oltmannd I think that one of the last Amtrak monthly reports I looked at had the Pacific Surfliners and Capitols pretty much covering their costs. Whether this was before or after CA chipped in, I don't recall. None of the short haul routes on Amtrak come close to poor performance of the LD trains. I would like nothing better than to see something , somewhere, get built and cover it's costs in pretty short order. That would turn 30 years of yapping on it's head! It's really important to pick the right project and do a good job with it.
I think that one of the last Amtrak monthly reports I looked at had the Pacific Surfliners and Capitols pretty much covering their costs. Whether this was before or after CA chipped in, I don't recall.
None of the short haul routes on Amtrak come close to poor performance of the LD trains.
I would like nothing better than to see something , somewhere, get built and cover it's costs in pretty short order. That would turn 30 years of yapping on it's head! It's really important to pick the right project and do a good job with it.
For FY 2008 the Pacific Surfliner trains lost $14.7 million or 6.1 cents per passenger mile before interest and depreciation. The Capitols lost $14.2 million or 12.9 cents per passenger mile before interest and depreciation. The statement payments are designed to cover the losses and make Amtrak whole.
Only the NEC trains covered their operating costs. They earned $369 million or 20.7 cents per passenger mile before interest and depreciation. So far this year they are not doing as well, in large part because of the slowdown in the economy and the decrease in the cost of gasoline. The Acela's are still covering their operating costs, but the regionals have slipped into negative territory.
Please don't shoot the messenger. The Midwest Regional Rail System that I'm basing my comments on calls that high speed; and the stimulus bill includes improvements for that level of service as high speed.
Many have hope that a more receptive Administration will hasten very high speed, 220 mph service.
I too think 70-80 mph overall average speeds would be a significant improvement, competitive with driving, and capable of attracting a significant increase in passengers.
I think the former PRR line to Fort Wayne, IN is preferable as well - not that the NS main wouldn't be an acceptable alternative.
Plopping down a third track is expensive, even with existing track beds and bridges; but $3.4M/mi?
Now assuming a third track is added along the NS between Butler, IN and Cleveland and tracks are re-spaced to 20-ft centers, that might bring up the cost. Much of the line had four tracks at one time.
The idea, if I understand, of buying additional easement along the NS would entail substantial dislocation costs as well along much of the line that would make the $1B pale in comparison. Segregating tracks for 220 mph would require the additional easement for a fourth main track and a possible secondary track to serve local freight customers; but is that necessary at this stage for 110 mph service?
Buying the former PRR (don't remember what the current short line is) should not be that much either, and relieve the freight operators of a considerable burden in serving customers.
Dakguy201 "HSR" means different things to different people. Harvey K was using it to mean top speeds in the 110 mph range in the Midwest corridors in the above posting. In the NE corridor, they use it to mean the 150 that the Acelas reach for a short portion of their run. California seems to be referring to something over 200 for the LA/Bay area run. We end up using the same words to describe a large variety of situations. For most corridors I suspect improvements that get the average speed into the high two digits is the realisitic goal, and even then I'm not convinced that it can be done on tracks shared with the freights.
"HSR" means different things to different people. Harvey K was using it to mean top speeds in the 110 mph range in the Midwest corridors in the above posting. In the NE corridor, they use it to mean the 150 that the Acelas reach for a short portion of their run. California seems to be referring to something over 200 for the LA/Bay area run. We end up using the same words to describe a large variety of situations.
For most corridors I suspect improvements that get the average speed into the high two digits is the realisitic goal, and even then I'm not convinced that it can be done on tracks shared with the freights.
When and if the extension from Merced to Sacramento gets built they will also have express trains that run from Sacramento to Stockton then onto LA. Other regional trains on the valley run will stop at Merced Fresno and Bakersfield with any intermediate traffic again being handled by the San Joaquins.
As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago the ROW was originally estimated to cost 16 Billion. There have been several reports in recent days in the area newpapers that the costs for acquiring the necessary ROW now are at 8 Billion.
I for one believe that much of the Presidents Stimulus RR billions will find its way to California with speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi putting on a little pressure.
My understanding now is that one of the biggest stumbling blocks to the California HSR is going to be a shortage of electrical power for the HSR operation. This has not been fully addressed yet.
Al - in - Stockton
HarveyK400Chicago - Cleveland ($1,187M): I cannot fathom the high cost for this corridor. This works out to $3.4M a mile, including the Toledo - Cleveland stretch. Would this include a new additional track along side the existing NS tracks between Fort Wayne and Cleveland? Not be much curve easement would be needed. The map indicates that the former Wabash alignment would be used; but this line was abandonned.
Could it be that the cost includes aquiring the ROW in this case (rather than being a tenant)?
