What a surprise; a Republican is trying to disrupt yet another piece of legislation or it's implementation.
I know that is a political statement, but it is what it is.
I will not pursue it any further.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
It's election year and we are definitely well into the political silly season. Looks like another politico hopping on the anti-government express to NOwhere.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I can see all kinds of oppositions/conflicts/political kung fu fighting coming out of this thing
No way am I touching this anymore than what I said---
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Phoebe Vet What a surprise; a Republican is trying to disrupt yet another piece of legislation or it's implementation. I know that is a political statement, but it is what it is. I will not pursue it any further.
Good, that means I can get the last word on this.
It is indeed unsurprising that a Republican is objecting to the 8 billion for passenger rail expansion. There are some exceptions, but Republicans are not that keen on trains and especially passenger trains. This is something I have experienced first hand going back 40 years.
The other thing is that some Democrats support passenger trains and HSR, but it is by far the minority of Democrats (the Amtrak frequent-rider Vice President?) -- for most it is not that big of a priority. I also have personal experience with that scheduling media events in support of passenger rail.
To get passenger rail off "dead center" as it has been since the inception of Amtrak nearly 40 years ago, the passenger train advocacy community needs to build a broader coalition than simply the minority of Democrats aligned with our view of things.
I guess it shouldn't bother me that people in the advocacy community choose partisan sides, that is, identify opposition to trains broadly with one of the two political parties, rather than address the points raised by the individual politician in question. But it does bother me. Why? It means we will continue to be out in the wilderness and not get anywhere.
We could learn something from the example of Anthony Haswell from back in the days when he founded NARP. His newletter always featured a "Friend of Passenger Trains." Most of the lauded politicians, I believe were Democrats -- Claiborne Pell, whom we can credit with the Northeast Corridor Demonstration Project, which gave us the Metroliner and was the nucleus of Amtrak, was a Democrat. But Tony Haswell acknowledged Republicans too -- I remember a fellow named Prouty being given the spotlight, and in a different context, I remember some right-wing types talking about Mr. Prouty and even to them he was a "stick in the mud." But I guess he supported trains at some point, and even a little bit of support got you NARP recognition. And the NARP newsletter never attacked politicians for not supporting trains, and certainly never went as far as to label any political party.
So I am glad you guys along with all of my advocacy colleagues at the Mad City Model Railroad Show all got this off your chests and out of your systems, and from here we can work on building a broad coalition to get 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?
Paul MilenkovicIt is indeed unsurprising that a Republican is objecting to the 8 billion for passenger rail expansion. There are some exceptions, but Republicans are not that keen on trains and especially passenger trains. This is something I have experienced first hand going back 40 years
Rep John Mica of Florida IMHO takes a different view of HSR. This mirrors the differences that are spoken on this News Wire in different threads. His view is all HSR effort be placed on one - three projects and not do any work to incrementally improve several routes. If you read some of his other comments he was unhappy that the NEC did not get more money to speed those two segments up. He also seemed to think Florida did not get enough money (now is that any surprize?).
Hopefully he will work for a next grant. He was right that the FRA was slow on the awards but did he work for more people to analyze the requests?
It's not one political party or another.
President Ronald Regan was a rail fan and member of the national Train Collectors Association. Some of his items are displayed at our National Toy Train Musem in Strasberg PA.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
blue streak 1 He also seemed to think Florida did not get enough money (now is that any surprize?).
And the funny thing is----what if he's right? If it got more money it might actually be a little ahead of the curve here.
Rational analysis implies that we leave personal political opinions out. I shall offer some recent analysis of the California HSR scene which has far as I can tell has no political bias.
The CA voters approved a $9.95 billion bond issue which with interest will cost the state about $19.4 billion. This was for the approximately 800 mile system connecting Sacremento, San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego with HSR all of which was said at that time to cost $45 Billion.
The state received $2.25 billion from the recent Federal stimulus appropriation.
Last year the planners revised the estimated cost of the first 520 mile segment from $33.6 to $42,6 billion.
Planners also revised the estimated 2030 ridership from 55 million per year to 41 million. As a comparison the Acela currently carries 3 million per year.
They also raised the projected cost of a ride from LA to SF from $55 to $105.
As we should all be aware given the history of goverment projects they always exceed estimates, sometimes by a factor of 2, 3 or 4 times. Should the CA voters be given another opportunity to vote on the bonds, perhaps. But they, and we, should see the handwriting and be prepared.
Not withstanding the possible impact on the industry, it seems a little strange that RT&S would pick up on a political piece rather than focus on technical aspects and leave the other to Railway Age.
A forumist involved in the process has assured us that the rules for evaluation were adhered to. Political hanky-panky was refreshingly absent. It was not the case that plans were developed after the grant; but that some states had done most of the work, including the political groundwork, prior to the announcement of the program and were ready to proceed for the projects that were funded. In a sense, the complaint was sour grapes.
I'm glad Illinois got something; but I'm surprised CHI-STL came out so high, given previous estimates. This obviously affected the resources available for other State improvements that didn't make it.
diningcarPlanners also revised the estimated 2030 ridership from 55 million per year to 41 million. As a comparison the Acela currently carries 3 million per year.
Hold the phone.
Acela's trip is 451 miles.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
aegrotatio diningcarPlanners also revised the estimated 2030 ridership from 55 million per year to 41 million. As a comparison the Acela currently carries 3 million per year. Hold the phone. Acela's trip is 451 miles. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Phoebe VetWhat a surprise; a Republican is trying to disrupt yet another piece of legislation or it's implementation. I know that is a political statement, but it is what it is. I will not pursue it any further.
Your are right. Even Don Philips in this month's TRAINS Mag issue agrees that if the Republicans gain more power this year, HSR will stop dead in it's tracks.
It's not as much Republicans are not in favor of rail, they just don't like the fact that Amtrak is a government run agency.
I am not making a political statement, I am just saying how Republicans view Amtrak & HSR. At least that is how I was taught in high school & college.
The political controversy over HSR has nothing whatsoever to do with trains. It is all about the public subsidy to build HSR versus the public need for HSR. One point of view is that the need is not great enough to justify the cost, and we don't have the money. If it were being financed by private investors taking an investment risk with their own money, nobody would object.
Bucyrus The political controversy over HSR has nothing whatsoever to do with trains. It is all about the public subsidy to build HSR versus the public need for HSR. One point of view is that the need is not great enough to justify the cost, and we don't have the money. If it were being financed by private investors taking an investment risk with their own money, nobody would object.
Part of the political problem IMHO is that not all public subsidity is a USA problem. The many nations that have a public subsidy for rail are competing with the USA.
