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.
Al - in - Stockton
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.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
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.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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."
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.