth the investment. Mass transit benefits society as a whole. That is why every municipal bus system, light rail system, and subway system is subsidized by the political entity it serves. A national rail system benefits the entire country and therefore is a proper use of federal tax dollars, no matter what spin YOU put on it.
You failed to include my comments recognizing that the $8 billion slated for high speed rail is indeed small compared to the national debt or the annual federal operating budget and deficit. However, it is more debt. And one does not cure an addiction to debt by adding to it anymore than one cures alcoholism by giving a drunk just one more drink.
Amtrak is not a public transport system ala a municipal transport system. The elimination of a public transit system in most cases would work a hardship on the many poor people who rely on it. Amtrak is an intercity system, although some people use it to commute. If it dried up and went a way, most users would have a viable alternative.
Investing $8 billion of taxpayer money in high speed rail, or any other rail for that matter, should be a function of a demonstrated need for it. The best way to determine whether there is a need for it is the market place. If high speed rail was truly a good idea, investors would fall all over themselves to fund it.
oltmannd Sam1 The promoters of high speed rail put the best spin on their numbers. I would not bet the farm that the projects will cover their operating costs. I would like to see an independent audit of the projections, i.e. an audit conducted by one of the big four accounting firms, with the fees paid by an independent agency. One of the promoters of the California High Speed Rail claims that a ticket from LAX to SFO will go for $55. Really! Amtrak cannot cover its total NEC costs with Acela fares of $155 between Washington and New York. And its investment is less than 25 per cent of the announced investment in the California HSR project. I would love to see the audited numbers for the California projections. Having spent more than 20 years directing audits of just these sorts of projects, I am amply familiar with how people spin the numbers, most of which are based on estimates, to make their project sound viable. This is not a promoter's report. It is one done for the various state DOTs by expert consultants. These generally use fairly standard ridership models. Many times, these same models underestimate commuter and light rail traffic (see Charlotte, Albequerque and lately Phoenix). This particular study used Amtrak's highly inefficient current costs to figure train operation costs, but did figure that some newer ROW maintenance methods into that part of the cost. Of course, there is a lot of uncertainty with any new venture with long lead times. It is particularly hard to calibrate ridership models for new corridors because there haven't been any implemented anywhere! Sensitivity to trip times, frequency and price are very well known, however. (I'm surprised you didn't take the chance to show this an example of regionalism that's working. Look at how many states pitched in to do the study....)
The $55 fare quote was made by the head of the California High Speed Rail Project on NPR. He is a retired California high court judge. I'd call him a promoter.
In most cases consultants are paid by the client. They have a nasty habit of putting a more favorable spin on the outcomes than an independent auditor paid by an overseer without any stake in the outcome. This is especially true if they see some additional business. I spent more than 25 years dealing with consultants. They seldom lie. But they are quick to determine the sponsor's objectives, and they tend to put together the best scenarios to support them.
People who have a viable commercial idea (vision) don't need to run to the government for funding. Venture capitalists will provide all the money required. Equally important, promoters of a good deal have no problem with independent audits.
Those who run to the government for funding know that their vision will never fly in the market place, and they are not keen for an independent audit of their financial estimates.
The California HSR project appears to be a good example of regionalism, but it will depend on how much money they get from the federal government. If they limit their federal take to 20 per cent or less, I would think that it is a good regional project. If they want 80 per cent of the funding to come from the federal government, it is not a good regional project.
oltmanndHarveyK400Chicago - Cleveland ($1,187M): I cannot fathom the high cost for this corridor. This works out to $3.4M a mile, including the Toledo - Cleveland stretch. Would this include a new additional track along side the existing NS tracks between Fort Wayne and Cleveland? Not be much curve easement would be needed. The map indicates that the former Wabash alignment would be used; but this line was abandonned. Could it be that the cost includes aquiring the ROW in this case (rather than being a tenant)? It would be quite a bit cheaper to us the NS Chicago Line and just plop down a third track, but that means you trade Fort Wayne for Elkhart and likely lose the bulk of the Columbus - Chicago traffic.
Devil's in the details -- seen a cost breakdown?
RWM
Railway Man oltmannd HarveyK400Chicago - Cleveland ($1,187M): I cannot fathom the high cost for this corridor. This works out to $3.4M a mile, including the Toledo - Cleveland stretch. Would this include a new additional track along side the existing NS tracks between Fort Wayne and Cleveland? Not be much curve easement would be needed. The map indicates that the former Wabash alignment would be used; but this line was abandonned. Could it be that the cost includes aquiring the ROW in this case (rather than being a tenant)? It would be quite a bit cheaper to us the NS Chicago Line and just plop down a third track, but that means you trade Fort Wayne for Elkhart and likely lose the bulk of the Columbus - Chicago traffic. Devil's in the details -- seen a cost breakdown? RWM
oltmannd HarveyK400Chicago - Cleveland ($1,187M): I cannot fathom the high cost for this corridor. This works out to $3.4M a mile, including the Toledo - Cleveland stretch. Would this include a new additional track along side the existing NS tracks between Fort Wayne and Cleveland? Not be much curve easement would be needed. The map indicates that the former Wabash alignment would be used; but this line was abandonned. Could it be that the cost includes aquiring the ROW in this case (rather than being a tenant)? It would be quite a bit cheaper to us the NS Chicago Line and just plop down a third track, but that means you trade Fort Wayne for Elkhart and likely lose the bulk of the Columbus - Chicago traffic.
A study of alternatives would also be nice to see.
Way Off Topics for Sam1!
We visited our relatives in San Antonio this past week and went by your neighborhood. Can you tell me which I-35 through Austin is supposed to be the "through" route, the upper deck or the lower one? The signs are no help at all and the traffic was terrible.
You have mentioned many times your extensive career in the electric power industry. Would you please give us a few opinions on how you think electric power should evolve in the United States? It's not totally OT because electric power could be the future of RR power. It would be nice to hear from an expert.
Maybe another thread, like the "Trackside Lounge - Spring 09 Edition," would be appropriate for such a discussion.
Phobe Vet, Sam1: Regarding the comment "If high speed rail was truly a good idea, investors would fall all over themselves to fund it": When discussing HSR as an investment, [Problem#1] compare right of ways to highways. When in history did the market decide it needed an Interstate Highway System? Who ever invested in the IHS? Who ever measured the return on investment of the IHS? Many companies today, in my humble opinion, take the IHS and the state highways for granted, and are not concerned with the cost of highway maint. Perhaps it's because the cost of IHS is shouldered by everyone who pays state, federal taxes and buys fuel at the pump. Which probibly is the way to go regarding HSR, or as already mentioned, an Interstate Railway System (Administration). [Problem#2] I agree with the statement "Amtrak is not a public transport system ala a municipal transport system". However, I do not agree to continue equating Amtrak with HSR. Amtrak, as we all know, currently is the only passenger railroad provider. This will change with the adoption on a governemnt controlled HSR system/IRSA. Once all railroad companies and tax payers are funding IRSA, there will be other passenger railroads operating, because these companies will have track available to operate on...in other words, once the market sees a coast to coast HSR/IRSA system in place, we will see long distance, regional, and inter-city train service providers besides Amtrak. As long as the sections of HSR that are under consideration now continue to be associated with Amtrak, or NS/CSX/UP/BNSF, the market will not be interested, due to the belief that the tracks are owned by these above mentioned railroads, and use to companies outside this group will be restricted. [Problem#3] A distinction needs to be drawn between intercity/commuter rail travel, and long distance train travel. The idea that there's only to be a few HSR ROW's in America is very short sighted. America needs a system of HSR ROW's. And as far as "how are we gonna pay for it" goes, all railroads and taxpayers will have to support this HSR/IRSA system, just like we support the Interstate and state highway system; through fed and state taxes, at the pump taxes, and driver/vehicle excise taxes.
I agree ... Sam will not.
The Interstate Highway System (IHS) was built in response to a market demand by motorists (personal and commercial) for a better highway system. They lobbied Congress to make it happen. The game plan was for the government to provide enabler funds to jump start the building, which they did under the ruse of building a defense highway system, but ultimately it would be paid for by the users through fuel taxes, which is what has happened.
Until 1999, the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) ran a surplus, except for the building years. From 1999 to 2007 it had to draw down the surplus to continue to fund the highways, primarily because Congress would not raise the fuel taxes. In 2007 the U.S. government had to transfer approximately $3.4 billion from the general fund to the HTF, and in 2008 it transferred approximately $8 billion.
Transferring monies from the general fund to the HTF means that the motorists who pay federal income taxes are still paying for the highways, although using general funds tends to shift the burden from lower income motorists to higher income motorists. Thus, lower income motorists are not paying the same amount per vehicle mile as upper income motorists to use the federal highways.
Commercial users of the Interstate Highway System, e.g. truckers, bus companies, etc. must cover their costs, including fuel taxes as well as earn a profit, or they go out of business. Most of them pay higher fuel taxes than non-commercial users. They pay federal income taxes on their profits, and the federal government earns a return on the highways. Because the IHS has allowed freight carriers, as well as bus companies, to operate more efficiently, they have earned higher profits, and they have therefore paid higher amounts to the federal government. So the government no only recoups the cost of the highways through the fuel taxes, it gets a payback through the higher taxes paid by more profitable commercial users.
Personal users do not earn a return on the investment in highways or any other public conveyance, but they supposedly pay for their proportional use of the system.
The same concept applies to the nation's railroads, airways, waterways, etc. In many instances they too were kick started by the federal government. In fact, the Army flew the mail during the earliest years of commercial aviation. That is how Charles Lindbergh got his start. Ultimately, the investment in the airways, waterways, etc. produced a return for the commercial users with the same impacts as described for the highways.
The biggest difference between railways and other transport rights-of-way is that the former are controlled by the operator, whilst the common air, water, etc. rights-of-way are controlled by the federal and statement governments. If we were starting over, I suspect a better system would be to have the rails built and owned by the government, with private operators marketing and running the trains.
With the exception of the NEC, Amtrak cannot cover consistently its operating costs. Thus, even if the government funded the building of the rails ala the highways, airways, waterways, etc. or took them over, there is scant evidence that any operator could cover his or her operating expenses and earn a return for the investors.
The notion that the operators of high speed rail will somehow be able to reverse this pattern is not supported by any hard evidence that I have seen. In fact, just the opposite is the case. Given the costs, which many people want to ignore, high speed rail would be a greater financial drain than the current system. It will be likely a perpetual drain on federal and state government resources.
I'd like to go back to the (often heard or posted) comment that if there was profit or if it had potential then investors, private enterprise, would do it. But that is definitely not the case, nor was it ever! From the Erie Canal to the Panama Canal and so many others around the world (I know there are or were some private capitlaized canals) it took governments and/or governents in partnership with private capital. The Union Pacific Railroad relied very heavily on government land grants and protections in order for private enterprise to succeed. So why does this come up everytime a major project which will benifet people and private business is proposed? Should only private enterprise do anything concerning commerce from making mining a mineral and making widgets to carrying the raw material to the factory and finsihed product to market? Does anyone have any idea how far back in time we would be if Dewitt Clinton turned his back on the concept of the Erie Canal or if Abraham Lincoln couldn't fathom the need for a transcontinental railroad? Or how would you get to work in the morning if there were no roads from your house to your place of work? I just don't get this fearful fervor against governments doing anything to progress society and the feeling that if a private investor isn't going to do it then it shouldn't be done.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Sam1So the government no only recoups the cost of the highways through the fuel taxes, it gets a payback through the higher taxes paid by more profitable commercial users.
SAM: I believe the conventional wisdom is that trucks do not pay for the maintenance. An 80,000# tractor trailer is considered to cause much more dmage than they pay for in taxes and user fees. I forget the figures but it is something like 240 times a 5000# car and about 800 times a sub compact car. I believe it is some kind of exponential curve. Remember the threads on here that talked about how much more roadbed, track, mtc., etc that is needed to go from RR cars of 286,000# to 315,000#. Any of our highway engineering people have the exact figures?
henry6 I'd like to go back to the (often heard or posted) comment that if there was profit or if it had potential then investors, private enterprise, would do it. But that is definitely not the case, nor was it ever! From the Erie Canal to the Panama Canal and so many others around the world (I know there are or were some private capitlaized canals) it took governments and/or governents in partnership with private capital. The Union Pacific Railroad relied very heavily on government land grants and protections in order for private enterprise to succeed. So why does this come up everytime a major project which will benifet people and private business is proposed? Should only private enterprise do anything concerning commerce from making mining a mineral and making widgets to carrying the raw material to the factory and finsihed product to market? Does anyone have any idea how far back in time we would be if Dewitt Clinton turned his back on the concept of the Erie Canal or if Abraham Lincoln couldn't fathom the need for a transcontinental railroad? Or how would you get to work in the morning if there were no roads from your house to your place of work? I just don't get this fearful fervor against governments doing anything to progress society and the feeling that if a private investor isn't going to do it then it shouldn't be done.
The federal and state governments, sometimes in partnership with private capital, invested in transport infrastructure, e.g. canals, railroads, highways, airways, waterways, etc., because they realized the need to do so to jump start the projects. They expected to recoup their investment from user fees. In most instances they did.
Given the dismal financial performance of passenger railways trains throughout the world, there is little chance that investing in high speed rail will enable the investors to recoup their investment. In fact, there is a scant probability that the operators will even recover their operating expenses. This is why I question the wisdom of using public or private monies to build high speed rail.
