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