It would be quite a bit cheaper to us the NS Chicago Line and just plop down a third track, but that means you trade Fort Wayne for Elkhart and likely lose the bulk of the Columbus - Chicago traffic.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
HarveyK400 Your negativity, like my pessimism, seems as well-founded on long experience seeing projects of all kinds. Chicago has had more than a fair share of monumental cost overruns, most lately Millennium Park and the Loop Airport Terminal. So far, $150-200M of transit money has been spent on an office tower around and above the Loop Airport Terminal; but there is no tunnel connection between CTA lines, or maybe even the 1-block tunnel, much less tracks and signals.
Your negativity, like my pessimism, seems as well-founded on long experience seeing projects of all kinds. Chicago has had more than a fair share of monumental cost overruns, most lately Millennium Park and the Loop Airport Terminal. So far, $150-200M of transit money has been spent on an office tower around and above the Loop Airport Terminal; but there is no tunnel connection between CTA lines, or maybe even the 1-block tunnel, much less tracks and signals.
For that matter, whatever happened to Chicago's infamous Crosstown Fund that was suppposedly left over after a new experessway paralleling Cicero Avenue never got built? Seems in the Nineties it was turning up occasionally (bad penny, anyone?) only to vanish from practical application in times of these drearily similar budget "crises" at CTA.
I'd love to see the details on the various corridors.
Chicago - Saint Louis ($445M): This corridor would take less than $300M for 110 mph service infrastructure improvements over 70% of the the corridor. Tilt equipment would eliminate the need for curve easement or speed recovery from restrictions.
Chicago - Cleveland ($1,187M): I cannot fathom the high cost for this corridor. This works out to $3.4M a mile, including the Toledo - Cleveland stretch. Would this include a new additional track along side the existing NS tracks between Fort Wayne and Cleveland? Not be much curve easement would be needed. The map indicates that the former Wabash alignment would be used; but this line was abandonned.
Limited service from Chicago could be extended to Pittsburgh and Buffalo from Chicago. 110 mph would be practical for most of the route to Buffalo while speed restrictions for frequent curvature could be reduced with tilt trains on the existing line to Pittsburgh.
A Fort Wayne - Columbus branch offers the most direct route to this major market from Chicago. A high speed connection would be needed west and south of Upper Sandusky for a 110 mph route. This aids a secondary route to Pittsburgh as well, serving Mansfield, Canton, and other cities in route.
Detroit - Pittsburgh, Detroit - Columbus, and Detroit - Dayton - Cincinati services should be added. This would provide missing connections for the "3-C" Cleveland - Columbus - Cincinnati corridor that is not included in the network for reasons unknown by me.
Chicago - Detroit ($873M incl Grand Rapids & Port Huron): From Kalamazoo eastward, 90 mph would be the practical limit with tilt equipment without extensive and costly curve easement. The only 110 mph potential would be Indiana Harbor (East Chicago, IN) - Kalamazoo, MI with few intermediate restrictions.
Chicago - Cincinnati ($606M): The more appropriate primary corridor to Lexington, KY would seem to be by way of Louisville rather than through Cincinnati. More utilization of the Chicago - Indianapolis segment would be possible with the branch to Louisville that could seve a number of small intermediate cities. A Louisville branch would facilitate a round trip to Nashville, TN as well.
While restoring the Big Four Indianapolis - Cincinnati line may achieve faster overall time, it is the most costly and misses better on-line traffic potential. Tilt trains would minimize the time lost for a stretch of restrictive curvature on the existing Cardinal route; but Hamilton and Miami University in Oxford would generate additional ridership. I don't think the speed matters as much as the additional markets.
An Indianapolis - Terre Haute - Evansville branch also seems feasible and offers the possibility of limited extended service to Memphis.
Chicago - Carbondale ($232M): This line could be upgraded for 110 mph for about the same amount of money as for 90 mph. Curve easement is not an issue. Improving the speed would better facilitate a Chicago - Memphis round trip.
Other possibilities would be for a branch to Paducah, KY and Memphis using either the Edgewood Cutoff or the longer BNSF route from Centralia via Marion,IL.
A branch from Centralia to Saint Louis would offer service from Eastern Illinois.
Chicago - Twin Cities ($1,638M incl Green Bay): The plan fails to include a more populous route through Rochester, MN by way of the MDW and UP between Winona and Saint Paul. If it's about the river line being more direct, what about the detour for Madison? As it is, sustained 110 mph service along the proposed route cannot be realized without tilt trains or extensive costly curve easement for much of the route. The average speed for the route through Rochester could be improved to allow more sustained 80-90 mph running with tilt equipment. Upgrading the Rochester route would facilitate a possible Twin Cities - Des Moines - Kansas City train; however, there is little population south of Des Moines.
Limited corridor services also should be exended to Moorehead, MN or Grand Forks, ND, and to Duluth, MN.
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.
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.
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.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
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 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.
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....)
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).
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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."
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!
Re: Blue Streak 1
We don't need to build as many miles of railways across America as we have highways, do we?
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!
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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.