I favor using government monies to invest in conventional rail infrastructure associated with short, high density corridors, where expanding highways and airways is cost prohibitive, because there is a good chance that the operator can recover the operating expenses and, as is the case with the NEC, contribute something to the capital investment.
blue streak 1 Sam1So the government no only recoups the cost of the highways through the fuel taxes, it gets a payback through the higher taxes paid by more profitable commercial users. SAM: I believe the conventional wisdom is that trucks do not pay for the maintenance. An 80,000# tractor trailer is considered to cause much more dmage than they pay for in taxes and user fees. I forget the figures but it is something like 240 times a 5000# car and about 800 times a sub compact car. I believe it is some kind of exponential curve. Remember the threads on here that talked about how much more roadbed, track, mtc., etc that is needed to go from RR cars of 286,000# to 315,000#. Any of our highway engineering people have the exact figures?
Transportation experts have long recognized that trucks cause more wear and tear on highways than automobiles. This is why the taxes and fees for them are considerably higher than those for autos. For example, whilst the federal tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents a gallon, the tax on diesel fuel, which is the primary fuel for heavy trucks, is 24.4 cents per gallon. Interestingly, some states have a higher tax on diesel, although a few of them have a lower tax.
The question is whether the higher fuel taxes and fees cover the incremental damage done by trucks. The American Trucking Association can cite studies showing that the higher taxes and fees cover the incremental damage; other studies (Texas Transportation Institute) show that they do not.
Most users of common access facilities claim that they pay more than their fair share to use the facilities. The airlines, for example, claim that they pay a disproportionate share of the cost of the federal airways. This may be true.
The key point, however, is that the users of the nation's transport facilities, which were jump started by the federal and state governments, have or are paying for them in most instances.
I don't believe the promotors of high speed rail have a prayer's chance of recovering the investment. I don't think they can even recover their operating costs. This is why I am opposed to using government money to build a high speed rail network, especially a national one.
No one other than the trucking industry claims that trucks pay their own way. AASHTO does not. No reputable highway engineer claims this. Pavement damage varies as the 4th power of the axle loading. Axle loadings are measured using the ESAL, or Equivalent Single Axle Load, an empirically determined formula. An axle carrying 18,000 lbs. creates 3,000 times as much pavement wear as an axle carrying 2,000 lbs.
See http://pavementinteractive.org/index.php?title=ESAL
Now, if you want to make an economic argument that the fees, taxes, and economic activity created by trucks, subtracting the air emissions, congestion cost, delays to other vehicles, accident cost (heavy trucks are involved in one of every eight fatal accidents in the U.S.), are a net positive, and that no costs are externalized, be my guest.
Sam1The notion that the operators of high speed rail will somehow be able to reverse this pattern is not supported by any hard evidence that I have seen. In fact, just the opposite is the case.
If the NEC isn't hard evidence, then what is?
If you are looking for hard evidence w.r.t. something that doesn't exist, that is a tautology.
Sam1In fact, there is a scant probability that the operators will even recover their operating expenses.
No, in your opinion "there is a scant probability that the operators will even recover their operating expenses". There is no hard evidence that this is a fact.
There are, in fact, some estimates in existence that say otherwise that you chose to disagree with by labeling them "promoters". They are based on at least a modicum of science, although, admittedly, they are an extrapolation. So, reality is that no one knows with much certainty what the results of any HSR project might be.
Sam1 The question is whether the higher fuel taxes and fees cover the incremental damage done by trucks. The American Trucking Association can cite studies showing that the higher taxes and fees cover the incremental damage; other studies (Texas Transportation Institute) show that they do not.
SAM: I can give one concrete example that trucks are destructive. The Grand Central Parkway in New York City from the Van Wyck to LGA airport bans all trucks and buses. It was built before 1966 and as far Ias I know has never been shut down for major repairs or potholes. Can you say that about any route allowing trucks? Any of you NYC fellows know differently since its been several years since I've been on the Grand Central?.
RWM : thanks for the formula!! The fourth power!!!; wow trucks are really gettiing subsidized big time plus I guess buses are also getting subsidized.
r
Better than the Van Wyck. How about the Northern State Pkwy - cars only. Built in the mid-1930s, it still has the original concrete underneath a veneer of asphalt (it wasn't repaved at all until the mid 1970s). Compare it to I-70 in Kansas which was being completetly rebuilt down to the sub-grade during this decade. It was built in the early 1970s.
Railway ManNo one other than the trucking industry claims that trucks pay their own way. AASHTO does not. No reputable highway engineer claims this. Pavement damage varies as the 4th power of the axle loading. Axle loadings are measured using the ESAL, or Equivalent Single Axle Load, an empirically determined formula. An axle carrying 18,000 lbs. creates 3,000 times as much pavement wear as an axle carrying 2,000 lbs.
RWM, am I missing something? Since 18,000 is nine times 2,000, shouldn't it be 6,561 times as much damage (nine to the 4th power is 6,561)?
Johnny
DeggestyRailway ManNo one other than the trucking industry claims that trucks pay their own way. AASHTO does not. No reputable highway engineer claims this. Pavement damage varies as the 4th power of the axle loading. Axle loadings are measured using the ESAL, or Equivalent Single Axle Load, an empirically determined formula. An axle carrying 18,000 lbs. creates 3,000 times as much pavement wear as an axle carrying 2,000 lbs. RWM, am I missing something? Since 18,000 is nine times 2,000, shouldn't it be 6,561 times as much damage (nine to the 4th power is 6,561)? Johnny
The referenced page answers this. The 4th power law is an equivalency. The actual formulas are complex. The weight on the axle must be converted into ESALs. A passenger car generates about 0.003 ESALs. An 18,000 lb. axle generates 1.0 ESALs -- for reasonably strong pavements.
Look through the page, and these pages:
http://pavementinteractive.org/index.php?title=Flexible_Pavement_ESAL_Equation
http://pavementinteractive.org/index.php?title=Rigid_Pavement_ESAL_Equation
oltmanndBetter than the Van Wyck. How about the Northern State Pkwy - cars only
Oltmannd: Great example for about NSP! Takes us old southern gentlemen to remind the northerners what is good or not. Also thought about the fact they are subject to much salt and winter weather that us southerners don't have to contend with.
Taconic St. Parkway is another...plus a 50 mph limit! Very easy on maintenance....and you may be surprised just how far you can go in an hour at 50 mph!
oltmannd Sam1In fact, there is a scant probability that the operators will even recover their operating expenses. No, in your opinion "there is a scant probability that the operators will even recover their operating expenses". There is no hard evidence that this is a fact. There are, in fact, some estimates in existence that say otherwise that you chose to disagree with by labeling them "promoters". They are based on at least a modicum of science, although, admittedly, they are an extrapolation. So, reality is that no one knows with much certainty what the results of any HSR project might be.
The average fare on the NEC between New York and Washington is $105.80 or 46.8 cents per mile. The average fare between Boston and Washington is $137.90 or 30 cents per mile. The average fare between New York and Philadelphia is $84.55 or 92.5 cents per mile. Of course, the complete fare structure for the NEC would produce different results between any two fare points, but these are reasonably representative.
The average stated fare on the California High Speed Rail Line, according to the report on NPR by the Chairman of the California High Speed Rail Board, will be $55 or approximately 13.1 cents per mile. Unless the California HSR draws an enormous crowd, how it will cover its operating costs when Amtrak barely covers its operating costs on the NEC, except for the New York to Washington segment, mystifies me. This is why I think that high speed rail, as currently proposed, has scant chance of covering its operating cost. And it has practically no chance of covering the capital costs.
The investment in the NEC is in the neighborhood of $9.6 billion or an average of $21 million per mile. The proposed investment in the California High Speed Rail Project (HSR), which appears to be the poster child for high speed rail in America, will be north of $40 billion, if the project comes in on time and within budget, which is problematic. The estimated rail mileage is 420 miles. The cost to construct the system will be approximately $95.2 million per mile.
Scant means not quite coming up to a stated measure. It does not mean that high speed rail could not cover its operating expenses; it means that the probability of doing so, given the performance of high speed rail in other environments, is unlikely.
Business people invest in projects that have a reasonable chance of success. They don't know the future, but they have an array of tools to paint reasonable scenarios of whether the project is likely to succeed. In my company we demanded a lot more than just a modicum of science.
I am, however, open to new evidence. Please direct me to the authoritative references you claim but have not cited for the independently audited studies showing that high speed rail, as proposed, will cover its operating costs and contribute something to the capital investment. By independent audit I mean the numbers have been audited by a large, independent accounting firm, e.g. PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, Deloitte, etc. that does not have a stake in the outcome.
Most perspectives are a function of opinions. Whether an investment in high speed rail is a good idea or a bad idea; whether it will cover its costs or won't, is an opinion. Opinions that are backed-up with verifiable, independently audit data carry more weight with me than those that lack the support.
OK, suppose intercity highways are for the most part maintenance-free were it not for the pounding from large vehicles, i.e. trucks. That would suggest that passenger cars are heavily cross-subsidizing trucks, which further suggests that passenger cars are more than paying their own way and then some, in contrast with the 20+ cents/passenger mile Amtrak subsidy.
Would not a more effective use of railroads be to free them of passenger trains so they could more effectively carry volumes of freight and remove truck traffic from the highways?
Are not passenger trains only marginally more fuel efficient than cars (current Amtrak) whereas freight railroads are multiples of the fuel efficiency of trucks, especially for the heavier commodities carried at lower speeds? Would not a more effective use of advocacy resources in solving problems of highway congestions, carbon emissions, energy independence to promote the use of railroads as freight carriers?
There are advantages in safety and traffic flow to segregating passenger from freight transport. Perhaps the emphasis is all wrong on building an entirely new network of passenger-only rail lines (i.e. HSR). Perhaps the emphasis should be on rubber tires on pavement as the primary ground passenger mode and on doing what it takes to get the freight traffic back on rails.
Would not a more effective use of railroads be to concentrate on removing the mass of trucks from the roads instead of making a marginal contribution of removing a slim fraction of the cars?
As to the impact of buses, buses carry 10 times the intercity traffic as Amtrak in the U.S., but I hardly ever see a bus on the Interstate, but I see truck after truck after truck. Perhaps the advocacy community is "barking up the wrong tree" as it were.
There are strong institutional reasons why getting trucks off the highways is a difficult proposition. Many men and women derive their livelihood from trucks. Railroad freight operations are so heavily "batched" that trucks offer the kind of "just-in-time" delivery and inventory control that may be impossible with the way railroads are structured.
On the other hand, freight has well-known intermodal solutions to solving the "last mile" problem apart from putting a freight siding at every last business concern. Containerization. Autos do not have as effective of an intermodal answer. AutoTrain? Mass parking at Amtrak terminals as at airports combined with a catch-as-catch-can as car rental, taxis, the thin network of local transit in many cities, or getting rides from friends? In other words, the freight intermodal problem has been "solved" by the Hyster Corporation container side-transfer gear -- Hyster is the company that introduced the world to the "Dumpster" (not a generic term but a trade name) of a ubiquitous transferable container material handling system for garbage.
Getting much of the intercity truck traffic off the Interstates has a technological solution in terms of containerization, if transportation policy were to embrace it. Getting more than a fraction of a percent of intercity autos off the highways has a much more expensive solution -- I guess it is HSR, that the speed of HSR would induce people to put up with the inconvenience of the intermodal interface to it, much as we put up with that inconvenience with air travel.
Railway Man No one other than the trucking industry claims that trucks pay their own way. AASHTO does not. No reputable highway engineer claims this. Pavement damage varies as the 4th power of the axle loading. Axle loadings are measured using the ESAL, or Equivalent Single Axle Load, an empirically determined formula. An axle carrying 18,000 lbs. creates 3,000 times as much pavement wear as an axle carrying 2,000 lbs. See http://pavementinteractive.org/index.php?title=ESAL Now, if you want to make an economic argument that the fees, taxes, and economic activity created by trucks, subtracting the air emissions, congestion cost, delays to other vehicles, accident cost (heavy trucks are involved in one of every eight fatal accidents in the U.S.), are a net positive, and that no costs are externalized, be my guest. RWM
You misread my posting. I said that trucks cause more damage to roads than passenger cars. So do most others with a knowledgable interest in transportation. The question is whether they pay their fair share of the incremental costs. There are studies that say they don't; there are also studies that say they do. And not all of them were produced by the trucking industry.
Your reference does not say anything about costs. It is basically an engineering discussion, which I appreciate more than you might imagine.
This is not even relevant to my original position, which is that the investment in most forms of transport infrastructure in the U.S. have been paid for by the users. The one exception is passenger rail, especially since 1971. And this is the basis of my skeptism regarding high speed rail.
I did?
Could you cite me the studies that say that trucking pays its fair share of the incremental costs that aren't produced by or paid for by the trucking industry, please. AASHTO says otherwise. Also, why do you want it to be incremental instead of fully allocated?
The statement "the investment in most forms of transport infrastructure have been paid for by the users" strikes me as broad. Are you referring only to the U.S.? What about water transportation? If I recall correctly, riverine transportation does not pay for but a fraction of its infrastructure. What about seaports? Are they all self-funded? That leaves what else ... buses, probably not; trucks, probably not; light rail and heavy rail, probably not; personal autos, probably yes; freight railways, probably yes; airlines, who knows. I can't add that up to "most" if we assign each mode a value of 1, but if we add up the total infrastructure investment made to date in discounted dollars, maybe it's a plurality. Would you be considering the lands withdrawn from the tax rolls for the streets in the accounting?