If most HSR operations can get their operating revenue above operating costs such as Acela then maybe there is hope. I wonder how much less on board labor costs contribute to the present Acela figures? Certainly higher speeds can reduce those costs if the crews can turn at end points rapidly. Also equipment utilization increases.
diningcaraegrotatio diningcarPlanners also revised the estimated 2030 ridership from 55 million per year to 41 million. As a comparison the Acela currently carries 3 million per year. Hold the phone. Acela's trip is 451 miles. You're comparing apples and oranges. Not comparing, just offering information. But 520 miles from SF to LA is where the most of the passenger business is expected to be generated so you have offered a comparison I had not concieved.
This still may be a case of apples and oranges if the San Joaquins, Surfliners, and Capitols are added in a role similar to the Regionals and Keystones in addition to the Acelas. Still, that's a huge disparity that may not be supported by the difference in speed.
Hmmmm ?
Is that why the U.S. Government built hunderds of miles of Interstate Highways through Farm Country. We in the Northeast didn't gain from that, Why not build Interstate Highways only where we have high populations ?
If you wait 45 minutes each morning to cross the "TZ" or "GW" bridges into New York, you will take the train if it is built. Airport delays, cancelations, and security -- first choice is now "The Acela" (First and Business class) and "Northest Regional" (Business and Coach class).
DMUinCT Hmmmm ? Is that why the U.S. Government built hunderds of miles of Interstate Highways through Farm Country. We in the Northeast didn't gain from that, Why not build Interstate Highways only where we have high populations ? If you wait 45 minutes each morning to cross the "TZ" or "GW" bridges into New York, you will take the train if it is built. Airport delays, cancelations, and security -- first choice is now "The Acela" (First and Business class) and "Northest Regional" (Business and Coach class).
DMU: Good point. Should we have built and now maintain I90 / I-94 through MN, ND, SD, MT, ID, etc? I say yes even though driving through there at night you will find it more vacant / scary than my grandma's dirt road. Especially in winter. These roads will never pay (taxes) for themselves. There needs to be a realization that it is not a me vs you ( I got mine s*** you ). Instead the USA ( and probably Canada) needs to tie these countries even closer together in all ways. Each form of transportation has its place and each form needs backup in case of some unforseen problem shuts down one form or another. Also a much more thoughtful co-ordination of interconnections of various modes is needed. They each have their place.
But DMUinct, the Federal Highway program did help, rather "change", the Northeast in many ways. Driving intercity and interstate became much easier for both automobiles and trucks cutting driving times often to less than half of what they had been. It also allowed truckers easier access into and out of the city while also allowing for containers and other merchandise to move off the docks to the interior. Rail got the deje vu idea after this started (deje vu because the LIRR in the 1840's carried wagons on flatcars, the PRR and others in the 1930s began piggy back services, and the cement industry in the late 40's went to containers) and began in earnest to go after piggy back and intermodal. The Interstate system did a lot for the Northeast and not just rural areas. Rail passenger traffic was hurt the most, but so was rail freight. Granted, the St. Lawerence Seaway took some harbor traffic away from rails (opened conicidental to the beginning of the Eisenhower Highway system) as did the move of industry to the south and west.
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.
When anyone objects to the public subsidy of passenger rail, the instant rebuttal is that passenger rail subsidy is acceptable because we subsidize highways. However, that comparison alone is meaningless.
The meaningful, honest, objective, and useful comparison is how much use the average taxpayer gets out of highway per tax dollar, compared to how much use the average taxpayer gets out of passenger rail per tax dollar.
Bucyrus When anyone objects to the public subsidy of passenger rail, the instant rebuttal is that passenger rail subsidy is acceptable because we subsidize highways. However, that comparison alone is meaningless. The meaningful, honest, objective, and useful comparison is how much use the average taxpayer gets out of highway per tax dollar, compared to how much use the average taxpayer gets out of passenger rail per tax dollar.
To carry this analogy to its logical extreme, and how much use per tax dollar does the average taxpayer get out of his public schools?
CSSHEGEWISCH To carry this analogy to its logical extreme, and how much use per tax dollar does the average taxpayer get out of his public schools?
Carrying that analogy to the extreme, if you had to make a choice between two outcomes, is it more important to have a train because you feel inconvenienced by driving, or is it more important not to have 90 percent of the population as functional illiterates?
Um...you're reading it right here represented by probably 90% of the posters
Paul Milenkovic CSSHEGEWISCH To carry this analogy to its logical extreme, and how much use per tax dollar does the average taxpayer get out of his public schools? Carrying that analogy to the extreme, if you had to make a choice between two outcomes, is it more important to have a train because you feel inconvenienced by driving, or is it more important not to have 90 percent of the population as functional illiterates?
This is not a political statement.
I have to take issue with this post. It is not a fair comparison. One is related as a personal desire and the other is related as a benefit to society in general.
I would rephrase your question. Does each provide a benefit to society in general even though not all tax payers benefit individually? After all, many people pay school taxes yet send their own children to private schools and others have no children.
I do not offer an answer to the question.
CSSHEGEWISCH Bucyrus When anyone objects to the public subsidy of passenger rail, the instant rebuttal is that passenger rail subsidy is acceptable because we subsidize highways. However, that comparison alone is meaningless. The meaningful, honest, objective, and useful comparison is how much use the average taxpayer gets out of highway per tax dollar, compared to how much use the average taxpayer gets out of passenger rail per tax dollar. To carry this analogy to its logical extreme, and how much use per tax dollar does the average taxpayer get out of his public schools?
What I said is not an analogy. It can’t be taken to extremes. It is simply the basis for making a fair comparison between various types of public subsidies. The point of the comparison is to assess the overall average bang for the buck of various subsidies in order to find which ones are more worthwhile than others.
I will say this, I am impressed at how they awarded the HSR funds so far. It has been a thoughtful process that I believe was executed fairly.
Bucyrus The meaningful, honest, objective, and useful comparison is how much use the average taxpayer gets out of highway per tax dollar, compared to how much use the average taxpayer gets out of passenger rail per tax dollar.
Thats ridiculous. It shouldn't be use it should be benefit to society overall.
Thats what it is for Highways and Airlines. How many families under the poverty line fly in this country? Aren't Airlines traditionally for the Middle Class and above? Our transportation system like our National Defense should utilize all modes available and use each to it's specific strength.
Phoebe Vet Paul Milenkovic CSSHEGEWISCH To carry this analogy to its logical extreme, and how much use per tax dollar does the average taxpayer get out of his public schools? Carrying that analogy to the extreme, if you had to make a choice between two outcomes, is it more important to have a train because you feel inconvenienced by driving, or is it more important not to have 90 percent of the population as functional illiterates? This is not a political statement. I have to take issue with this post. It is not a fair comparison. One is related as a personal desire and the other is related as a benefit to society in general. I would rephrase your question. Does each provide a benefit to society in general even though not all tax payers benefit individually? After all, many people pay school taxes yet send their own children to private schools and others have no children. I do not offer an answer to the question.
