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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Al - in - Stockton
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
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.
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.
Harvey:
I didn't think I was implying anything of the sort. My points were intended to be that trains couldn't be spared for use elsewhere because the locomotives were still needed in Chicago to maintain service despite the weather; and that full capacity would be needed before equipment could return.
In Chicago's worst blizzards in 1967 and (1977?) Metra was the only thing running reliably. The CTA rail surface, embankment and median segments were crippled and service interrupted. In '67 I took the L to UIC, was told the school was closed, and took the C&NW to Des Plaines and home cooking. The most frustrating aspect of bad weather is that the North Western would run on time - perhaps because fewer passengers meant fewer delays in boarding.
More recently, Metra has had problems that caused delays and a few cancellations.
Someone thought my avatar was taken on the C&NW Harvard/Northwest line around Park Ridge - not so. By 1959, the only semaphores left in triple track territory were between Clybourn and Keeler. These were replaced by searchlight-type signals c.1977, which in turn were replaces by color light signals c.2003 in the bridge replacement program with some minor realignment. Beyond Keeler, horizontally arrayed color light signals were used to the end of triple track at Barrington. These had been phased out for vertical signals from Seeger northwest 7-8 years ago. Deval was converted last year; and the remaining horizontal signals may be phased out soon.
The photo was actually taken at Ravenswood (Lawrence Av, Chicago) on the Kenosha/North line. The semaphores were replaced with searchlight signals a year or two after the photo was taken. Some years after the third track was removed, mast-mounted color light signals were installed.
The third track remained on the North Line for over twenty years after a half-dozen local stations were closed. Someone finally figured out that service would not suffer with removal and a significant savings in maintenance could be realized.
This too is off-topic; but some folks are asking for additional, relocated, or restored stops on the line and restoration of the third track. A bridge replacement progam for the North Line would realign the tracks and make a third track restoration all the more difficult. The realignment would center the tracks to allow increasing the elevation for improved bridge clearances. This would minimize new or extended retaining walls.
I've posted quite a few photos on the CHICAGOTRANSIT site in UPxx Albums the photos section.
Technically, passengerfan may be more precise in saying "resistant at magnitude #.#;" but even this may not reflect all the variables for a given location for a blanket definition. I think Al-in-Stockton covers the subject adequately with all that has been learned and what has not yet been revealed in "as anything can be made."
The worst train disaster to date occurred in Italy after WWII when a steam train stalled in a tunnel asphixiating 1,300-1,400 passengers and crew.
I have read your post 3 times and I just don't understand your point. Are you saying that trains can't run during a snow storm? If that was the case, the northern states would have to shut down all winter.
The idea that an Interstate Rail System would allow Metra to run trains out of Chicago to New York, Washington, DC, or Denver is quite impractical. During a blizzard, ridership may plummet because people are unable to reach the station and many schools and businesses will close. While cars could be spared for a day and switched out, the locomotives could not be spared to make up relief trains. By the time the storm hits New York (and how certain would the severity be?), roads will be reopened in Chicago to allow resuming normal activity and demand for Metra services.
Americans may like to move fast; but sometimes just having a way to get somewhere without walking or taking the time to walk 200 miles is important even in this age in the US. Even so, many destinations can be reached by the existing rail network; some may warrant improvements for higher speeds; and a few may be reached affordably with new high speed lines.
passengerfan P.A.Talbot[1] Will the California HSR project be earthquake proof? May sound like a stupid question, but the Golden State does seem to get a lot of them Experts from California have consulted with the Japanese regarding necessary construction through earthquake prone areas. California already has experience with the BART tunnel and other BART construction regarding earthquakes. The California HSR system will be as earthquake proof as anything can be made Al - in - Stockton
P.A.Talbot[1] Will the California HSR project be earthquake proof? May sound like a stupid question, but the Golden State does seem to get a lot of them
Experts from California have consulted with the Japanese regarding necessary construction through earthquake prone areas. California already has experience with the BART tunnel and other BART construction regarding earthquakes. The California HSR system will be as earthquake proof as anything can be made
Earthquake proof is a moving target. What is proof at a 6.5 is resistant at 7.5 and lost at an 8.5.! Isn't it better to state any location as earthquake resistant at magnitude ( ? ).
President Obama was on CNN this morning saying he would like to see high speed rail in this country and mentioning some of the other countries that have it. One of the people in the feature stated that we are 40 years behind the rest of the world in rail technology.
Paul Milenkovic Any rolling stock to come out of that $8B? The story I heard is that the Stimulus Bill is for infrastructure meaning the tracks and would not cover trainsets, whether new or rehabs of the Beech Grove dead line, of which there is a short supply.
Any rolling stock to come out of that $8B? The story I heard is that the Stimulus Bill is for infrastructure meaning the tracks and would not cover trainsets, whether new or rehabs of the Beech Grove dead line, of which there is a short supply.