Railway Man I did? Could you cite me the studies that say that trucking pays its fair share of the incremental costs that aren't produced by or paid for by the trucking industry, please. AASHTO says otherwise. Also, why do you want it to be incremental instead of fully allocated? The statement "the investment in most forms of transport infrastructure have been paid for by the users" strikes me as broad. Are you referring only to the U.S.? What about water transportation? If I recall correctly, riverine transportation does not pay for but a fraction of its infrastructure. What about seaports? Are they all self-funded? That leaves what else ... buses, probably not; trucks, probably not; light rail and heavy rail, probably not; personal autos, probably yes; freight railways, probably yes; airlines, who knows. I can't add that up to "most" if we assign each mode a value of 1, but if we add up the total infrastructure investment made to date in discounted dollars, maybe it's a plurality. Would you be considering the lands withdrawn from the tax rolls for the streets in the accounting? RWM
This issue is whether investment in high speed rail is the best way to spend the stimulus grant. I don't think that it is. I would use it to improve regional rail in short, high density corridors where there is a good chance of recovering the operating costs and contributing something to the capital costs.
Citing investments in other transport infrastructure was meant to show that the costs could be recovered and, in fact, especially with respect to air and highway, have been. Given the poor financial performance of passenger trains, I don't think that they can recover their capital costs, especially high speed rail, although that is not the only criteria I would use for investment.
A discussion of trucks, in retrospect, is off topic. I said simply that there are studies pro and con with respect to whether they cover their fair costs. If your concerned about the veracity of the studies, I am sure that you can find them.
John Kneiling had long reasoned in Trains Magazine that railroads, properly run, would run trucks off the interstates and would run the barges and lake boats off the waterways. They would also see precious little in the way of passenger traffic apart from passenger trains operated as forms of entertainment. Not such a silly prophesy -- ocean going ships have effectively ceased being a means of transportation for anyone, but the cruise industry, essentially entertainment, is big business.
I agree with you that intercity trucking, from the government side, is a boondogle as is inland shipping. So keep those boondogles and raise you an HSR system?
The other piece of reasoning is that the government has a hand in running, regulating, or subsidizing near everything -- your self made man or woman may have gone to a public school or benefited from a government-built road or had one's life saved by government-funded medical research. As a result of this, there is no such thing as capitalism, individual initiative, profit motive (apart from profits enabled by government as a first mover or enabler), and we may as well subsidize something that a group of people want without any regard to economic efficiency. The government wastes so much money on the military, so what is a little bit more waste on HSR?
The one thing I have to say in defense of Sam, who hails from the electric power utility industry, and as an engineering educator, and electrical engineering educator I may add, the general view has always been is that the power company is where we place our graduates who cannot get work anywhere else. Sort of like the traditional role for railroads for my mechanical engineering and civil engineering colleagues. The power companies were (mostly) privately-own and highly regulated natural monopolies, and that the power companies had their rate base and their traditional ways of doing things and kind of clunked along was just the way all of the Econ 101 textbooks explained it had to be. Then came power deregulation. It had some spectacular stinkers (think Enron), but Sam tell us there has been a sea change in the efficiency, cost effectiveness, and dynamism of the power companies and the people working there.
Sam has essentially one idea -- that if the power companies can be transformed from a quasi-governmental system of guaranteed profits and guaranteed employement and all of the personal and institutional sluggishness that goes with that, maybe some policy changes can work the same kind of magic on railroads and on Amtrak.
There are a bunch of other people who claim that passenger trains are going to solve the congestion crisis, the oil imports crisis, the road rage crisis, and who knows, the social isolation crisis by having strangers chat in lounge cars. I suspect that a lot of the impetus is that for a lot of people, trains are a form of entertainment (so are cruise ships, but there is nothing frivolous about them, they are a large, profit-making business sector), but if they were simply entertainment, they would not justify the large infusions of money people want for them.
If trains are to be more than entertainment and to make meaningful contributions to the listed social problems, there needs to be some sea change in the railroad industry and especially the passenger train industry (Amtrak). It appears to be working for the power company, and you all should not rule out the same thing happening in the passenger train industry.
Sam1Railway Man I did? Could you cite me the studies that say that trucking pays its fair share of the incremental costs that aren't produced by or paid for by the trucking industry, please. AASHTO says otherwise. Also, why do you want it to be incremental instead of fully allocated? The statement "the investment in most forms of transport infrastructure have been paid for by the users" strikes me as broad. Are you referring only to the U.S.? What about water transportation? If I recall correctly, riverine transportation does not pay for but a fraction of its infrastructure. What about seaports? Are they all self-funded? That leaves what else ... buses, probably not; trucks, probably not; light rail and heavy rail, probably not; personal autos, probably yes; freight railways, probably yes; airlines, who knows. I can't add that up to "most" if we assign each mode a value of 1, but if we add up the total infrastructure investment made to date in discounted dollars, maybe it's a plurality. Would you be considering the lands withdrawn from the tax rolls for the streets in the accounting? RWM This issue is whether investment in high speed rail is the best way to spend the stimulus grant. I don't think that it is. I would use it to improve regional rail in short, high density corridors where there is a good chance of recovering the operating costs and contributing something to the capital costs. Citing investments in other transport infrastructure was meant to show that the costs could be recovered and, in fact, especially with respect to air and highway, have been. Given the poor financial performance of passenger trains, I don't think that they can recover their capital costs, especially high speed rail, although that is not the only criteria I would use for investment. A discussion of trucks, in retrospect, is off topic. I said simply that there are studies pro and con with respect to whether they cover their fair costs. If your concerned about the veracity of the studies, I am sure that you can find them.
OK, let's strike all that from the record and circle back to your point:
"This issue is whether investment in high speed rail is the best way to spend the stimulus grant. I don't think that it is. I would use it to improve regional rail in short, high density corridors where there is a good chance of recovering the operating costs and contributing something to the capital costs."
Behind that point I think there's a premise, which appears to me to be "recovery of operating cost and contribution to the capital cost is important [to the public]." My addition in brackets, since we need to have an agent of action.
Is it important? Value to the public often has nothing to do with tangible measures such as farebox recovery. I spend a great deal of my time over on the economic valuation side of the railway, on all sorts of projects ranging from public-private partnerships to alternative financing to simple value deals, and I'm continually intrigued (or perplexed, or confounded, or bemused) by what the public decides to value. The public frequently confirms the expenditure of billions on initiatives that have no economic rationale at all, and just as frequently walks away from deals that provide quanitifed, obvious, public cash benefits, for reasons that I can only ascribe to ideology or taste.
(Note: I'm not coming at this as an advocate of high-speed rail. Or an opponent. I have no partisan bones in this game. Whether the $8 billion is spent on high-speed or corridors, I personally, professionally, and as a citizen am pretty happy. In fact professionally I'll be much more in demand on the corridor side.)
In other words, I'm not sure your point is even worth arguing, because I'm not sure the premise is valid. It would seem a majority of the public didn't fall over in apoplexy over the $8 billion in stimulus funding. And I don't think the public expects this will somehow pay for itself someday either. So if the public likes the idea, and is aware of the basic economic outcomes and is not expecting some other outcome, is there even a problem? Perhaps the more interesting discussion is why the public would prefer $8 billion on HSR rather than on short high-density corridors.
Paul MilenkovicJohn Kneiling had long reasoned in Trains Magazine that railroads, properly run, would run trucks off the interstates and would run the barges and lake boats off the waterways. They would also see precious little in the way of passenger traffic apart from passenger trains operated as forms of entertainment. Not such a silly prophesy -- ocean going ships have effectively ceased being a means of transportation for anyone, but the cruise industry, essentially entertainment, is big business. I agree with you that intercity trucking, from the government side, is a boondogle as is inland shipping. So keep those boondogles and raise you an HSR system? The other piece of reasoning is that the government has a hand in running, regulating, or subsidizing near everything -- your self made man or woman may have gone to a public school or benefited from a government-built road or had one's life saved by government-funded medical research. As a result of this, there is no such thing as capitalism, individual initiative, profit motive (apart from profits enabled by government as a first mover or enabler), and we may as well subsidize something that a group of people want without any regard to economic efficiency. The government wastes so much money on the military, so what is a little bit more waste on HSR? The one thing I have to say in defense of Sam, who hails from the electric power utility industry, and as an engineering educator, and electrical engineering educator I may add, the general view has always been is that the power company is where we place our graduates who cannot get work anywhere else. Sort of like the traditional role for railroads for my mechanical engineering and civil engineering colleagues. The power companies were (mostly) privately-own and highly regulated natural monopolies, and that the power companies had their rate base and their traditional ways of doing things and kind of clunked along was just the way all of the Econ 101 textbooks explained it had to be. Then came power deregulation. It had some spectacular stinkers (think Enron), but Sam tell us there has been a sea change in the efficiency, cost effectiveness, and dynamism of the power companies and the people working there. Sam has essentially one idea -- that if the power companies can be transformed from a quasi-governmental system of guaranteed profits and guaranteed employement and all of the personal and institutional sluggishness that goes with that, maybe some policy changes can work the same kind of magic on railroads and on Amtrak. There are a bunch of other people who claim that passenger trains are going to solve the congestion crisis, the oil imports crisis, the road rage crisis, and who knows, the social isolation crisis by having strangers chat in lounge cars. I suspect that a lot of the impetus is that for a lot of people, trains are a form of entertainment (so are cruise ships, but there is nothing frivolous about them, they are a large, profit-making business sector), but if they were simply entertainment, they would not justify the large infusions of money people want for them. If trains are to be more than entertainment and to make meaningful contributions to the listed social problems, there needs to be some sea change in the railroad industry and especially the passenger train industry (Amtrak). It appears to be working for the power company, and you all should not rule out the same thing happening in the passenger train industry.
I think John Kneiling's predictions were contingent upon a few pesky details such as changes in things like labor law and a rather selective set of values not shared by the majority of the public, and I think that crippled his arguments into uselessness. In a democracy, the only thing that matters is the majority of the vote. It's entertaining to fume that a society is voting itself into the poorhouse, but they do have the right to do so. Plenty of societies have gone up against the wall.
I'm not saying I disagree with either you or Sam on your value systems. Nor in your objectives. I'm saying that an argument that posits that tangible ROI or economic efficiency of a public investment is the only objective worth measuring is probably not going to go anywhere useful. I don't think the public much cares about ROI or economic efficiency, and I think the public has a sophisticated method of ranking its choices that economists, pundits, and experts often don't get. Politicians usually get it very well, however. They're some of the smarter people I know.
I agree with your last paragraph. And, since I have no reason to think that Sam1's estimates of costs and ROIs are wrong, the question remains, "Why, then, have several other modern societies (nations) created and maintained HSRs, as well as excellent non-high-speed passenger rail systems?" They must be seeing value that we in North America don't see. I think we may come to look at our decisions differently if we try to understand the value that these other people have assigned to HSR.
Some other comments:
Please don't hold the "transformation of the electric power industry" up as a good example. Deregulation of electric power so far has had very mixed results. Power costs in Texas, for example, are a continuing controversy, as are the ways that the now deregulated power companies treat their customers. Furthermore, electric power has migrated to the dirtiest source of energy we have available, coal. The govt hasn't helped much by discouraging full exploitation of nuclear energy sources through nuclear fuel reprocessing and breeder reactors; our govt is paranoid about weapons grade nuclear materials. As a result, we leave more than half of our nuclear energy in the waste fuel, and, in addition, the waste fuel is much more hazardous than it otherwise would be.
Don't forget that the govt built the entire jet aircraft industry with military funding. Without that investment of trillions of dollars from about 1943 to about 1975, commercial jet aircraft literally would not have gotten off the ground.
If the purpose of stimulus funding is to stimulate, then it doesn't much matter how we spend it. I admit that it seems better to use it for something "useful" or "beneficial," but the money will go to wages and salaries regardless of what it's for. Of course, we don't want any of it to go outside the country, so we shouldn't be using it for products from Bombardier, Siemens, Kawasaki, and that Spanish company that Texas is hiring to build our toll roads.
Unfortunately, both freight and passenger rail transportation in North America seem to be stuck in a rut dated about the late 1950s. RRs let much of the technology evolution go by until the mid-nineties, and now they are catching up. Evolution is definitely required, more so with passenger rail than freight. What we really need is both high-speed passenger and high-speed freight rail service.
Maybe the California HSR planners think they can do it much less expensively with more modern equipment and processes.
Living in California I was a proponent of the HSR system and voted for it, I attended reginal meetings on the HSR proposal and realize now there were a lot of questions left unanswered at those meetings. Since that time I have been digging up all the information possible and some of the major unanswered questions are:
Where is the power coming from as the available power in California will not be enough.
The Windfarm lawsuit which will be heard this year or next could shut down the existing windfarms for six weeks each spring and six weeks each fall to protect the migratory birds that the suit says are being killed and maimed by the windmills.
Californians have always been in love with speed and the freeways were made for them until speed limits were imposed and they were no longer freeways.
Californians like Sam 1 mentioned in a much earlier thread on the subject will not be satisfied with the 220 mph proposed speed which I am beginning to believe will be like the NEC and only operate at that speed for the run down the San Joaquin Valley.
Already it is being said that the maximum speed between San Francisco and San Jose will be around 100 mph maximum as Caltrains and the HSR trains will share a four track electrified mainline.
Once leaving Gilroy the trains will encounter Pacheco Pass and I am sure the electrical draw for the climb over the pass will be something on the order of what it would take to light 25,000 homes if they are going to maintain any kind of speed on even 2% grades. The same will be true for the climb over Tehachapi Pass.
The only thing the HSR has going for it at the present time is the ROW can be obtained for about 8 Billion instead of the original 16 Billion due to the collapse of the California Real Estate market.
Personally I would much rather see them acquire the mainline and then instead of installing a HSR system install a Mag-Lev system capable of 350 mph speeds and that should satisfy Californians need for speed.