You take issue with "this post." Which one? The post that since schools get public money that trains should too? Or my reply that with respect to the social benefit of trains is no comparison to the social benefit of education?
You say "this is not a political statement." Which is not a political statement? The original discussion of whether funding of education is comparable to funding of trains or not is not political? Or is your reply somehow non-political but the previous statements are?
You once stated on this forum that you had once served as a police officer. Every police officer and corrections officer I have talked to tells me that every person in the criminal justice system represents someone that the education system had missed. That we have that many people in jail probably speaks to the shortcomings of our current education system, and I will grant that the current system could stand improvement -- whether that means more spending, better teachers, spending the same but working smarter, whatever. But imagine the chaos in society in the absence of near-universal literacy.
The transportation system also provides broad social benefits beyond the immediate users, and I reckon that we could have a better transportation system if we had more trains. But there is simply no comparison between the broad and far-reaching social benefit of public education, the personal benefit of not stepping outside the house and getting clonked on the head by roving bands of criminals plying the streets, and having a train as an alternative to a car or perhaps an intercity bus.
Another point, I have never, ever on this forum taken the position that transportation is not a proper function of government. Never. Ever. I have, however, taken the position that trains for some reason seem to be a mode that requires higher levels of subsidy than other modes, and even if one accepts the widely accepted notion that government has a proper role in a lot of things, that does not throw consideration of cost-effectiveness out the window.
Comparisons of spending on trains to spending on health care, education, old-age pensions, and yes, even national defense are really quite besides the point, but as passenger train advocates, we keep making those comparisons because we are quite throroughly frustrated that the rest of society doesn't see it our way on the inherent goodness of trains. Even comparisons with Mountain West Interstates are really quite besides the point. So we are wasting money on highways in remote areas, we need to waste money on trains to even things out?
The way I see a way forward is to 1) either get a handle on why trains require high levels of subsidy, to run them more efficiently with lower levels of subsidy per passenger mile, or 2) determine specific applications for trains where the alternatives are of higher cost -- in those specific applications.
CMStPnP Bucyrus The meaningful, honest, objective, and useful comparison is how much use the average taxpayer gets out of highway per tax dollar, compared to how much use the average taxpayer gets out of passenger rail per tax dollar.
What is the prevailing question? Benefit to society, i.e.: ability to transport goods to and from factories and markets, be part of the assembly line, allow for manufactruing and business growth and supply the population, and to help transport people to and from where they must travel including work and home? Or is it if Tommy Taxpayer doesn't use I80 across Nevada or anyother highway except the one in his town, or the locks on the Mississippi or the Dulles International Airport or electricity from the Tennesee Valley Authority, he should not pay the tax? I understand Libertarianism and what it means. But we have progressed so much further by cooperation, pooling resources and work, doing for the good of society, to abandon all that has been done and need be done because one person is too greedy and self important to participate in society. Thus if a rail siding supported by some government funding in California means I can have affordable fresh lettuce on my table in Upstate NY in February I feel the funding is worth it. And the thinking isn't as convoluted as thinking that what happens or is done elsewhere doesn't affect me; no man is an island is more true than ever. If there are those who either don't want to pay their fare share, live up to the responsibity of being a citizen of the United States, then they should find another place on Earth to live...buy an abandoned south sea island someplace and try to start a tax free, resposibity free society and see how long you'll last.
Paul:
You sure read a lot into my post so let me answer your questions about it.
My first post on this thread was clearly political in nature and I said that I would not follow it up or argue it further. The statement "This is not political" was addressing that. I did not infer that either post quoted in my reply was political.
What I took issue with was only the form of your question, which phrased the train question as one of personal convenience and education as one of societal importance. I stated the proper comparison would be to compare the importance to society of each. I did not make any argument one way or the other about trains or education.
You will certainly get no argument from me on the pathetic state of our educational system or the consequences thereof.
henry6 CMStPnP Bucyrus The meaningful, honest, objective, and useful comparison is how much use the average taxpayer gets out of highway per tax dollar, compared to how much use the average taxpayer gets out of passenger rail per tax dollar. What is the prevailing question? Benefit to society, i.e.: ability to transport goods to and from factories and markets, be part of the assembly line, allow for manufactruing and business growth and supply the population, and to help transport people to and from where they must travel including work and home? Or is it if Tommy Taxpayer doesn't use I80 across Nevada or anyother highway except the one in his town, or the locks on the Mississippi or the Dulles International Airport or electricity from the Tennesee Valley Authority, he should not pay the tax? I understand Libertarianism and what it means. But we have progressed so much further by cooperation, pooling resources and work, doing for the good of society, to abandon all that has been done and need be done because one person is too greedy and self important to participate in society. Thus if a rail siding supported by some government funding in California means I can have affordable fresh lettuce on my table in Upstate NY in February I feel the funding is worth it. And the thinking isn't as convoluted as thinking that what happens or is done elsewhere doesn't affect me; no man is an island is more true than ever. If there are those who either don't want to pay their fare share, live up to the responsibity of being a citizen of the United States, then they should find another place on Earth to live...buy an abandoned south sea island someplace and try to start a tax free, resposibity free society and see how long you'll last.
Henry,
You are missing my point. You may understand libertarianism, but my point has nothing to do with libertarianism. I am not saying that if a taxpayer does not use a particular service, he or she should not have to pay for it. My point has nothing to do with the idea of one man thinking he is an island and should not have to contribute to the socialized portions of society.
My point is that we, as a society, have to decide which are the most essential works to pay for collectively because we only have a limited amount of money as a group. So when we consider which works to produce as a collective effort with public funds, we have to determine how much they are worth on average to the members of society who will pay for them. It is the classic benefit per cost analysis.
I do not believe that a national system of HSR would provide a widespread benefit to society as a whole that would evenly correspond with the widespread cost to society as a whole. Instead, I think that national HSR would merely provide enjoyment and convenience to a very small portion of society at the expense of most of society. I think that there are better things to spend our money on such as paying down the debt.
My view on this has nothing to do with my personal willingness or reluctance to pay taxes for the things we need as a nation. My concern is that we, as a nation, spend our money wisely.
BucyrusMy point is that we, as a society, have to decide which are the most essential works to pay for collectively because we only have a limited amount of money as a group. So when we consider which works to produce as a collective effort with public funds, we have to determine how much they are worth on average to the members of society who will pay for them. It is the classic benefit per cost analysis.
OK, that is very clearly stated. So, for illustrative purposes, what would be some other examples (besides paying down the debt) of current or future "works" that have passed or you believe would pass that benefit cost analysis?
Second, what is the basis for your conclusions regarding HSR not benefiting more than a small segment of our society?
schlimm Second, what is the basis for your conclusions regarding HSR not benefiting more than a small segment of our society?