The $8 bil is seperate from the $1.8 bil (IIRC) that Amtrak is getting. The $1.8 bil goes to Amtrak for repair/upgrades of both equipment and right of way with a cap on how much of it the NE Corridor can get. Presumably, one of the items Amtrak will accomplish is emptying the dead line at Beech Grove.
New rolling stock is a real problem as the feast or famine nature of Amtrak purchases make it very unattractive for a potential manufacturer. Obama's Chief of Staff seems to be saying that we are at the start of a substantial annual amount for rail infrastructure, but this administration is in its very early days. We'll see.
Speaking of Amtrak, they are invited to compete for the HSR projects, but the stimulus bill does not say that Amtrak is to be designated to be the owner nor as the operator of any of the HSR projects. They are eligible to bid for the projects in an open competition.
I think that says a lot!
If I could make mention of two items:
[1] Will the California HSR project be earthquake proof? May sound like a stupid question, but the Golden State does seem to get a lot of them.
[2]Danny48JJ: your suggestion that passenger and freight routes should be upgraded is a no brainer. However, should tax $$ be given to for profit freight companies to fix their tracks, with no strings attached? I think not. If tax money should be spent on all rail lines, as I believe it should, the "string" that should be attached is some movement towards an interstate railway system.
We all recognize (and take for granted) the benefits of an interstate highway system. Most of us can picture what America would look like if I-80, I-10, or I-95 were owned by JBHunt, UPS, or FEDEX. With regards to the statement you made that HSR in America is nothing like Europe, Danny, bulls eye! You have hit the nail right on the head. HSR isn't even anything like the interstate highway system in America! Can anyone imagine what would happen if I-80, I-10, and I-95 were the only highways where vehicles could average 65 MPH, and all the rest were below this speed? Or were kept at 50% operational condition? An interstate railway system will allow railroads to hit every part of the country (lower 48), and would allow Amtrak, which is the passenger railroad industry, more mobility and choises as to how, when, and where to offer services. In addition, an interstate railway system would allow current commuter rail organizations to expand their services. Think about it: METRA would be able to run a train or several in and out of the CHI area during a nasty blizzard, [when Ohare and other airports are closed], and connect CHI with DC, NYC, or even DEN. How many people remember the Christmas Blizzard of 2007 that shut down Devner? Yeah, I know there are a lot of miles between DEN and CHI. But, if the people stuck in Denver for 24+ hours had had the opportunity to get on a train and 20 hours later be in CHI, don't you think they would have jumped at the chance? We Americans like to move! We don't like to sit still! We also do not like to use any product or service rthat is considered "slow".
Another interesting topic with regards to Stimulus/HSR/Amtrak is the need to broaden the passenger railroad transportation industry. As mentioned before, Amtrak is the only passenger railroad in America. We all know the reasons why: cheap fuel costs=cheap air fares, cheap auto travel. We also know that the days of cheap fuel are going, going, gone. (1)Should federal stimulus $$ be spent to prop up the air travel industry? How much $$ will the air travel industry then spend to lobby against federal $$ for Amtrak? (2)Over the road companies will get federal stimulas $$. Then they will also lobby to see that Amtrak gets little or no federal $$. Our tax money is wasted! Lets level the playing field once and for all, and allow the capitalistic system to work. We spent how many federal and state tax $$ to build all the airports in America? We spent how many federal and state $$ to build the interstate highway system? Are we sure we can't afford a similar amount for an interstate railway system? I know it's a lot of money, but hey, we should be investing in our country, and its future. What was it the president of the USA Chamber of Commerce said last summer? Transportation is broken in America, and we are going to have to fix it. And, we are going to have to pay for it! A show of hands, please. How many want to spend tax money on an interstate railway system? Now, how many want to spent the money bailing out the dying air travel industry? How about the dying over the road industry? Another nasty overseas war?
I am unfamiliar with any plan by the MRI. 90% "track" costs would suggest including curve easement and relocation, grade separation and closing at-grade public and private crossings, almost equally expensive for Chicago - Saint Louis, electrification, and signal and communication as well as the actual track improvement for existing rail lines.
I know that dynamic wheel-rail forces increase exponentially with speed. My engineering stopped short of getting the equations for those calculations based on the combined track modulus (stiffness factor) for rail and ballast. A passenger train car weighing half that of a freight car causes more degradation to the track by going twice as fast, and 2.5-3 times faster (150 mph) is worse still. Currently, the P42 has almost as much weight on axles as freight locomotives. Let's drop how HSR track needs are incompatible with freight. Of course, the combined volumes of freight and passenger traffic will affect maintenance cycles for a given stretch of track. Railroads surface and line tracks to the highest level to minimize the rate of degradation and frequency of resurfacing and relining to maintain Class IV or Class V compliance.