Why was Anahiem selected as the Southern Terminal of the system (Disney Enterprises), well let Disney pay for the costs from Los Angeles to Anahiem and if the Orange County residents think it is necessary for there well being then a special tax assessment should be imposed on them to pay for it. Los Angeles is still recognized as the hub of Southern California not Disneyland.
The land should be acquired for the entire system from Sacramento and San Francisco in the North to Los Angeles and San Diego in the south.
And lets begin talking about Nuclear power the chespest and cleanest form of electrical energy next to hydro electric. It's time for people to stand up to the enviromentalists on this issue and build a modern Nuclear power grid. These wind farms that are popping up everywhere personally are an eyesore but they do not take up much space. I don't know that they will impact farming, in fact the farmers in some cases are making more from the windfarms than they do from there crops.
And the proposed solar panel fields take up thousands of acres but keep lots of people working keeping the mirrors clean. There is one very large one in the Mojave Desert at the junction of Hwys 58 and 395. Sure that one is in the desert but what happens when they want to take valuable farmland out of farming to place a solar panel field in operation. We are eventually going to need all of the food we can grow.
So where is either proposal for HSR going to get its power from. I would much rather see the RRS install catenary on certain mainlines and the government issue them tax credits for doing so. I cant see HSR being finished for a least thirty years in California and I really don't care as I won't be around anyway.
Sam1 This issue is whether investment in high speed rail is the best way to spend the stimulus grant. I don't think that it is. I would use it to improve regional rail in short, high density corridors where there is a good chance of recovering the operating costs and contributing something to the capital costs.
The vast majority of the HSR projects on the table ARE short haul, high density corridors. The LA-SF piece of the Callifornia project may be the lone exception. That, and maybe a few small pieces of the midwest network.
You would spend Federal dollars on regional rail projects? That would be the best use of the stimulus in you opinion? Really? How so?
Railway ManPerhaps the more interesting discussion is why the public would prefer $8 billion on HSR rather than on short high-density corridors.
There's a distinction?
At the end of the day, I think these will turn out to be the same thing, as the definitions will have been blurred.
Most of the press already has pretty much blended the two togehter already.
The public generally doesn't get too worked up over Amtraks deficits, either. My concern over Amtrak is that should they ever get more funding, they would completely drop the ball. I'm still worried about it, but the sounds coming out of Amtrak's Boardman are encouraging - and the $8B isn't automatically going to Amtrak.
Sam1 I am, however, open to new evidence. Please direct me to the authoritative references you claim but have not cited for the independently audited studies showing that high speed rail, as proposed, will cover its operating costs and contribute something to the capital investment. By independent audit I mean the numbers have been audited by a large, independent accounting firm, e.g. PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, Deloitte, etc. that does not have a stake in the outcome. Most perspectives are a function of opinions. Whether an investment in high speed rail is a good idea or a bad idea; whether it will cover its costs or won't, is an opinion. Opinions that are backed-up with verifiable, independently audit data carry more weight with me than those that lack the support.
The midwest governors that hired contractors to do the study of the midwest corridors have a direct stake in the outcome how? Similarly, the contractor's stake in the outcome?
Accounting firms don't still look after their buddies in their recently spun-off (by gov't mandate) consulting branches?
I'm also not sure exactly how one would audit a ridership model. The process of selecting a model? The input data? The arithmetic?
oltmanndRailway ManPerhaps the more interesting discussion is why the public would prefer $8 billion on HSR rather than on short high-density corridors. There's a distinction? At the end of the day, I think these will turn out to be the same thing, as the definitions will have been blurred. Most of the press already has pretty much blended the two togehter already. The public generally doesn't get too worked up over Amtraks deficits, either. My concern over Amtrak is that should they ever get more funding, they would completely drop the ball. I'm still worried about it, but the sounds coming out of Amtrak's Boardman are encouraging - and the $8B isn't automatically going to Amtrak.
A distinction only in this debating society!
And why would a midwest governor want a high speed rail line intersecting his turf when it would represent a majority of overhead traffic niether departing nor terminating in his state?
But to the question of return on investment....did the American public, the American economy, get anything out of land grants to railroads besides a cheap way for the government to sell off and develop lands, grow communities, mine ores and metals, and encourage agriculture and then allow for effecient transportation back east to the then population centers? Or the cheap contracts to carry U.S. Mail to all parts of the country which some consider as a tax on railroads for haveing been given land grants and other aid, were they not a benifet the public and the government received which could have meant higher postal rates long before the 1950's demise of the nickle letter?
Why can't we get it through out heads that the government and the population have prospered and developed through the aid and partnership of government and business and that such growth and development would never have happened if that partnership hadn't been in place. And that the future has to have that same partnership continue if the U.S. is to continue to be a strong and economically viable world leader.
I think John Kneiling's predictions were contingent upon a few pesky details such as changes in things like labor law and a rather selective set of values not shared by the majority of the public, and I think that crippled his arguments into uselessness. In a democracy, the only thing that matters is the majority of the vote. It's entertaining to fume that a society is voting itself into the poorhouse, but they do have the right to do so. Plenty of societies have gone up against the wall. I'm not saying I disagree with either you or Sam on your value systems. Nor in your objectives. I'm saying that an argument that posits that tangible ROI or economic efficiency of a public investment is the only objective worth measuring is probably not going to go anywhere useful. I don't think the public much cares about ROI or economic efficiency, and I think the public has a sophisticated method of ranking its choices that economists, pundits, and experts often don't get. Politicians usually get it very well, however. They're some of the smarter people I know. RWM
It seems that the editorial emphasis of Trains Magazine has undergone a sea change.
Trains Magazine has always been serving the community of railfans and train advocates, along with the broader community of people who have some kind of interest in trains. Back in the day, the editors of Trains Magazine saw the railroad industry in decline: the passenger business was in rapid decline, but the freight business wasn't doing all that well either. The editors of Trains saw themselves as having a unique platform for advocating saving the industry, certainly unique from the trade rags such as Railway Age and others that pretty much hewed to the industry party line. In a number of editorials they pretty much came out and said that unlike Railway Age, Trains was pretty much in the entertainment industry and had latitude to print what it wanted provided it entertained its readership in some way, but that the railroad industry needed to be saved, if not for the sake of the industry but for the sake of railfans, that at the rate things were going, there would be very little in the way of trains left.
Trains saw itself as providing a forum for a broad range of analysis and prescriptions for the general problems of the industry, ranging from the Professional Iconoclast, John Kneiling, to their Man in Washington, Don Philips, all the way to the Turntable column closing out the magazine, hosting op-ed writing from a broad range of sources with differing opinions. In between, there were often long articles giving first-person accounts of what it was like to work for a railroad and serve customers.
The Trains editors stuck their necks out running John Kneiling for a long time, and it didn't seem to be all that popular judging by readers' letters. The editors said in so many words that John was an unpopular scold, but that they stuck with him because his ideas had merit, and unless there were major changes, there would not be any trains left to sell magazines about.
Maybe every reader didn't hate John's opinions. There were two scolds that I always looked forward to reading. One was Mike Royko's daily in the Chicago Sun Times. I was too cheap to buy the paper, but I would read it over the shoulder of someone when riding the C&NW to work. The other was the monthly colum of the Professional Iconoclast. I saw both of them as reformers, as lone voices in the wilderness as it were, and I somehow though they were twins somehow separated at birth.
I mean consider Mike Royko. When he wasn't spinning tales about his boyhood friend Slats Grobnik, it was endless knocks against this Chicago politician and this other Chicago politician. One would think it would get old after while, and besides, as you say, politicians are a lot smarter than generally credited. But think of it, there is this guy pounding out a daily column telling us how bad things are, but in general, garbage gets collected, police patrol the streets and arrest the most egregious law breakers, children get taught in some manner or other in schools, people on the bottom rungs of the ladder get some kind of assistance and don't starve, and life goes on. For all of the knocks on corruption and one-party rule, Chicago was (reputed to be) the City that Works. Or did it?
As to John Kneiling, I guess the Trains editors kept him around as long as they could, perhaps sacrificing some readership to do this, and it came to an end at some time. But what, tell me, about what John said was "crippled into .. uselessnes"?
John was forever critical of labor unions and labor union rules, yes, and his knock on organized labor was that labor unions are not exempt from the laws of economics and that unions were driving not only businesses but also their workers out of a job. But setting this aside, where John placed responsibility for the problems of the industry firmly on the shoulders of management. None of his advocated proposals such as Integral Trains depended on changing labor agreements. He argued that his Integral Trains could out compete the truck, the barge, and the Great Lakes ship with the full crew and crew mileage agreements of the day.
But guess what, the big changes in railroad labor came much later after John exited the scene -- two man locomotive crews and the whole lot, and John had perhaps little or nothing to do with this happening. In fact, railroads got more efficient through rather drastic changes in labor without having to adopt much of anything John had advocated on the tech side -- fully distributed power, fuel tenders, two-pipe brakes, large diameter wheels, semi-permanently coupled consists of the freight cars, side-transfer container gear, containers and rubber tires in place of boxcars and hump yards, and so on.
I also want to know what John's selective values are not shared by the rest of us. Honest day's pay for an honest day's work? That management, for whatever the faults of unions, is ultimately responsible for the success of a business and in turn and industry? That technology can be applied to even the most tradition-bound mature industry to bring about gains in productivity and profits? That working smart rather than sitting around whining for a government check makes good business sense, and in the long run, benefits workers and the general public as well?
The other thing about how in democracy that economic or efficiency arguments don't matter, the only thing that matters is the majority vote. That reasoning cuts both ways. If the voters in California, 8 billion in the hole (in the short term) think that spending 40 billion (over a longer term) can make themselves happier in some way, so be it. On the other hand, this tyranny of the majority vote doesn't seem to want to get off dead center on HSR, and 8 billion out of a trillion dollar Simulus is chump change as they say, and a lot of people around here are fuming about "lack of political will" and "how come they have this in France and we can't have this here?"
Fine, if you want to take trains out of the economic arena, where trains are judged by people voting with their spending money, and place trains in the political arena, where trains are judged by people voting in November, then accept the consequences of this alternate system. If people want HSR in California, fine, let that be a laboratory of one state among many and see how it turns out. If people are relatively indifferent to trains, fine, accept the wisdom of the electorate and stop fuming about "Concrete Lobby" conspiracies thwarting democracy and about "national shame" that voters in France decide to have things that we don't have here.
[
Railway Man A distinction only in this debating society!
This debating society only meets on Groundhog Day....
oltmannd Sam1 I am, however, open to new evidence. Please direct me to the authoritative references you claim but have not cited for the independently audited studies showing that high speed rail, as proposed, will cover its operating costs and contribute something to the capital investment. By independent audit I mean the numbers have been audited by a large, independent accounting firm, e.g. PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, Deloitte, etc. that does not have a stake in the outcome. Most perspectives are a function of opinions. Whether an investment in high speed rail is a good idea or a bad idea; whether it will cover its costs or won't, is an opinion. Opinions that are backed-up with verifiable, independently audit data carry more weight with me than those that lack the support. The midwest governors that hired contractors to do the study of the midwest corridors have a direct stake in the outcome how? Similarly, the contractor's stake in the outcome? Accounting firms don't still look after their buddies in their recently spun-off (by gov't mandate) consulting branches? I'm also not sure exactly how one would audit a ridership model. The process of selecting a model? The input data? The arithmetic?
They would audit the assumptions, estimates, formulas, engineering design, etc. Yes, they have engineers on staff to look at the designs. They would look hard at the controls associated with the predictions for ridership, revenues, costs, etc. Most importantly, they would look at the controls associated with the predictors to verify that the planners and promoters did not change the inputs to produce the desired outcomes.
The auditors, for example, would look hard at the claim that it will cost an average of $55 to go from San Francisco to LAX. They would be suspicious of this number. They know that a range of probabilities is more realistic than a hard number in predicting fares, revenues, costs, etc.
Every major project in my employer's operations was audited independently to verify that it had a high probability of achieving what the sponsors said it would achieve. In many instances we found that they have sugar coated the projections. Once people have invested a lot of time and interest in a project, they tend to put on rose colored glasses about it. They assume the best outcomes rather than negative or more realistic outcomes. Auditors lift these problems up to management.
The audit function of the big accounting firms is independent of the consulting function. Since the Enron debacle, auditors have been constrained significantly in what they can discuss with employees in the consulting side of the business. The American Society of Certified Public Accountants, which has a robust code of ethics, comes down very hard on firms that violate the separation of auditing and consulting.
I would disagree with US rail technology being stuck in a rut. We have the test center in Pueblo since the late 1970's that has done a ton of work. Examples are things like wheel-rail dynamics and metallurgy that facilitated raising car load limits to 286,000 pounds, turnout design, and crash-worthiness. This has served as a test platform for both freight and passenger equipment from here and abroad.
I don't think some revolutionary development is needed to save railroads. We have the knowledge we need. One problem is implementation with a privatized rail transportation sector operating in a strict direct cost and revenue environment irrespective of public benefits and needs. Another is that, while the number of players has dramatically fallen, each railroad wields significant economic influence over the direction and choice of technologies that must be brought into consensus such as with Positive Train Control.
The Turbo Train was a US refinement of the Xplorer after learning from the Talgo and Aerotrain almost forty years ago. The Turbo Train also failed in part because of the small scale of the program being unable to support the maitenance infrastructure.