I would have to ask the same question. Also I would add how large are the seqments in each of the European countries and Japan?
schlimm OK, that is very clearly stated. So, for illustrative purposes, what would be some other examples (besides paying down the debt) of current or future "works" that have passed or you believe would pass that benefit cost analysis?
OK, I'll bite.
I think that energy independence is an urgent priority. Putting someone in a hybrid vehicle is of comparable energy savings to taking someone out of a car an on an Amtrak train. The tax credit for hybrid vehicles works out to about 4 cents/passenger mile -- the Amtrak subsidy works out to more than five times as much.
Not only that, the hybrid vehicle tax credit has a "glidepath to profitability" built right in -- once a certain brand of hybrid reaches a critical market share, the tax credit is phased out. Efforts at "Amtrak reform" aimed at a similar effect with Amtrak bring choruses of "no one expects passenger trains to ever make a profit" from the advocacy community.
OK, for HSR, I would allow more per passenger mile subsidy, if either the type of streamlined trains with high seating density bring about greater energy savings or if the mix of power used to power the trains is demonstrated to be advantageous over the use of gasoline in cars -- intermittent wind power doesn't count for powering HSR that has to operate on a strict schedule. I would also draw "the system boundary" around the whole HSR project - capital cost of track construction especially included. Yes we are planning on subsidizing the construction of nuclear power plants with loan guarantees, but the expectation is that rate payers would pay off those loans over time. I think it is reasonable to expect the same thing from the HSR.
blue streak 1 schlimm Second, what is the basis for your conclusions regarding HSR not benefiting more than a small segment of our society? I would have to ask the same question. Also I would add how large are the seqments in each of the European countries and Japan?
Again I'd agree with the idea that we need to ascertain just who will benefit the most from HSR in terms of usage. If anything, the rising cost of the projected fare for the California HSR makes me wonder about the segments and their ability to continue using the service. I'm not looking for single time use here----
schlimm BucyrusMy point is that we, as a society, have to decide which are the most essential works to pay for collectively because we only have a limited amount of money as a group. So when we consider which works to produce as a collective effort with public funds, we have to determine how much they are worth on average to the members of society who will pay for them. It is the classic benefit per cost analysis. OK, that is very clearly stated. So, for illustrative purposes, what would be some other examples (besides paying down the debt) of current or future "works" that have passed or you believe would pass that benefit cost analysis? Second, what is the basis for your conclusions regarding HSR not benefiting more than a small segment of our society?
Even though I believe we need a cost/benefit analysis, performing one for massive public works would be so complex that nobody would ever agree that it was accurate. So we are left to our own individual beliefs about necessity, use, rider revenue, cost of operation, cost of construction, cost overruns, effect of politics on how money is spent, etc. Moreover, performing a CBA for a public project is many times more complex than doing so for a private project.
Unlike the private sector business ventures, any cost/benefit analysis in public sector projects is never tested by being held accountable after the project is built. With public sector projects, the fulfilling of a real societal need is often somewhat of a pretext for simply building empires by growing government.
So public sector cost/benefit analysis is often used as a tool to sell the idea to the public, rather than as a tool to assess the actual economic performance or public need for the project.
Following that motive, public sector cost/benefit analyses are free to state the benefits as immeasurable platitudes such as improving quality of life, providing transportation choices, making the nation more competitive with the rest of the world, and showing our friends in Europe that we are not uncivilized.
So I am only saying that we need a CBA because the advocacy pushing HSR seems oblivious to the cost or any measure of whether the cost is worth it. Instead, HSR is regarded as simply being a fashion that we must have.
I can’t tell you why Europe or other countries have it. But they have governments too that are eager to build their empires with the public’s money. Maybe their citizens would be better off without HSR. I would submit that at the rate this county is presently going into debt while the economy is performing so poorly, hardly any public sector project satisfies a cost/benefit analysis, and certainly not HSR.
Airlines are "for the middle-class, and above"? Just go to LGA, EWR, or JFK, of a Friday afternoon and check the lines for "Vomit Comets" to San Juan, PR. Enlightening, methinks!
Hays
Question: I am a disadvantaged person (we won't get into citizenship) living in Manhattan, address confidential (New York City). I could afford to buy a cheap car, but can't afford to park it (thanks, Mayor Bloomberg). How would I get the wonderful tax rebates by stealing a Chebby "Volt"? We can change the VIN in an instant! I do need to meet with my "man" in Brooklyn, but the subway fares are outrageous, greatly increasing my cost of doing business. Any advice? Don't Amtrak go to Brooklyn? How fast?
BNSFwatcher Airlines are "for the middle-class, and above"? Just go to LGA, EWR, or JFK, of a Friday afternoon and check the lines for "Vomit Comets" to San Juan, PR. Enlightening, methinks! Hays
I've been to San Juan several times, and I find it to be a pleasant American city. It must be American since you don't need a passport to get there from here. While getting through security is a real pain (Americans are overly paranoid), airline travel can still be pleasant, even on a regional jet.
Paul MilenkovicI would also draw "the system boundary" around the whole HSR project - capital cost of track construction especially included. Yes we are planning on subsidizing the construction of nuclear power plants with loan guarantees, but the expectation is that rate payers would pay off those loans over time. I think it is reasonable to expect the same thing from the HSR.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
DMUinCTIs that why the U.S. Government built hunderds of miles of Interstate Highways through Farm Country. We in the Northeast didn't gain from that, Why not build Interstate Highways only where we have high populations ?
Paul MilenkovicSo we are wasting money on highways in remote areas, we need to waste money on trains to even things out?
Ok. So I come along with a hairbrained idea that I want a HSR from Portland, Maine to Port St. Lucie, Florida. So it only benefits the eastcoasters but I need financial help from the government to get it done. Those between Portland, OR and Port St. Joe on the west coast get no benefit.
But you want a water supply system from high up in the Rockies to supply west coastal cities with potable water. So it benefits only the westcoasters but you need help from the government to get it done. Those between Portland, ME and Port St. Lucie, FL on the east coast get no benefit.
So do we all go without what we want and need?
henry6 Ok. So I come along with a hairbrained idea that I want a HSR from Portland, Maine to Port St. Lucie, Florida. So it only benefits the eastcoasters but I need financial help from the government to get it done. Those between Portland, OR and Port St. Joe on the west coast get no benefit. But you want a water supply system from high up in the Rockies to supply west coastal cities with potable water. So it benefits only the westcoasters but you need help from the government to get it done. Those between Portland, ME and Port St. Lucie, FL on the east coast get no benefit. So do we all go without what we want and need?
Again, that is not the point. It is a straw dog. The relevant point is the determination of whether either of those two projects is necessary, worthwhile, and cost effective.
The point is not whether everyone who benefits from those two projects pays for them and those who do not benefit do not pay for them.