I know that the track work is the expensive part (the Midwest Rail Initiative was maybe 90 percent track and 10 percent equipment), but if you don't have any railroad cars, people aren't going anywhere.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I'd be kind of shocked to see any true HSR projects get much of the $8B. My impression is that CA is still quite a ways off from moving dirt around and providing many jobs, which is the whole point of the stimulus, no? And, $8B does not buy much HSR, but it buys a whole lot of incremental improvement.
I'd look for IL, WI, MI, OH, VA, WA, NY, PA and NC to get the lion's share of the $8B as they are all much closer to "shovel ready" with incremental improvements to existing (or existing currently frt only) routes.
California should be able to score some more equipment and expand on current service, too.
Everybody else is not far enough along to qualify. The money will be all gone before they can say "boo".
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Getting California HSR out of Los Angeles could be expensive; but the project description refers enigmatically to shared facilities with commuter rail. Going up the Central Valley will be a veritable piece of cake. It's unfair to characterize the whole project as being a Big Dig West.
Speaking of construction costs, the "Initial Phase" will take roughly $10 billion each from a Federal grant and State and private bond financing. With expected annual operating profit of $1billion, it could take 30 years just to retire private financing or maybe 100 years for the whole package. Will investors care to see the end or will this be a legacy for great-grandchildren? Samantha calculated well over $100 billion in financing costs! Not surprising if you've ever bought a home.
Could some kind of emission or other credit be sold to finance transit and intercity rail passenger service?
What about a gas-guzzler tax for transit and intercity rail passenger service?
How could the value of increased safety be captured for transit, intercity rail, and airline travel?
Any other ideas?
Sam1 The California HSR project, which could cost 18.6 times the cost to upgrade the NEC, will probably never cover its operating costs and its capital costs. It will probably require large government subsidies forever. It will be a perpetual drag on California and federal governments.
The California HSR project, which could cost 18.6 times the cost to upgrade the NEC, will probably never cover its operating costs and its capital costs. It will probably require large government subsidies forever. It will be a perpetual drag on California and federal governments.
I think Sam is correct. My mental image of California high speed rail construction is a Boston "Big Dig" being executed by surfers! In any event, I don't think anyone expects it to cover capital costs.
The one good thing about the much longer Los Angeles - Bakersfield proposal for the California HSR Corridor, even if it is somehow cheaper, is its use for Los Angeles - Las Vagas trains. LA-BA would seem to be a priority first phase with interim 150 mph non-electrified service to enable auto-competitive routes from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, Chico, and Oakland. Existing lines from Bakersfield to Stockton, Oakland, and Sacramento would be upgraded to 110 mph where possible for pre-HSR and regional services.
I suppose the next priority would be the section between Fairmead and Gilroy with interim 150 mph non-electrified service for Los Angeles - San Francisco and Los Angeles - Oakland services.
Interim services would take advantage of phased implementation rather than wait twenty years with completed sections idle. From what we heard from Assemblywoman Fiona Ma last Friday, the HSR Corridor could take twenty years to build, so seven years for a first phase would be pretty good - two years for engineering and bid letting, three years for grading, bridging and tunneling, and another two years for track and signaling would seem reasonable. In ten years time the second phase could be completed. Even if an intitial stimulus of two concurrent phases came to pass, the project could still spread over 13-15 years with 6-8 years of interim service.
danny48JJ Oh by the way, in Norfolk, VA where I'm familiar with, Norfolk is building one of those futuristic rail lines!
Oh by the way, in Norfolk, VA where I'm familiar with, Norfolk is building one of those futuristic rail lines!
The road to to success is always under construction. _____________________________________________________________________________ When the going gets tough, the tough use duct tape.
I did notice that 1.3 billion was going to Amtrak. I'm not sure if that is included in the 8 billion stimulus or not. I think that not only passenger, but freight routes should be upgraded. I mean, except for the Transcon, The Central Corridor in Nebraska, the Northeast Corridor and a few others, we don't have a lot of high capacity, high speed lines in the U.S. Certainly nothing like what Europe has for high speed lines. I think the stimulus will help, but so much more is needed. I am encouraged with what Norfolk Southern is doing with its Piedmont Sub and Heartland Corridor. Since in my mind, the economy will only recover, 1. If God wants it to and Second, if Obama will pour plenty of resources into railroad lines. Let's face it. Some of American rails have not been improved much since the 1950's and 1960's.
I don't know . Like the TRAINS artical says, in order to see change in Amtrak first you will have to reform transportaion polliceys. That is unless a non government subsadised company builds the line and operates it not Amtrak. I wouldn't mind a high speed rail system in the mid west if it doesn't look to futureistic like those butt ugly things called the Maglev, witch I don't think is a train at all, or what ever else looks remnacent of a duck with it's head smashed in.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.