Sam1The auditors, for example, would look hard at the claim that it will cost an average of $55 to go from San Francisco to LAX. They would be suspicious of this number. They know that a range of probabilities is more realistic than a hard number in predicting fares, revenues, costs, etc
This type of work is typically done in studies tho' often does not make final reports. Auditors, internal and external are very useful, but no panacea. I've seen them in action around here. They get some stuff right, but sometimes miss the big stuff.
Bunches of them apparently missed the same risk assessment as everyone else at Bear Stearns, AIG, etc.
Codes of ethics, et. al. aside, VP Larry and VP Bob may now be in separate ventures, auditing and consulting, but they are buddies from way back, and each knows what sauce is good for the other's goose! (they don't even have to whisper it at the country club...)
About all a RR consultant will get from "cooking" a study, is another study to do.
You can follow the genesis of studies to support a commuter rail line here; http://www.garail.com/Pages/Rprts.html
None of the corridor/HSR projects (except VA/NC) are as far along as these, but these are typical.
Sam: I've never not seen a back-check on a railway feasibility study or public-benefits study, before one cent of public money was awarded. If it's an industry initiative that spends state money, typically a competitor to the consultant that prepared the study is engaged by the state. If it's a state initiative that spends federal money, typically the feds do their own back-check or hire a sharpshooter to poke holes in it. If it's a federal initiative that spends federal money, then the nature of the back-check depends on the specific law that grants the money, but I've never seen a funding mechanism that didn't have a built-in back-check.
One of the greatest days in my career was the day I dismantled a state's consultant over the course of a four-hour hearing, piece by piece. He didn't understand a thing about rail traffic patterns, markets, rates, or shippers. My boss was practically dancing around in the conference room in glee.
RWM: I am wondering if state and federal politicals conducted any feasibility studies [and back check] on the building of an interstate highway system back in the 50's.
I hate to have to keep going back to the development of the IHS in the 1950's (hind sight is always 20/20!), but the development of an Interstate Railway System will probibly develope along the same fromat. Where did the railroad industry stand with regards to spending federal tax money on a IHS system? Is there any historical data?
I recall recently that a comment was made with regards to there being a military or strategic value to the building of the IHS. Suppose, between now and 2016 there is a military/strategic/economic value for a nation wide rail network? What, in your opinion, would have to change in Washington, or in the overall economy, to get businesses and the traveling public behind the creation of an HSR/IRSA network?
P.A.TalbotRWM: I am wondering if state and federal politicals conducted any feasibility studies [and back check] on the building of an interstate highway system back in the 50's. I hate to have to keep going back to the development of the IHS in the 1950's (hind sight is always 20/20!), but the development of an Interstate Railway System will probibly develope along the same fromat. Where did the railroad industry stand with regards to spending federal tax money on a IHS system? Is there any historical data? I recall recently that a comment was made with regards to there being a military or strategic value to the building of the IHS. Suppose, between now and 2016 there is a military/strategic/economic value for a nation wide rail network? What, in your opinion, would have to change in Washington, or in the overall economy, to get businesses and the traveling public behind the creation of an HSR/IRSA network?
Cost-benefit studies are not required for most highway projects funded with federal dollars. They are for rail projects, however, as I noted above.
The rail industry was in favor of the Interstate Highway bill so long as trucks paid for their fully allocated costs. There's a good write-up of the history of the bill on the FHWA website.
I have no idea what would have to change in Washington to create any sort of new agency or authority.
P.A.Talbot RWM: I am wondering if state and federal politicals conducted any feasibility studies [and back check] on the building of an interstate highway system back in the 50's. I hate to have to keep going back to the development of the IHS in the 1950's (hind sight is always 20/20!), but the development of an Interstate Railway System will probibly develope along the same fromat. Where did the railroad industry stand with regards to spending federal tax money on a IHS system? Is there any historical data? I recall recently that a comment was made with regards to there being a military or strategic value to the building of the IHS. Suppose, between now and 2016 there is a military/strategic/economic value for a nation wide rail network? What, in your opinion, would have to change in Washington, or in the overall economy, to get businesses and the traveling public behind the creation of an HSR/IRSA network?
The Interstate Highway System was a 1950s solution to a transportation problem. Those who claim that we should develop a similar passenger rail system in this century, i.e. NARP, have adopted a solution chasing a problem perspective.
The key question is what type of passenger rail system, if any, should taxpayers help fund in 2009? And how much can they afford? What is the real problem? This is how a viable business would approach the problem.
My vote is for short, relatively high density corridors where the cost to build additional airway and highway capacity is cost prohibitive. The corridors should be capable of speeds that make taking the train more attractive than driving, but I don't see the need for high speed rail. It is too bloody expensive for the results.
I cannot think of a scenario where railroads might play any more significant role with some interstate rail system. The only real sea-lift capacity is with container shipping which is on par with current railroad capacity; and the Air Force has some capacity, but well below what railroads could deliver.
For emergency reponse to natural disasters, it's unlikely that an interstate system would go somewhere not served by the existing primary mainline rail network or be significantly closer.
Don't even think of railroads in the event of a war or rebellion on US territory. Railroads are too susceptible to sabotage and mobile attack from the ground and air beginning with Andrew's Raid/The Great Locomotive Chase to Allied bombing of railroads and bridges crippling the European railways and Nazi logistics.
Railway Man Sam: I've never not seen a back-check on a railway feasibility study or public-benefits study, before one cent of public money was awarded. If it's an industry initiative that spends state money, typically a competitor to the consultant that prepared the study is engaged by the state. If it's a state initiative that spends federal money, typically the feds do their own back-check or hire a sharpshooter to poke holes in it. If it's a federal initiative that spends federal money, then the nature of the back-check depends on the specific law that grants the money, but I've never seen a funding mechanism that didn't have a built-in back-check. One of the greatest days in my career was the day I dismantled a state's consultant over the course of a four-hour hearing, piece by piece. He didn't understand a thing about rail traffic patterns, markets, rates, or shippers. My boss was practically dancing around in the conference room in glee. RWM
My question pertained to an independent audit of the claims for the various high speed rail projects, whatever that really means, that are on the table. I am particularly interested in the California High Speed Rail project, since it appears to be the poster child for high speed rail projects.
I presume by back check that you mean an independent audit of the project. Clearly, if the audit is performed by someone who does not understand the subject matter, the audit is worthless. This is the reason that the big accounting firms either use the engineers on their staffs or engage independent consulting engineers, like my brother, when auditing an engineering project.
In the case of the California High Speed Rail project, or any of the others, I would like to see an audit of the claimed ridership, revenues, fares, etc., which would show whether the government had any chance of recovering its investment. Waiting until the project is completed or the government has invested heavily in it is a bit late.
Sam1My question pertained to an independent audit of the claims for the various high speed rail projects, whatever that really means, that are on the table. I am particularly interested in the California High Speed Rail project, since it appears to be the poster child for high speed rail projects. I presume by back check that you mean an independent audit of the project. Clearly, if the audit is performed by someone who does not understand the subject matter, the audit is worthless. This is the reason that the big accounting firms either use the engineers on their staffs or engage independent consulting engineers, like my brother, when auditing an engineering project. In the case of the California High Speed Rail project, or any of the others, I would like to see an audit of the claimed ridership, revenues, fares, etc., which would show whether the government had any chance of recovering its investment. Waiting until the project is completed or the government has invested heavily in it is a bit late.
The check is done on the original ridership, cost, revenue, technical feasibility studies. The studies are then revised, if required, to reflect the check. If the study says, for example, that farebox cost recovery of operating is 40% and capital is 0%, I am comfortable with that study being reasonably correct.
I am not aware of any of the big accounting firms doing transportation feasibility study analysis. I've never encountered them. There are a number of engineering and economics firms that do this regularly. Some of them are integrated engineering/economics firms. They may not be brand-name in your world but they are in mine. I have no idea if the big accounting firms would do better. The experience of the Class 1s with them has been negative, as I understand.
But this is just a piece of the larger study, which is the alternatives analysis -- if the decision is don't build the rail system, what will be required for investment in highways, airports, etc.? Or the economic, environmental, and social cost of doing nothing at all? Alternatives analysis is required on many rail studies prior to federal or state dollars being awarded. I can't summarize all the various rules because there are multiple agencies involved, and I'm by no means the expert on the regulatory environment. It is equally simplistic to say "high-speed rail can never pay for itself" as it is to say "high-speed rail is the only obviously good alternative." Neither is necessarily true. Alternatives analysis is required.
The motor fuel tax may be grossly unfair to autos compared to trucks with respect to road degradation. On that issue, technology is available for a solution.
Transponder technology was being considered as a means for measuring travel in cities, especially congested downtowns. Working in the rail industry at the time the tansponder tags were being applied to freight cars and locomotives, it seemed then to offer a way to track, record and tax road vehicle and trailer movement.
On the other hand, much auto travel in a city or metropolitan area is, or should be, a discretionary mode choice with the availability of public transit, so the fuel tax does serve as a disincentive. City population greatly exceeds rural, and much of the rural population travels to a city destination in the course of a year.
Railway Man Sam1 My question pertained to an independent audit of the claims for the various high speed rail projects, whatever that really means, that are on the table. I am particularly interested in the California High Speed Rail project, since it appears to be the poster child for high speed rail projects. I presume by back check that you mean an independent audit of the project. Clearly, if the audit is performed by someone who does not understand the subject matter, the audit is worthless. This is the reason that the big accounting firms either use the engineers on their staffs or engage independent consulting engineers, like my brother, when auditing an engineering project. In the case of the California High Speed Rail project, or any of the others, I would like to see an audit of the claimed ridership, revenues, fares, etc., which would show whether the government had any chance of recovering its investment. Waiting until the project is completed or the government has invested heavily in it is a bit late. The check is done on the original ridership, cost, revenue, technical feasibility studies. The studies are then revised, if required, to reflect the check. If the study says, for example, that farebox cost recovery of operating is 40% and capital is 0%, I am comfortable with that study being reasonably correct. I am not aware of any of the big accounting firms doing transportation feasibility study analysis. I've never encountered them. There are a number of engineering and economics firms that do this regularly. Some of them are integrated engineering/economics firms. They may not be brand-name in your world but they are in mine. I have no idea if the big accounting firms would do better. The experience of the Class 1s with them has been negative, as I understand. But this is just a piece of the larger study, which is the alternatives analysis -- if the decision is don't build the rail system, what will be required for investment in highways, airports, etc.? Or the economic, environmental, and social cost of doing nothing at all? Alternatives analysis is required on many rail studies prior to federal or state dollars being awarded. I can't summarize all the various rules because there are multiple agencies involved, and I'm by no means the expert on the regulatory environment. It is equally simplistic to say "high-speed rail can never pay for itself" as it is to say "high-speed rail is the only obviously good alternative." Neither is necessarily true. Alternatives analysis is required. RWM
Sam1 My question pertained to an independent audit of the claims for the various high speed rail projects, whatever that really means, that are on the table. I am particularly interested in the California High Speed Rail project, since it appears to be the poster child for high speed rail projects. I presume by back check that you mean an independent audit of the project. Clearly, if the audit is performed by someone who does not understand the subject matter, the audit is worthless. This is the reason that the big accounting firms either use the engineers on their staffs or engage independent consulting engineers, like my brother, when auditing an engineering project. In the case of the California High Speed Rail project, or any of the others, I would like to see an audit of the claimed ridership, revenues, fares, etc., which would show whether the government had any chance of recovering its investment. Waiting until the project is completed or the government has invested heavily in it is a bit late.
The key is an independent audit or check. It would not have to be done by a big accounting firm; this is just an example. The big accounting firms have the expertise to look at financial projections. They would not second guess the designers; they would verify the financial projections, which is what really concerns me.
Comparing alternative investments in transport infrastructure, including doing nothing, is a valid argument, although comparative studies would be difficult to coordinate. They would require so many estimates that the validity of the studies would be questionable.
I am not aware of any high speed railway project that has paid for itself through the fare box. In fact, in this country, outside of a few tourist operations, passenger rail does not cover its costs. Amtrak as an example has required more than $25 billion in federal taxpayer monies since its inception to stay afloat. Thus, the probability that a high speed rail project can recover its costs from the users, based on experience, is not great.
Again, I did not say that high speed rail could not recover its costs; I said that there is scant probability of its doing so. Experience is a reasonable predictor or at least starting point, although not absolute, of future outcomes.
Adding capacity for fast regional intercity rail service isn't cheap, if not prohibitive. Existing infrastructure is not totally written off; and new right of way does not have to be acquired displacing current residents and businesses. Crossing gates, train wayside signals, and platforms, shelters, and other accouterments need to be relocated, parking and landscaping modified, if not replaced after the reconstruction; overhead bridges need modification for a third track and undergrade bridges need additional spans and piers and often modification to existing abutments; and the additional track may require a retaining wall.
More and faster trains multiply the need for grade separation to eliminate excessive delays. Grade separation brings further costs and disruptions for new bridges, fortemporary trackage and crossing signals, and for station reconstruction.
Another reality about high speed rail is that it does not eliminate local rail services on existing lines that feed or are augmented by the high sped service for longer trips. Many potential Midwest, Texas, and Southeast routes have no service yet; and most are quite modest with only 1-3 round trips.
Interesting thread and a good read with passion from all sides. I will just make a few points/observations if I may:
- How many airports/ roads will be built be private investors if all the services connecting them had to be paid for as well - such as connecting roads and the like and not supplied by the state? In major infrastructure projects there is always a taxpayer element whether "up front" or implied to mix my English.