Obviously, with any socialized improvement or service, the cost to individuals is not going to be divided up precisely according to their exact usage of the service.
OK then let's make them both potable water pipelines. Mine doesn't benefit you and your's doesn't benefit me. By your statements there is no reason for me to pay for yours nor for you to pay for mine.
BucyrusI would submit that at the rate this county is presently going into debt while the economy is performing so poorly, hardly any public sector project satisfies a cost/benefit analysis, and certainly not HSR.
Your answer seems a bit convoluted for me, but your bottom line seems to be paying off the debt is the only sensible thing to do. Given that much of that debt is held by China, I fail to see how that advances our economic productivity. A transfer payment simply does not have the same positive economic benefit as an infrastructure investment. I do agree with you that the costs and benefits of various rail improvements (passenger and electrification) need to be examined in as accurate a way as is possible.
henry6 OK then let's make them both potable water pipelines. Mine doesn't benefit you and your's doesn't benefit me. By your statements there is no reason for me to pay for yours nor for you to pay for mine.
Well in a perfect world, your example would be the fairest approach to paying for the water service. But since we all use water, I assume that these things balance out. Therefore, I have no desire to assure that the money I pay for taxes and water bills only goes to the lines and system that are directly responsible for providing my water.
It is unrealistic to try to compare absolutes, so we are left with comparing degrees. Not everybody uses every highway. Some people do not use any highway for personal transportation, and yet they benefit indirectly from goods that are transported by highway. So, generally, I would conclude that use of and payment for highways is quite evenly dispersed among all users and payers.
On the contrary, in general, I would conclude that while the payment for HSR will be evenly dispersed among the payers, the use of HSR will be enjoyed only by a very small percentage of the payers.
So there is a point where the use of, and payment for public works can become unfair. And I think that HSR is far beyond that tipping point.
schlimm BucyrusI would submit that at the rate this county is presently going into debt while the economy is performing so poorly, hardly any public sector project satisfies a cost/benefit analysis, and certainly not HSR. Your answer seems a bit convoluted for me, but your bottom line seems to be paying off the debt is the only sensible thing to do. Given that much of that debt is held by China, I fail to see how that advances our economic productivity. A transfer payment simply does not have the same positive economic benefit as an infrastructure investment. I do agree with you that the costs and benefits of various rail improvements (passenger and electrification) need to be examined in as accurate a way as is possible.
Reducing debt advances our economy because debt places a drag on the economy that increases as the debt increases. While there might be economic benefit from the product of an infrastructure investment per se, that benefit might easily be more than offset by an economic detriment from adding its cost to an already high debt load. It would be Utopia if all we had to do to achieve prosperity were borrow money and spend it on things we need to make life more convenient.
Most of the Puerto Ricans on those flights I would wager are Middle Class.
BucyrusReducing debt advances our economy because debt places a drag on the economy that increases as the debt increases. While there might be economic benefit from the product of an infrastructure investment per se, that benefit might easily be more than offset by an economic detriment from adding its cost to an already high debt load. It would be Utopia if all we had to do to achieve prosperity were borrow money and spend it on things we need to make life more convenient.
I agree, lets reduce our debt by cutting the larger Interstate Highway and Airport budgets.
In reading the article, I don't see where anybody is trying to disrupt a piece of legislation. On the contrary, it sounds like representative John Mica of Florida is criticizing the FRA for their inability to manage HSR spending, rather than criticizing HSR itself. The following quote from the article seems to summarize Rep. Mica’s position:
"I'm very concerned that FRA's work missed the mark, and maybe hijacked the ability of the country to see some true high-speed rail-operations," Mica said in a telephone interview.
CMStPnP I agree, lets reduce our debt by cutting the larger Interstate Highway and Airport budgets.
For one thing, we already are (cutting highway and airport development). If we are not cutting those things, we may be faced with cutting them on account of the same budget situation that makes funding for trains hard.
A good measure why people are even thinking of HSR is California is that adding lanes to I-5 is considered to be a non-starter based on the shape of State and Federal budgets.
But a good question to ask is whether HSR is a good subsitute for expanding I-5.
The Amtrak/intercity portion of the NEC replaces, probably, one freeway lane in each direction, and that is the "densest" Amtrak route. Pacific Surfliner and Hiawatha are nowhere near that level of traffic.
My back-of-the-envelope calculation for the projected ridership of 50 million passengers on the CA HSR suggests that it would substitute for multiple freeway lanes in each direction, and on that basis alone, the HSR is a good value. Some intuition tells me that those ridership projections are way over-projected.
Someone mentioned that the NEC does 3 million passengers/year on Acela -- when you add in Regionals, does this bring things up to about 10 million? Mind you, Boston, New York City, Philly, and more recently DC have rail transit "feeder" networks into the NEC. OK, SF perhaps has rail transit on the level of DC, LA is getting there. But even so, I don't so how you have the supporting infrastructure in CA for the 50 million passengers.
But there is the temptation to say, not only are we going to thave rains and train ridership by not building more expensive highways, but if we didn't have the highway system we have (Interstates), we could have more trains. Kind of like, OK, if we "train people" can't get funding for our train, we will oppose funding for that highway that "you highway people" want. I figure that kind of thinking is popular in some circles, but is that the way to "win friends and influence people" to get more trains.
I don't say this just for idle discussion. The idea of not only advocating trains but opposing highways has worked its way into public pronouncements of our local passenger train advocacy group.
Paul MilenkovicFor one thing, we already are (cutting highway and airport development). If we are not cutting those things, we may be faced with cutting them on account of the same budget situation that makes funding for trains hard. A good measure why people are even thinking of HSR is California is that adding lanes to I-5 is considered to be a non-starter based on the shape of State and Federal budgets. But a good question to ask is whether HSR is a good subsitute for expanding I-5 The Amtrak/intercity portion of the NEC replaces, probably, one freeway lane in each direction, and that is the "densest" Amtrak route. Pacific Surfliner and Hiawatha are nowhere near that level of traffic. My back-of-the-envelope calculation for the projected ridership of 50 million passengers on the CA HSR suggests that it would substitute for multiple freeway lanes in each direction, and on that basis alone, the HSR is a good value. Some intuition tells me that those ridership projections are way over-projected. Someone mentioned that the NEC does 3 million passengers/year on Acela -- when you add in Regionals, does this bring things up to about 10 million? Mind you, Boston, New York City, Philly, and more recently DC have rail transit "feeder" networks into the NEC. OK, SF perhaps has rail transit on the level of DC, LA is getting there. But even so, I don't so how you have the supporting infrastructure in CA for the 50 million passengers. But there is the temptation to say, not only are we going to thave rains and train ridership by not building more expensive highways, but if we didn't have the highway system we have (Interstates), we could have more trains. Kind of like, OK, if we "train people" can't get funding for our train, we will oppose funding for that highway that "you highway people" want. I figure that kind of thinking is popular in some circles, but is that the way to "win friends and influence people" to get more trains. I don't say this just for idle discussion. The idea of not only advocating trains but opposing highways has worked its way into public pronouncements of our local passenger train advocacy group.
But a good question to ask is whether HSR is a good subsitute for expanding I-5
Even the NEC comes up short in comparison to a lane on I-95. Between 5 pm and 5:59 pm there are only the Acela, Regional, and Keystone; and those may come up short. Once past Newark (NJ), the NEC has lots of underutilized capacity; but getting out of Manhattan is the issue where NJT moves a lot more people. If NJT needs capacity enough to justify a second set of tunnels, maybe there would be some residual capacity that would allow Amtrak to increase Acela and Regional frequencies and new routes to Norfolk, VA and Dover, DE. Then maybe hourly ridership may exceed lane capacity, nominally 2,200 auto drivers and passengers an hour. Offhand, I'd say there is a better argument for more rail tunnels into Manhattan instead of more highway tunnels.
Even if Amtrak Hiawathas could run evey half-hour in the peaks, that might amount to half a lane on I-94. The key is that Hiawathas could operate in conjunction with Metra whose Milwaukee North ridership represents roughly two lanes getting in and out of downtown Chicago. 110 mph Talgos aren't possible in the peak because of the lack of a sufficient service window with Metra, and the hundreds of millions for a third track just isn't going to happen for only three trains in each workday peak. Building a new high speed line just won't happen between Chicago and Milwaukee for the same reason as for New York - Washington, DC.
As it is Amtrak fares could exploit the cost of driving to downtown Chicago more than at present; but fares already exceed the driving costs getting to outlying parts of the City and suburbs which is the larger, if dispersed, part of the urban area market. Options for more direct routes to the suburbs may be over the CN, either continuing from Rondout to O'Hare on the former EJ&E, around the suburbs to Joliet, or by way of Waukesha. Using existing railways, even with improvements, would be less costly when taken together than additional lanes on I-94.
NJ's congestion of roads and railroads is not the same as other parts of the country...yet. It has been stated by urban and transportation planners that there is no more ground to be taken by highways nor can the air take on any further pollution. The whole of transportation has to be rethought, reworked, rerationalized in NJ. You cannot add highway lanes but you can't just say add trains or tracks and catenary either. But since NJ is not alone in this problem, virtually every spot on the Corridor from Portland, ME to Norfolk, VA and west to at least Schenectady, NY, Harrisburg, PA, and eastern sections of West Virginia and western parts of Maryland, are in the same fix or soon will be. It is time to seriously think through options and plan carefully with political opinions and lobby monies put aside. California has done this, Washington State and the Pacific Northwest in general, too. Chicago between Detroit, Cleveland, Louisville, St. Louis, Minniapolis/St. Paul and Milwaukee is very close to having to carefully think this through, too..
oltmanndBucyrusReducing debt advances our economy because debt places a drag on the economy that increases as the debt increases. While there might be economic benefit from the product of an infrastructure investment per se, that benefit might easily be more than offset by an economic detriment from adding its cost to an already high debt load. It would be Utopia if all we had to do to achieve prosperity were borrow money and spend it on things we need to make life more convenient. Government spending in and of itself is neither good nor evil. It depends totally on who is the most efficient goods or service provider.
I can’t disagree with that as far as it goes. But I do believe that, for a host of fundamental reasons, government is the least efficient producer of goods and services 99% of the time. Government spending and investment is always sapped by the inherent corruption of the individual players using the money to fulfill political motivations and expand their empires. That motivation is the true greed if you want to use a fashionable term.
About the only function that I can think of where government might be the most efficient provider is dealing with national emergencies, national defense, and things of that nature where an overarching organizational effect is beneficial.
Bucyrus I can’t disagree with that as far as it goes. But I do believe that, for a host of fundamental reasons, government is the least efficient producer of goods and services 99% of the time.
That would explain why every time the military subcontracts one of it's functions, like feeding the troops, guarding VIPs, or transporting material, out to a civilian contractor the cost quadruples.
Phoebe Vet Bucyrus I can’t disagree with that as far as it goes. But I do believe that, for a host of fundamental reasons, government is the least efficient producer of goods and services 99% of the time. That would explain why every time the military subcontracts one of it's functions, like feeding the troops, guarding VIPs, or transporting material, out to a civilian contractor the cost quadruples.
No, I think that what would explain why the cost quadruples every time the military subcontracts one of it's functions out to a civilian contractor, is the fact that the government is the prime contractor.
I disagree. When the military does it itself it is much cheaper than it is when they sub it out to a for profit company.
If you get the Republican stated plan to eliminate Medicare and replace it with a voucher system you can use to buy insurance, just watch the cost go through the roof. We have Medicare because the insurance companies don't want to insure old people. There is no profit in it. Old people go to the doctor and the hospital too often and take too many drugs.
Check around your area. Compare municipal water systems to private water systems. Compare municipal garbage collection to private garbage collection.
Phoebe Vet I disagree. When the military does it itself it is much cheaper than it is when they sub it out to a for profit company. If you get the Republican stated plan to eliminate Medicare and replace it with a voucher system you can use to buy insurance, just watch the cost go through the roof. We have Medicare because the insurance companies don't want to insure old people. There is no profit in it. Old people go to the doctor and the hospital too often and take too many drugs. Check around your area. Compare municipal water systems to private water systems. Compare municipal garbage collection to private garbage collection.
I cannot think of any way to personally compare the cost of a service provided by the private sector to one provided by the public sector. I have private trash service and public water/sewer. There are no public trash pickup or private water/sewer services available. Noteworthy, however, is the fact that the public water/sewer abruptly raised the rate 100% in 2008 with no commensurate improvement in service. The city hired a consultant and paid him for over a year to study the rates and come up with the idea for a 100% rate increase. If a private sector provider did that, they would be put out of business by a consumer backlash, but we consumers have to choice to get our water/sewer elsewhere.
I don’t doubt you when you say that private contractors charge more to the military than the cost of the military doing the work themselves. But I would not necessarily conclude that that proves that the government is more efficient at delivering goods and services than the private sector. If the government were more efficient at providing goods and services, they would demonstrate it by doing so. The fact that they hire sub-contractors and pay them far more than the military cost for doing the same work might just as well be regarded as evidence of the relative inefficiency of government compared to the private business.
Moreover, if the government were the most efficient provider, why not just empower them to do everything? What’s stopping us?
BucyrusThe fact that they hire sub-contractors and pay them far more than the military cost for doing the same work might just as well be regarded as evidence of the relative inefficiency of government compared to the private business.