- I would say it would be mighty difficult extrapolating current airfares and then comparing them to a notional cost after the building of a High Speed Link now. That to my mind doesn't work. HS1 in the UK cost £9bn which is a fair few quidto say the least. Eurostar has around 80% of the London - Paris market and that in turn has benefit trade-offs for the airlines as they now use the slots for more lucrative long distance traffic. Plus the millions who use the train use a great deal of PT to access the stations unlike driving - as taking the train is the safer bet that in turn yields benefits which should be externalized in terms of congestion bashing, accident reduction and general all round quality of life (a nebulous concept maybe - but anybody who fights their way in Heathrow along the M4 will nod their head here).
- Some of the best studies which show rail/road costs come from New Zealand. Pity the recently elected National govt has shown every intent on ignoring them. Mind you the flogged the system in the 80's to the private sector which showed great opportunity to prove its worth by asset stripping.
- I am sure the HSR will use yield management like the airlines. If the cost is say, $30 more for a return trip; then perhaos that will be acceptable in terms of opportunity cost - you can achieve alot more on the train then the plane I find in terms of work. There is generally more space and I find it easier to concentrate. But that is just me.Plus the CBD - CBD element helps as you dont have to fight your way through 45 minutes of traffic to reach your destination....
Finally. Go French. They have the technology, the same gauge and the trains. Just ask Alstom to set up a manufacturing facility and through a few Euros at a research facility at a University somewhere. You could have the trainsets in 7 years. Just in time for the frst stages to be opened. I look forward to travelling on the line - best of luck.
Many of us agree with you, but there are a few, I won't mention any names, who subscribe to the belief system that anything that cannot be quantified in the ledger does not exist.
Phoebe Vet Many of us agree with you, but there are a few, I won't mention any names, who subscribe to the belief system that anything that cannot be quantified in the ledger does not exist.
You mean the intangible benefits of passenger trains such as strangers chatting with each other in lounge cars?
Or benefits to society beyond the individual railroad passenger, such as savings in oil, which are quantifiable in an accounting ledger, where my calculation that the investment recommended by the Vision Report required 50 times the cost per unit of oil than waging overseas war in protection of overseas supplies went unchallenged?
The problem is that a certain subset of the general population really like trains and really like riding on trains, but for the great unwashed masses out there in the voting populace, a train is just a long bus, as is an airplane or all that matters. One may like trains and ascribe all manners of advantages and intangible benefits to them, but the average person in the U.S. doesn't, so one become embarassed that America doesn't have HSR, only the feeling is not so much as embarassment as resentment that more people don't share that feeling.
One is only going to get more trains if larger numbers of people are persuaded of their benefits, and the minds of the people you need to change are not the people who call themselves Sam1, Paul Milenkovic, or some other names on this forum. The people who need to be persuaded of this are people who don't give trains much a second thought. And these people are not going to respond to scoldings that the "lack the will" to "invest money in trains" in the manner of people in Taiwan, Germany, and South Korea. If that were the case, the Florida and Texas HSR plans would have gotten more traction.
There is one strand of passenger train advocacy that believes there is such inherent goodness in trains and believes in a "if you build it, they will come, so let's spend whatever amount of money it takes" philosophy. Another strand believes that we should look at costs and concentrate advocacy on projects that bring the best return in whatever quantifiable matter -- passenger miles, gallons of oil saved, reduced air pollution -- for the public dollars spent.
That there is such a "let's spend whatever money it takes" with the corollary "if we don't spend whatever money it takes, we are collectively fools or idiots" sentiment is one that makes me much more pessimistic that we will ever get more trains than the penny-counting accountants who advocate that rail money be spent wisely.
If people in the advocacy community are seriously looking over nearly 40 years of Amtrak and willing to discuss what works and what doesn't and what to do next, I see hope for more trains. If people in the advocacy community take the line "just give us more money as you have for every other pressure group", the prospects for anything changing from the course Amtrak has taken (continually shrinking route map) looks dim.
Fighting traffic, or rather, not having to fight traffic, is advanced as an intangible advantage to the train. We are not talking about taking people off the road in enough numbers so there is less strain on the road; perhaps we are saying for the people willing to take the train, there will be a better experience.
Recently I overheard a student at one of the computers chatting on a cell phone with a friend, expressing the belief that HSR lines should be built in highway medians, and this person expressed the view that great satisfaction will be gotten riding the train and zipping past all of the poor souls stuck in traffic in the cars.
The motorist or auto passenger may be stuck in traffic and spend a portion of their journey waiting. But what about having to get to the train station early to catch a scheduled train, say the one for which you have a reduced fare demand managed ticket? And then having to sit around go nowhere waiting for the train? And then having to queue up to board the train? And then having the conductor sit you (say, a college aged man) next to a portly older woman rather than a more attractive and perfumed younger woman?
People talk about "road rage" on the highways, but is there "seat rage" on common carriers? I remember taking a kind of underground train ride on this kind of mining railway used in a tourist cave in Slovenia. When the train pulled into the boarding area, there was this mad dash "for the best seats." Mind you, as a dummer Americanische (people in Slovenia, by the way, seem to understand the dialect of German I speak, which is unintelligble in Germany), I didn't know what the best seats were because they were all hard, wooden benches on an open-sided narrowgauge railway car, and there were more than enough seats that my father and I waited for the rush to settle down before boarding the train, but the fact that there was this seat-rush reflex in people suggested that people had been conditioned this way riding many other kinds of trains.
Judging by the tone, not the content, of the reply, I must have hit a nerve.
I do not disagree with much of what you said, but I believe that you have tried to focus what I said earlier about being embarrassed that the USA is falling behind the rest of the world in most technology, narrowly onto trains.
If you look at the Amtrak corridors that work well they all have one thing in common. The trains are fast, frequent, and run more or less on time.
I have worked for the government. I know politicians always try to do too much with too little and the project winds up being useless. If Amtrak is given money to "expand" they will use it to add more once a day trains to new destinations or just buy some replacement equipment for the existing inadequate system. What they need to do is take one corridor at a time and bring it up to a quality operation...frequent, fast, on time. Then move on to the next corridor and repeat.
Five trains a day on one corridor is better than one train a day on five corridors.
Sam1The Interstate Highway System was a 1950s solution to a transportation problem
What was the problem? Too much rail traffic? Commuter traffic?
In my opinion, all the IHS did was short-circuit the building of state tollways. In 1955, you could already drive from Boston, NY and Phila to Chicago on limited access highways.
There were decent US highways across the unpopulated prarie, and without the IHS, quite a few more toll roads would likely have been built in the near mid-west.
You might be able to say the IHS was a "good idea" but it didn't solve any problem where solutions weren't already at hand.
The highway system as we knew it in 1950 was a two lane concrete road clogged with trucks, buses, and cars through the middle of towns and other built up areas with a best speed limit of 50mph in open country and a snails pace from traffic light to traffic light in towns, villages, and cities. It was a road and system so different from the Interstate Highway as we know it today that you cannot compare it. It is amazing how different life and times were before 1940, duirng the war years, right immdiately after the war, the intrim 50's to 60's, followed by the jet age and the interstate highways. I am amused at how a thepost 1965 generation have difficulties understandiing really how different things were in the preceeding decades.
The highway system as we knew it in 1950 was a two lane concrete road clogged with trucks, buses, and cars through the middle of towns and other built up areas with a best speed limit of 50mph in open country and a snails pace from traffic light to traffic light in towns, villages, and cities. It was a road and system so different from the Interstate Highway as we know it today that you cannot compare it. It is amazing how different life and times were before 1940, duirng the war years, right immdiately after the war, the intrim 50's to 60's, followed by the jet age and the interstate highways. I am amused at how the post 1965 generation has difficulties understandiing really how different things were in the preceeding decades.
Notwithstanding that Interstates can have some fairly sharp curves and may not be the best choice for HSR, nothing will infuriate drivers in stop-n-go urban traffic more than seeing a train that doesn't stop near them going by in the median with 200-300 passengers once an hour and wonder rightly why there couldn't be another lane instead to relieve congestion.
Similarly, why should Metra bend over backward for a 70-75 minute express from Milwaukee with even 350 passengers when 30 minute or less frequencies are needed in both peak and off-peak directions for 7,000 commuters in the peak hour? Ironically, the one full Hiawatha takes almost as long as it would with a longer train making a few additional suburban stops that could pick up another 700 commuters.
Is that because Amtrak only has one or two guys to work on this? Is there some skepticism or jealousy about outsourcing to consultants.
HarveyK400I would disagree with US rail technology being stuck in a rut. We have the test center in Pueblo since the late 1970's that has done a ton of work. Examples are things like wheel-rail dynamics and metallurgy that facilitated raising car load limits to 286,000 pounds, turnout design, and crash-worthiness. This has served as a test platform for both freight and passenger equipment from here and abroad.I don't think some revolutionary development is needed to save railroads. We have the knowledge we need. One problem is implementation with a privatized rail transportation sector operating in a strict direct cost and revenue environment irrespective of public benefits and needs. Another is that, while the number of players has dramatically fallen, each railroad wields significant economic influence over the direction and choice of technologies that must be brought into consensus such as with Positive Train Control.The Turbo Train was a US refinement of the Xplorer after learning from the Talgo and Aerotrain almost forty years ago. The Turbo Train also failed in part because of the small scale of the program being unable to support the maitenance infrastructure.
IIRC, the Pueblo, CO, test center used to be a high speed ground transportation research center. IMHO it is today only a shadow of what it might have been if our nation had had a policy of promoting research and development in ground transportation.
henry6 The highway system as we knew it in 1950 was a two lane concrete road clogged with trucks, buses, and cars through the middle of towns and other built up areas with a best speed limit of 50mph in open country and a snails pace from traffic light to traffic light in towns, villages, and cities. It was a road and system so different from the Interstate Highway as we know it today that you cannot compare it. It is amazing how different life and times were before 1940, duirng the war years, right immdiately after the war, the intrim 50's to 60's, followed by the jet age and the interstate highways. I am amused at how the post 1965 generation has difficulties understandiing really how different things were in the preceeding decades.
Was this everywhere? Or, just mostly east of the Mississippi? I remember driving west in the late 60's and early 70s' while the interstates were being built. Even with the induced traffic from the 1/2 complete interstates, the 2 lane US highway stretches weren't that bad. Certainly not at capacity, anyway.
Of course, I grew up on Long Island and South Jersey were highways were built by the state and paid for primarily with toll money. I've always suspected, that w/o the IHS, we'd have eventually had a pretty good network of highways east of the Miss., except for some or the rural south, perhaps, and some in TX and some in CA. At the very least, the IHS distorted the existing marketplace for transportation.
This is EXACTLY what some suggest that we should do with passenger rail, except I believe that on the whole, the IHS was a good thing. I also believe that Federal investment in regional "American HSR" corridors icould be a good thing, too!
Yes, pretty much so. I also grew up in the NY Metropolitan area...b NYC1943, grew up in North Jersey leaving for college upstate NY in the early 60s. Route 46 from the George Washington Bridge to the Delaware Water Gap was the two lanes from Denville, NJ 42 miles west to the Dleaware River and four lanes from Denville 32 miles east to the Hudson River. In either direction good hour's trek, longer duirng rush hours and weekends. Likewise, Route 611 wound up and over th Poconos, through the Waterr Gap and the town, then downtown Stroudsburg before climbing up and over the Poconos. North from NYC it was Route 9, south to Trenton and Philadelphia it was Route 1. Imagine travelling across NY, before the Thruway, either by traveling north on two lane 9 to to lane 20 across to Hamburg, or further north to 5 and west along the Mowhawk and downtown Amsterdam LIttle Falls, Utica, Syrcuse, Auburn, etc. all the way to Buffalo. Maybe Route 17 west off 9 thorugh NY's Southern Tier could take you through the mountans and villages all the way to Jamestown before petering out and you having to find a two lane country road to Erie. Likewise there were routes like 4 and 22 across PA prior to the Turnpike. Did a charter bus trip south to Lynchburg, VA, Roanoake, Morristown, Athens and Nashville, TN up to eastern KY to Buchannon, WVA,, Carlisle, PA and back to Jersey on the likes of Rt 11 and 19 and so many other two lane concrete highways in 1959 or 60...and yes it was virtually all like that. Robert Moses was only a NYC figure and thus LI and the Metropolitan area was deep in four lane parkways by then, but the Eisenhower Interstate system was just getting off the drawing board. The old 46 to 611 to 11 Denville to Binghamton, a four or five hour drive is now a simple two hour flight up 80 to 380 to 81...but that was not complete until the late 60s. NY Route 17, as a four lane from Suffern to Jamestown was not completed until the 90s.
Phoebe Vet Judging by the tone, not the content, of the reply, I must have hit a nerve. I do not disagree with much of what you said, but I believe that you have tried to focus what I said earlier about being embarrassed that the USA is falling behind the rest of the world in most technology, narrowly onto trains. If you look at the Amtrak corridors that work well they all have one thing in common. The trains are fast, frequent, and run more or less on time. I have worked for the government. I know politicians always try to do too much with too little and the project winds up being useless. If Amtrak is given money to "expand" they will use it to add more once a day trains to new destinations or just buy some replacement equipment for the existing inadequate system. What they need to do is take one corridor at a time and bring it up to a quality operation...frequent, fast, on time. Then move on to the next corridor and repeat. Five trains a day on one corridor is better than one train a day on five corridors.
In the Chicago neighborhood where I come from, if someone had mentioned something about the tone of a reply, one could get the response, "Tone of my reply? Why, I've got the tone of my reply . . . right here!"
Let's see, if someone had taken the (inflation-corrected) half billion/year spent on the LD subsidies from the beginnings of Amtrak, one could have had enough money to do four entire Midwest Regional Rail Initiatives, that is four entire hub networks of corridors of 110 MPH trains with up to 10-daily-in-each-direction frequencies, carrying more than double the current Amtrak passenger-mile volume and without ongoing operating subsidies.