Paying a private subcontractor far more than the military (government) for the same work is actually a great example of the inefficiency of the private business compared to the government! Lower costs for the same work output is how business and everyone else define increased productivity, except with you in "bizarro world" where everything is backwards (special thanks to Seinfeld).
"Privatization" of former government run services got going with Reagan and was supposed to save money, but mostly it has been used to put it straight into the hands of companies with connections, like Haliburton, Blackwater, etc.
schlimm BucyrusThe fact that they hire sub-contractors and pay them far more than the military cost for doing the same work might just as well be regarded as evidence of the relative inefficiency of government compared to the private business. Paying a private subcontractor far more than the military (government) for the same work is actually a great example of the inefficiency of the private business compared to the government! Lower costs for the same work output is how business and everyone else define increased productivity, except with you in "bizarro world" where everything is backwards (special thanks to Seinfeld). "Privatization" of former government run services got going with Reagan and was supposed to save money, but mostly it has been used to put it straight into the hands of companies with connections, like Haliburton, Blackwater, etc.
Mr. Berthold,
My point may seem upside down, but I think you should take a closer look at it.
Consider this example: The military pays a higher cost to a private contractor than what it would cost the military to do the same work itself.
On one level, it may seem logical to conclude that this proves that the public sector is more cost effective than the private sector.
But that conclusion from the example is faulty because, with that conclusion, the action of the example simply makes no economic sense. Why would you pay someone else more to do something than it would cost you to do it yourself? You could say that maybe the private contractor could get the job done faster. But then if it is worth spending more to get the job done faster, how is it a bad bargain? Faster delivery costs more.
In the final analysis, it is the military that decides whether going to a private contractor is worth it for whatever reason. If the military is spending four times more than they should be for no good reason, are they not an example of inefficiency and incompetence? How can the answer be anything but yes?
The Military shouldn't go after a private contractor to save money but to get the job done fast and or right. If the military has no expertise in say, changing out a defective valve, then call an outside plumber. However, our system has fostered the practice of the plumber knowing it is dealing with big pockets government so that the $10.00 valve from the hardware store is now $20 or $50 and the hourly rate is not $50 but at least $100 and the time is not one hour but a full eight hours and a wrench has to be bought for the job (even though it is already in the plumber toolbox) for another $75. Responsiblity and patriotism do not go hand in hand with making money evidently.
henry6The Military shouldn't go after a private contractor to save money but to get the job done fast and or right. If the military has no expertise in say, changing out a defective valve, then call an outside plumber. However, our system has fostered the practice of the plumber knowing it is dealing with big pockets government so that the $10.00 valve from the hardware store is now $20 or $50 and the hourly rate is not $50 but at least $100 and the time is not one hour but a full eight hours and a wrench has to be bought for the job (even though it is already in the plumber toolbox) for another $75. Responsiblity and patriotism do not go hand in hand with making money evidently.
The other is the practice of farming out work to contractors. The problem here isn't high cost, but lousy service. When the contract doesn't pay incrementally for carefully measured performance, you will get a contractor who just barely meets the letter of the contract (or even falls below and dares you not to pay) because the only way they can increase their profit is to cut costs.
This is a big part of the reason Chatsworth happened. The contract operator had no incentive whatsoever to perform at a high level. His maximum profit came at doing the absolute bare minimum. Taking employees out of service costs money and doesn't increase revenue a dime.
Paul MilenkovicFor one thing, we already are (cutting highway and airport development). If we are not cutting those things, we may be faced with cutting them on account of the same budget situation that makes funding for trains hard. A good measure why people are even thinking of HSR is California is that adding lanes to I-5 is considered to be a non-starter based on the shape of State and Federal budgets. But a good question to ask is whether HSR is a good subsitute for expanding I-5. The Amtrak/intercity portion of the NEC replaces, probably, one freeway lane in each direction, and that is the "densest" Amtrak route. Pacific Surfliner and Hiawatha are nowhere near that level of traffic. My back-of-the-envelope calculation for the projected ridership of 50 million passengers on the CA HSR suggests that it would substitute for multiple freeway lanes in each direction, and on that basis alone, the HSR is a good value. Some intuition tells me that those ridership projections are way over-projected. Someone mentioned that the NEC does 3 million passengers/year on Acela -- when you add in Regionals, does this bring things up to about 10 million? Mind you, Boston, New York City, Philly, and more recently DC have rail transit "feeder" networks into the NEC. OK, SF perhaps has rail transit on the level of DC, LA is getting there. But even so, I don't so how you have the supporting infrastructure in CA for the 50 million passengers. But there is the temptation to say, not only are we going to thave rains and train ridership by not building more expensive highways, but if we didn't have the highway system we have (Interstates), we could have more trains. Kind of like, OK, if we "train people" can't get funding for our train, we will oppose funding for that highway that "you highway people" want. I figure that kind of thinking is popular in some circles, but is that the way to "win friends and influence people" to get more trains. I don't say this just for idle discussion. The idea of not only advocating trains but opposing highways has worked its way into public pronouncements of our local passenger train advocacy group.
Your not looking at the whole picture and your analysis is narrowed to just a freeway comparison. I am pretty sure that HSR also competes to an extent with short haul flights on the airlines. Living in Texas in boom times a lot of flights used to exist between DFW and just San Antonio. It was like DFW was a unsinkable aircraft carrier just for Texas flights. Delta and American each had about 8-10 flights a day. Post 9-11 that traffic has subsided greatly (Delta exited and flights were otherwise reduced in frequency). Personally, I would rather see HSR between those cities then have to breath the smog or have to deal with the ridiculous congestion from a weather event delay, which impacts other parts of the Air Traffic Control system of the United States. Thats why I stated in earlier posts that nobody has done a really subjective analysis here on how HSR contributes to Productivity and GDP. I would like to see that done because these comparisons to other modes of transport are typically flawed in one way or another, IMO. I am fairly confident that HSR is a net plus to GDP vs a net loss, even with borrowing money to pay for part of it.
I flew 450k air miles in the late 1990's across 4-5 years up until 9-11. DFW and Love field both have a ridiculous amount of flights internally to internal Texas Cities. They are in fact taking the place of HSR now and we are paying for it in Texas via smog, time it takes to fly out of Dallas or Ft. Worth as well as dimished capacity at our airports for outstate flights. Also BTW, Sam1 never mentioned this but Southwest Airlines was adamantly opposed to HSR in Texas and lobbied to kill one of the past proposals. I would like to see HSR in Texas as a viable option on short hauls. I'm willing to pay for it via higher taxes if needed. It's comming eventually wether the obstructors and naysayers believe it or not. It's just a matter of time.
Anyhow, my two cents.
BucyrusIn the final analysis, it is the military that decides whether going to a private contractor is worth it for whatever reason. If the military is spending four times more than they should be for no good reason, are they not an example of inefficiency and incompetence? How can the answer be anything but yes?