So I guess you and Sam1 are reading from the same page after all and everything is now civil and harmonious in the land of passenger train advocacy.
I can remember when we had to take 99 from Seattle to Vancouver a distance of 120 miles and with the stop and go traffic through the cities and the old two lane roadway it took five hours. This included crossing the border. After several trips this way my dad decided it would be cheaper to take the train and not fight the traffic. We rode the GN Internationals and the schedule was four hours. Today with I-5 one can drive between the two cities with border crossing included in 3 hours or less. This is why the GN went from three daily Internationals to one. At one time there was another option the CPR triangle route using there Coastal Steamships. They offered two services daily overnight was the nicest as you could get a cabin on the ships and go to sleep in the evening and wake up arriving in Vancouver the next AM. The day ships took eight hours including the stop in Victoria. Of course the planes only take 1/2 hour but Vancouvers airport is quite a way from downtown as is Seattles. So the downtown to downtown time flying with customs clearance and all is closer to four hours today. The Amtrak train does the trip with customs clearance and all in 3 hours. THe only point I am trying to make is there is only a certain amount of time that will be saved on a route such as this if they invest in HSR, do to the customs clearance.
Paul Milenkovic Let's see, if someone had taken the (inflation-corrected) half billion/year spent on the LD subsidies from the beginnings of Amtrak, one could have had enough money to do four entire Midwest Regional Rail Initiatives, that is four entire hub networks of corridors of 110 MPH trains with up to 10-daily-in-each-direction frequencies, carrying more than double the current Amtrak passenger-mile volume and without ongoing operating subsidies.
Or lets take that same money and see how much highway could have been built to what standard for the same length of the LD train operation or comperable 110 MPH trains. I ask just for the sake of arguement because I don't know but it seems pertenent in some way.
Definetly five trains a day is better than one. Five trains a day is service, one is political pay off.
One train a day lets people escape a very long, expensive cab ride.
Seriously, one train a day certainly is a compromise when revenue doesn't come near expenses. With time, short-distance corridors have proven to be not much less a burden than other transport, it encourages travel without the hassle of urban driving and expensive parking, contributes to reducing road use in congested areas, and generally provides a modest reduction in emissions.
Southern California has reached the saturation point where freeways are concerned. The cost to add any additional lanes is with the purchase of the land and all is going to be somewhere around 200 million per mile. So southern California has reached the point where something has to be done and Metrolink has been a major asset to the freeways. Now Californians and there need for speed are talking about the 220 mph HSR system between LA and SF. Cost for the entire system is estimated at 40 billion and the first 10 billion in bonds should go on sale within the next two months. The system as envisioned is very elaborate and probably more costly than as necessary. Recent articles in area newspapers are saying now is the time to aquire the ROW as real estate prices are 50% or less than they were so that means the ROW can probably be purchased for 8 billion rather than 16 billion. That seems like a substantial savings. So why are they not offering the bonds now and purchasing this ROW before it goes up again? I for one am beginning to wonder what is going on with the HSR is there something they haven't told the people. With the number of Californians without jobs approaching 11% I say lets get started.
HarveyK400 One train a day lets people escape a very long, expensive cab ride. Seriously, one train a day certainly is a compromise when revenue doesn't come near expenses. With time, short-distance corridors have proven to be not much less a burden than other transport, it encourages travel without the hassle of urban driving and expensive parking, contributes to reducing road use in congested areas, and generally provides a modest reduction in emissions.
Depends on the train...if a town is served in the middle of the night once a day, then, no. But if it is a commuter train or commuter type service on a daily basis, it might be. If it is like some Canadian services weekly or everyother day or whatever because there are no roads or you walk then it is the only way, it is a service. But to have a train run point to point just to say you are running a train is actually pointless and can be considered a non service.
passengerfanSouthern California has reached the saturation point where freeways are concerned. The cost to add any additional lanes is with the purchase of the land and all is going to be somewhere around 200 million per mile. So southern California has reached the point where something has to be done and Metrolink has been a major asset to the freeways. Now Californians and there need for speed are talking about the 220 mph HSR system between LA and SF. Cost for the entire system is estimated at 40 billion and the first 10 billion in bonds should go on sale within the next two months. The system as envisioned is very elaborate and probably more costly than as necessary. Recent articles in area newspapers are saying now is the time to aquire the ROW as real estate prices are 50% or less than they were so that means the ROW can probably be purchased for 8 billion rather than 16 billion. That seems like a substantial savings. So why are they not offering the bonds now and purchasing this ROW before it goes up again? I for one am beginning to wonder what is going on with the HSR is there something they haven't told the people. With the number of Californians without jobs approaching 11% I say lets get started. Al - in - Stockton
The bonds are being offered! The problem is there are no buyers. California doesn't have very good creditworthiness in the minds of the buying public, it would appear. In fact, hardly anyone other than the U.S. Government is able to sell bonds right now because no one believes that the economy is going to get better any time soon.
That's one reason why large companies such as the automakers and their parts suppliers are so reluctant to declare bankruptcy, which ordinarily is an excellent solution to the problems they are facing. In order to keep the company operating on a going-concern basis the day after bankruptcy is declared, cash is needed to pay the employee's paychecks, the vendors, the electric bill. Cash is obtained by selling bonds which become senior to all other debt of the company. But if there are no buyers for the bonds, then no working capital, then no operations, and liquidation is the only remaining possible outcome. That's a terrible outcome because it drags down all the vendors who no longer have a customer. They cease operations too. The employees of the automakers no longer have a paycheck, and default on their mortgages. The banks that loaned their mortgages go down. And so forth.
Phoebe VetMany of us agree with you, but there are a few, I won't mention any names, who subscribe to the belief system that anything that cannot be quantified in the ledger does not exist.
Hold on for this, sir -- you're wrong, but right. The belief system problem is not that all of the values of passenger rail cannot be quantified on a ledger -- because they can. The belief system problem is that people disagree that some of these values should be quantified.
For example, Bus Rapid Transit is cheaper to construct and operate than Light Rail for the same number of riders moved at the same speed. However, people, as a rule, greatly prefer Light Rail over BRT. One response to that conflict is "lower taxes are more important than people's rapid-transit preferences, so build BRT." Another response is "people's rapid-transit preferences are more important than lower taxes, so build light rail." The first group will argue that if we don't have lower taxes, in the long run we'll ruin the economy and everyone will be worse off. The second group will argue that if we don't build light rail, but instead BRT, we will lower the quality of life which will make people less likely to live and invest in the city, generate less economic activity, and in the long run we will ruin the economy and everyone will be worse off.
I can quantify and monetize either preference and put it into a cost-benefit analysis. But that hardly stops the debate, because whichever side comes out on the losing end of that bottom-line analysis will seek to remove the "bad information" from the ledger, by arguing those values can be reduced to zero by simply forcing people to do something -- pay more taxes, or ride a transit system they do not like.
Neither side to this argument can claim it has exclusive ownership of the "protection of the economy" temple. Both sides are making some very specific claims about the future, one that people will "get used" to BRT and the other that people will "not get used to" BRT. The only guide to which one is correct is historic trends. Cities wondering if they should invest in a transit system, and don't know if they should pick BRT or light-rail, are afraid that if they pick BRT they will lose on the quality-of-life race with other cities and collapse their economy. Or they're afraid if they pick light-rail they'll lose on the tax burden comparison with other cities and collapse their economy. Historically most cities have taken the light-rail bet, because they're thinking that the overall national economy will continue to expand, the quality of life will continue to get better, and they are better to be ahead of that curve than behind. But if you're thinking that the economy will shrink and quality of life will diminish, then maybe BRT looks better.
The high-speed rail or more highways issue is just another flavor of the same stew.
Ideologues use economics for support, not for illumination.
Railway Man Phoebe Vet Many of us agree with you, but there are a few, I won't mention any names, who subscribe to the belief system that anything that cannot be quantified in the ledger does not exist. Hold on for this, sir -- you're wrong, but right. The belief system problem is not that all of the values of passenger rail cannot be quantified on a ledger -- because they can. The belief system problem is that people disagree that some of these values should be quantified. For example, Bus Rapid Transit is cheaper to construct and operate than Light Rail for the same number of riders moved at the same speed. However, people, as a rule, greatly prefer Light Rail over BRT. One response to that conflict is "lower taxes are more important than people's rapid-transit preferences, so build BRT." Another response is "people's rapid-transit preferences are more important than lower taxes, so build light rail." The first group will argue that if we don't have lower taxes, in the long run we'll ruin the economy and everyone will be worse off. The second group will argue that if we don't build light rail, but instead BRT, we will lower the quality of life which will make people less likely to live and invest in the city, generate less economic activity, and in the long run we will ruin the economy and everyone will be worse off. I can quantify and monetize either preference and put it into a cost-benefit analysis. But that hardly stops the debate, because whichever side comes out on the losing end of that bottom-line analysis will seek to remove the "bad information" from the ledger, by arguing those values can be reduced to zero by simply forcing people to do something -- pay more taxes, or ride a transit system they do not like. Neither side to this argument can claim it has exclusive ownership of the "protection of the economy" temple. Both sides are making some very specific claims about the future, one that people will "get used" to BRT and the other that people will "not get used to" BRT. The only guide to which one is correct is historic trends. Cities wondering if they should invest in a transit system, and don't know if they should pick BRT or light-rail, are afraid that if they pick BRT they will lose on the quality-of-life race with other cities and collapse their economy. Or they're afraid if they pick light-rail they'll lose on the tax burden comparison with other cities and collapse their economy. Historically most cities have taken the light-rail bet, because they're thinking that the overall national economy will continue to expand, the quality of life will continue to get better, and they are better to be ahead of that curve than behind. But if you're thinking that the economy will shrink and quality of life will diminish, then maybe BRT looks better. The high-speed rail or more highways issue is just another flavor of the same stew. Ideologues use economics for support, not for illumination. RWM
Nicely said! Choosing A or B or vice versa for a commercial option (passenger rail) generates economic and financial consequences within a value context. Supporters of A will not agree with supporters of B and vice versa. It is part of the human condition. Thus, wherever possible, the market place, or as much of the market place as feasible, should be the final arbiter. It is the best place to let the people decide what they want and what they are willing to pay for.
I am not a free market ideology. It does not fit every situation, i.e. the poles and wires business of electric utilities or local transit system. But I have worked both sides of the fence. I have seen the waste that occurs in a regulated monopoly, much like I perceive occurs in Amtrak, and I have seen how the forces of competition can clean it out.
Every time someone mentions HSR for California, I mentally discount any progress toward actually beginning to move dirt for 2 reasons:
1) California is broke. There simply isn't any market for California debt at anything resembling a reasonable interest rate. I believe both Fitch and S&P rate Cal General Obligations at "A" right now. For some types of projects, this might be overcome by pledging the revenue from the project, but as Sam would point out, that would not work here due to insufficient farebox recovery to even meet operating costs, never mind servicing the debt.
2) No one addresses where the electricity to operate is going to come from. We hear a lot about wind and solar, but those don't seem to match very well with a 24/7 industry. Is California about to allow some dirty old coal plants or (horror) some new nukes?
Dakguy201 Every time someone mentions HSR for California, I mentally discount any progress toward actually beginning to move dirt for 2 reasons: 1) California is broke. There simply isn't any market for California debt at anything resembling a reasonable interest rate. I believe both Fitch and S&P rate Cal General Obligations at "A" right now. For some types of projects, this might be overcome by pledging the revenue from the project, but as Sam would point out, that would not work here due to insufficient farebox recovery to even meet operating costs, never mind servicing the debt. 2) No one addresses where the electricity to operate is going to come from. We hear a lot about wind and solar, but those don't seem to match very well with a 24/7 industry. Is California about to allow some dirty old coal plants or (horror) some new nukes?
We already have one of the eyesore solar fields in the high Mojave Desert and it covers thousands of acres located to the NW of the junctions of HWYs 58 and 395. I have never seen the figures on what this monstrosity cost and whether it will pay for itself or not. But if the President is proposing building dozens of them then he needs to come and see this operating one and I think it might changes his mind. If they build additional solar fields then we are going to lose thousands of acres of farmland that will be needed in the not to distant future.
Having seen most of the Nuclear Power plants that were built in the west even the incomplete plants that were put into mothballs before completion. I can only look at them and shake my head at the tremendous waste of money. And it is my understanding that solar and wind are two of the more expensive means of generating electricity and if the court action regarding the migrating birds in California is lost by the electric companies wind is about to get much more expensive. Maybe Sam 1 has some comparison figures on electric production from hydroelectric, Nuclear, Coal, Gas, solar and wind that could be shared with us. And we have other groups who are trying to get dams removed so the fish can return to there original spawning grounds.
This address will take you to a good comparison of the cost of electric energy in California:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Comparative_electrical_generation_costs
As you will see, determining the comparative cost of electric energy is not simple. It depends on where you live as well as a vareity of industry assumptions.
Sam1 This address will take you to a good comparison of the cost of electric energy in California: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Comparative_electrical_generation_costs As you will see, determining the comparative cost of electric energy is not simple. It depends on where you live as well as a vareity of industry assumptions.
I really appreciate the information you put me onto. But like you say it leaves many questions unanswered and as I mentioned earlier the wind generator promoters may be hitting a very hard wall when there case comes to court versus the bird lovers. If one type of Californias power generation is going to be off line for three months yearly than that means all other types of electrical generation will have to carry the load and that is going to increase electrical costs dramatically.
I have spent the day between tax clients compiling population statistics on the different areas of California. California's estimated overall population is 36,756,666 Southern California's population that will be served by the proposed HSR is 23 million. The Bay area has a population of 4,201,947 and the San Joaquin Valley from Sacramento to Bakersfield has a population of 3,544,895. so nearly 31 million people will be within the area served by the proposed HSR. And by the time it is completed what will the population figures be by then. I have no idea how much electrical power will be necessary for the proposed HSR and I don't think that tose in the know have any idea either. My guess is we have nowhere enough electrical generating capacity at the present time and I think this matter needs to be addressed very carefully before we just jump in with both feet thinking other states will be able to supply the necessary power.
The more I look at California's HSR proposal the more I have second thoughts and I voted for it. I am afraid that like so many other things in California the final costs will be two or three times what original estimates were.
I do think this is the time to be purchasing the ROW as real estate costs are probably never going to be this low again.
Are these costs on account of how things are done in California, or are they nationwide?
I went to a public lecture at the Wisconsin State Historical Society by John Rowe, CEO of Exelon and reputed Friend-of-Barry (i.e. the President of the United States). His talk was favoring nuclear over the other options, and he admitted up front that nuclear is what he and Exelon does.
When he tossed out the line "Oh, a new nuclear plant can put out electricity at 10 cents/kWHr at the bus bar" I groaned from the audience but no one else reacted. Do people not read their electric bill or is the electric bill for most people just something that comes in the mail and they just pay, unless they are in extreme financial distress?
10 cents/kWHr "at the bus bar", yes, I know what that means, I am an electrical engineer, and I visited the Commonwealth Edison central dispatch as an IEEE Student Member back in the day and learned the power company lingo. If you look at your power bill, you see that there is a substantial retail markup. In it is not simply that the electric utility investors are getting rich; to get the power to your house there has to be transmission lines, peaking generators, VAR (reactive power) capacitors, meter readers, repair people, the whole retail end of the power business. My guess is that 10 cents/kWHr at the bus bar is 20 cents/kWHr by the time it reaches my power meter out back.
I am a pretty resourceful person, and I run a Wisconsin house on about 3000 kWHr/year -- the whole shebang, electric range, fridge, TV, hot air gas furnace blower, computer, lights, electric clothes dryer, dishwasher, central air, basement dehumidifier. So what is it to me if electricity goes up to 20 cents and I pay another 200 bucks a year?
What it is to me is that if oil goes back up around $140/barrel, affordable electricity can substitute for oil. My dad heats with oil out in the country, and maybe he could substitute electric heat, if not resistance heating space hearing, perhapst an air-source heat pump for the milder days to use less oil. Someday we will get plug-in hybrid or all-electric cars. Someday we will get electric passenger trains.
It seems that the environmental movement has made a priority of making electricity expensive. Drives conservation, and it indeed it does, and I can tell you all the tricks I use to do what I do on 3000 kWHr/year. But by driving conservation with expensive electricity, we are driving out a whole lot of uses for electricity that could substitute for expensive imported oil, around which we are "wrapped around the axle" as it were supporting an expensive military to defend.
One of the crown jewels of the New Deal was the TVA. Now that was real electric power infrastructure, hydro dams and later coal and nuclear plants. The original idea was cheap power to build of the economy of one of the most economically depressed part of the country. Now we are talking about a New, New Deal. Only this New Deal is not about he-man power, it is not the Socialism of resolute women and men putting their shoulder to getting things done, it is wimpy quiche-eating sissy Socialism of solar and wind power plants, of which no one knows if they can be built on anywhere the required scale and if they can, if they will come anywhere near meeting the requirement of electricity when it is needed.
Back in the day the right wing was all huffy about the TVA, complaining the the gub'mint had not the right to supplant the work of investor-owned power companies and that those companies would eventually get around to doing what the government was doing. That is tapping the great rivers of the Heartland to secretly refine enough uranium to beat the Axis Powers into submission. OK, the TVA was Socialism, but it was a Socialism that was not afraid to drop an atom bomb to save the lives of American soldiers, sailors, and Marines.
It is kind of like the arguments of trains and HSR going on around here. Yes, HSR is a kind of Socialism, but the question is whether it is a kind of proper Socialism invoking the power of government to get what needs done, or is it a kind of namby-pamby cumbayah Peter Paul and Mary Socialism of linking hands to block a highway project or a nuclear power plant?
Yeah, I know people around here believe in the inherent Goodness of Trains and that HSR is the right kind of Socialism, but somewhere in the background I hear Peter Yarrow, Noel Stuckey, and Mary Travers tuning their guitars . . .
I believe that the future of transportation lies in electrical power. That includes railroads, both freight and passenger. I believe that we will use electrical power to make non-polluting liquid fuels where we absolutely must have a liquid (i.e., batteries or wires are not appropriate, as in airplanes). And in electrical power, I believe that the the future lies in renewable sources in the long run and nuclear in the short run. My belief comes from the realization that the long-run costs of fossil fuels, counting taking care of all the effects of their use, will greatly exceed the costs of renewable and nuclear sources of power.
The various cost estimates for nuclear and renewable sources of electricity are so divergent that I can't believe any of them. When people come to so widely different conclusions about the same topic, they lose credibility with me. To forge ahead, we need to get past that situation and work hard on getting some convergence.
Here is one web page on the costs of nuclear power. A search on Google will turn up dozens more; you really need to see for yourself how little consensus there is.
Paul Milenkovic Now we are talking about a New, New Deal. Only this New Deal is not about he-man power, it is not the Socialism of resolute women and men putting their shoulder to getting things done, it is wimpy quiche-eating sissy Socialism of solar and wind power plants, of which no one knows if they can be built on anywhere the required scale and if they can, if they will come anywhere near meeting the requirement of electricity when it is needed.
Now we are talking about a New, New Deal. Only this New Deal is not about he-man power, it is not the Socialism of resolute women and men putting their shoulder to getting things done, it is wimpy quiche-eating sissy Socialism of solar and wind power plants, of which no one knows if they can be built on anywhere the required scale and if they can, if they will come anywhere near meeting the requirement of electricity when it is needed.
I just about fell out of my chair laughing at that one!
I have heard that electric utilities generate roughly twice as much power as they bill, the difference disappearing in line losses of one kind or another. Is that true? If so, is any significant effort being made to reduce these losses?
Dakguy201 Paul Milenkovic Now we are talking about a New, New Deal. Only this New Deal is not about he-man power, it is not the Socialism of resolute women and men putting their shoulder to getting things done, it is wimpy quiche-eating sissy Socialism of solar and wind power plants, of which no one knows if they can be built on anywhere the required scale and if they can, if they will come anywhere near meeting the requirement of electricity when it is needed. I just about fell out of my chair laughing at that one!
Funny stuff!
But, it's even worse. We only want renewables if they have near zero impact on anything and everything. Wind power is good, but be sure to turn it off when the birds fly by. Bio is OK, just don't let any fertilizer into the watershed or pump the aquifers dry. TIdal? And wreak unforseen havoc on tidal wetlands? Nuclear is not OK - ever. Just look at France! (Wait. It works OK in France? Shhhh!)
Progress is nearly always "two steps forward, one step back". Seems we are becoming deathly afraid of "one step back".
The Cal HSR is a joke -- through the Mojave @ 220mph on a 110 Degree day... When the rail is say 140 Degrees... Fat chance... A waste of taxpayer money.....
Cordorn/Dakguy/Paul Milenkovic:
Guys! The connection with HSR to your recent comments is......? [1] Well, anyway, don't be dissing woman or quiche eaters. I made the mistake of going off on a rant and I had to take my lumps. Don't make the same mistake I made.
[2] Nuke energy in its present form is worse than burning coal for energy. Current Nuke power plants operate on the principles of fission, not fusion. The fission process creates spent nuke fuel that creates all kinds of problems; {1} the spent fuel is deadly to all animal and plant life on Earth for 8,000 to 10,000 years, {2} the spent fuel must be stored and GUARDED, {3} look at the trouble the US Gov is having trying to open Yucca Mtn, which will be a global nuke spent fuel depository, {4} a show of hands please, how many want a nuke waste dump down the street from their house? In their county?
[3] Nuke energy is not safe, cheap, or plentyfull, and is not the way to go for HSR/IRSA. North America cannot afford to electrify all rail lines. A portable fuel must be developed to allow for pollution free train travel. Like fuel cell technology. Using solar, wind, geothermal energy to create a hydrogen gas supply...this will power the fuel cell locomotives of the future.
One reason to follow a more direct and faster alignment in the I-5 Corridor.
Then again, temperatures in the Mohave don't get down to 30-below.
I can understand political needs. The Palmdale routing also would facilitate a branch to Las Vegas.
Some writings on the California HSR system refer to a need for sharing use of existing rail facilities. In contrast, Excutive Director Emeritus Rod Diridon said after the Midwest HSRA meeting the whole route from LA to SF would have separate tracks including a new through staion for HSR at LAUPT. This also contradicts a plan for using an upgraded 110 mph San Jose-San Francisco Caltrain line. Sounds to me that some issues still are in dispute.
HarveyK400 One reason to follow a more direct and faster alignment in the I-5 Corridor. Then again, temperatures in the Mohave don't get down to 30-below. I can understand political needs. The Palmdale routing also would facilitate a branch to Las Vegas. Some writings on the California HSR system refer to a need for sharing use of existing rail facilities. In contrast, Excutive Director Emeritus Rod Diridon said after the Midwest HSRA meeting the whole route from LA to SF would have separate tracks including a new through staion for HSR at LAUPT. This also contradicts a plan for using an upgraded 110 mph San Jose-San Francisco Caltrain line. Sounds to me that some issues still are in dispute.
Major problems I have with the proposed system are numerous.
First when did Anahiem become the center of the universe in Southern California. The last time I looked Disney has made no offer to pay for the HSR system from Los Angeles to Anahiem so why should the California taxpayers. I only see the Anahiem station as a direct benefit to Disneyland.
Second California is unable to even get any interest in the first 10 billion of bonds that are on sale now. And now is the time to be buying the ROW. Originally it was estimated that the ROW would be around 16 billion, latest estimates place it closer to 8 billion with the states downturn in real estate values.
Third looking at the progress that has been made in Mag-Lev I have become convinced that a 300 mph system is doable and makes far more sense than a steel wheel on steel rail system with a maximum speed of 220 mph.
Fourth a Mag-lev system should draw no more power than the proposed HSR from what I have been able to learn.
Fifth where the power for any system will come from has not been anywhere near fully addressed as yet. And nowhere does it state where the additional power needs are going to come from. Wind farms are facing a soon to be day in court by bird groups who say thousands of migrating birds are being killed by the wind turbines. If they should win then the Wind Turbines will be out of service for six weeks each spring for the birds to migrate north and six weeks each fall for the southward migration. And speaking of the fifth I don't mind if I pour myself a wee bit of Crown Royal from the one in front of me.
Six is Mag-Lev more expensive yes!. But for the additional speed gain well worth any difference which should not be that great.
In the meantime I am going to take a stand against conventional HSR. And I really don't think it is to late since they have been unable to sell any bonds yet.
I can understand the gripe about Disneyland not stepping up; but Annaheim also has a major pro sports stadium. Transporting fans to sports events also entails reserve capacity for irregular services.
As for maglev, it is essentially dead. The German developer is bankrupt from lack of commercial success and the deadly test track incident; and the test track in Bremen is being dismantled. The Shanghi line that was built has not been commercially successful; and one of the two cars malfunctioned and burned damaging the track and will not be replaced. Ride it now if you can.
Only the Chinese can afford a mistake like maglev in these times.
P.A.Talbot The fission process creates spent nuke fuel that creates all kinds of problems; {1} the spent fuel is deadly to all animal and plant life on Earth for 8,000 to 10,000 years, {2} the spent fuel must be stored and GUARDED, {3} look at the trouble the US Gov is having trying to open Yucca Mtn, which will be a global nuke spent fuel depository, {4} a show of hands please, how many want a nuke waste dump down the street from their house? In their county?
The fission process creates spent nuke fuel that creates all kinds of problems; {1} the spent fuel is deadly to all animal and plant life on Earth for 8,000 to 10,000 years, {2} the spent fuel must be stored and GUARDED, {3} look at the trouble the US Gov is having trying to open Yucca Mtn, which will be a global nuke spent fuel depository, {4} a show of hands please, how many want a nuke waste dump down the street from their house? In their county?
The "trouble" the government is experiencing opening Yucca Mountain is political trouble. Somehow, it seems strange that opponents of the project can point to difficulties caused by themselves as a valid reason for not proceeding.
The Yucca Mountain site was chosen precisely for its remote location and natural stability. It is not down the street from anybody.
Yes, the waste is dangerous and will be for a considerable period of time. Putting it in a central place with a well designed containment system is vastly preferable to leaving it at dozens of locations across the country guarded by a bunch of rent-a-cops.
Unfortunately the Obama Administration apparently has sided with the Luddities and suspended the effort to get rail service to the site.
HarveyK400 I can understand the gripe about Disneyland not stepping up; but Annaheim also has a major pro sports stadium. Transporting fans to sports events also entails reserve capacity for irregular services. As for maglev, it is essentially dead. The German developer is bankrupt from lack of commercial success and the deadly test track incident; and the test track in Bremen is being dismantled. The Shanghi line that was built has not been commercially successful; and one of the two cars malfunctioned and burned damaging the track and will not be replaced. Ride it now if you can. Only the Chinese can afford a mistake like maglev in these times. Power consumption and cost were significantly greater than expected or tollerated. Construction was extremely costly with many synchronized magnets like crossties along the track. Capacity appears limited..
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.