Bucyrus: Let me try again. The answer lies in the policy of "privatization" a scheme started under Reagan under the pretext that since "'government is the problem", let's turn over as many government functions to private enterprise as possible. Sometimes it works out quite well. But there are many legitimate services that need to be done, such as in the military, that private companies won't touch unless they can tack on a big profit. Hence the military ends up spending much more for something they used to do themselves. Many people believe the real reasons for privatization are: 1. flexibility in staffing in return for paying much more for the privilege; and 2. more gravy for political supporters. All in all, there are some pluses and minuses, as in most situations in the real world, not all or nothing.
CMStPnPAlso BTW, Sam1 never mentioned this but Southwest Airlines was adamantly opposed to HSR in Texas and lobbied to kill one of the past proposals. I would like to see HSR in Texas as a viable option on short hauls. I'm willing to pay for it via higher taxes if needed. It's coming eventually whether the obstructors and naysayers believe it or not. It's just a matter of time. Anyhow, my two cents.
Also BTW, Sam1 never mentioned this but Southwest Airlines was adamantly opposed to HSR in Texas and lobbied to kill one of the past proposals. I would like to see HSR in Texas as a viable option on short hauls. I'm willing to pay for it via higher taxes if needed. It's coming eventually whether the obstructors and naysayers believe it or not. It's just a matter of time. Anyhow, my two cents.
You are shortchanging yourself! I'd say that post was worth a lot more than 2 cents!! Not too surprising that sam1 omitted that little detail about SWA. Although Texas is a huge state in area, it looks like there are a number of metro areas within the magic 500 miles of each other and would thus be a great candidate for several HSR routes?
schlimmBut there are many legitimate services that need to be done, such as in the military, that private companies won't touch unless they can tack on a big profit. Hence the military ends up spending much more for something they used to do themselves.
Well then why do they farm it out to private contractors if it costs more?
I understand your point that the specifics can vary and be an exception to the general rule. And it is true that private sector activity must include the cost of profit. But profit is a necessary component of the equation. Public sector has an advantage of being inherently non-profit, but they are burdened with other deficiencies such as a relative lack of accountability for costs compared to the private sector.
But if we are trying to compare the private and public sectors for their cost effectiveness in producing goods and services, the example of the military hiring private contactors versus doing the work itself is a highly flawed comparison. It does not compare the public and private sectors. Instead, it compares the public sector versus the public sector contracting through the private sector. So it is really only comparing two variations of the public sector.
Not only is that comparison illogical for reaching the conclusion, but also it is also simply unfair because it is being judged by one of the two participants being compared. The military has a powerful self-interest in saying that it could do the same work as the private sector at one quarter the cost. But how can that possibly be verified by any outside observer? It is a self-serving claim that nobody can verify.
If you want a fair and logical comparison, have a neutral third party judge the performance of public and private sectors producing the same goods or service.
As usual, you seem intent on ignoring the 800# gorilla. The military was forced to start contracting out a lot of work they used to do. Often there are very few potential contractors so you don't have (if one ever does) a free market. So they are stuck.
Bucyrus But how can that possibly be verified by any outside observer? It is a self-serving claim that nobody can verify. If you want a fair and logical comparison, have a neutral third party judge the performance of public and private sectors producing the same goods or service.
But how can that possibly be verified by any outside observer? It is a self-serving claim that nobody can verify.
Fair enough. So let's go to Iraq and have someone compare the cost of having the army transport a convoy of supplies by truck vs the cost of having Haliburton do it.
I have city water. It comes from a river and is processed through a water treatment facility before being piped to my home. My sister lives 4 miles from me. Her development has water supplied by a private company. It is untreated water from a central well. Her water bill is three times what mine is and everyone in the development gets bottled water to drink because the tap water tastes funny, though it has been tested and is safe.
I had another paragraph here, but elected to delete it because I am trying not to be political.
schlimm As usual, you seem intent on ignoring the 800# gorilla. The military was forced to start contracting out a lot of work they used to do. Often there are very few potential contractors so you don't have (if one ever does) a free market. So they are stuck.
Who is forcing the military to go to more expense by using private contractors? You mentioned that Reagan began the process. Reagan was for privatization, but that was an anomaly, and it was a long time ago. I don’t see much push for privatization today. If anything, it is just the opposite. Today the government runs GM. You are going to need to identify your 800-pound gorilla.
The government procurement process is not comparable to either a department operation or private industry. Both private industry and government agencies are under the gun for containing expenses and to work with a budget; but that has never stopped individuals and small groups from embezzling or defrauding either an agency or company.
A private contractor usually is sought because of the transient nature or lack of core competency for the goods or service being sought. At it's best, and ideally, a qualified and responsible contractor making the low bid wins; and at worst, corruption interferes.
The problem for high speed rail is that the hundreds of millions in contracts make tempting targets for the unscrupulous that can derail subsequent phases of a project.
I know the Feds bought a big piece of GM to keep them solvent, but do you seriously think that the Federal Government is RUNNING GM? I bet the Board of Directors would disagree with you.
You think a private does everything better than the Governemnt? Get 3 birthday cards for your Aunt Tilly in Walla Walla, Washington. Take one to FedEx, one to UPS, and one to the Post Office. How do the costs compare?
Not that this minutia has much to do with rail; but the Army contracted civilian food service workers at least as far back as 1968. Troops still did KP here; but locals provided that too over in Viet Nam where our job was warfare 24/7.
schlimm CMStPnP Also BTW, Sam1 never mentioned this but Southwest Airlines was adamantly opposed to HSR in Texas and lobbied to kill one of the past proposals. I would like to see HSR in Texas as a viable option on short hauls. I'm willing to pay for it via higher taxes if needed. It's coming eventually whether the obstructors and naysayers believe it or not. It's just a matter of time. Anyhow, my two cents. You are shortchanging yourself! I'd say that post was worth a lot more than 2 cents!! Not too surprising that sam1 omitted that little detail about SWA. Although Texas is a huge state in area, it looks like there are a number of metro areas within the magic 500 miles of each other and would thus be a great candidate for several HSR routes?
CMStPnP Also BTW, Sam1 never mentioned this but Southwest Airlines was adamantly opposed to HSR in Texas and lobbied to kill one of the past proposals. I would like to see HSR in Texas as a viable option on short hauls. I'm willing to pay for it via higher taxes if needed. It's coming eventually whether the obstructors and naysayers believe it or not. It's just a matter of time. Anyhow, my two cents.
Although Southwest Airlines gets the lion's share of the blame for opposing the proposal to develop a high speed rail line between DFW and San Antonio, most of the other airlines, as well as the state's bus companies also weighed in against the proposal. They opposed the use of state monies to support the proposed system.
The proposal was predicated on a private/public relationship. The project sponsors recognized that the system would never cover its costs; therefore, they wanted the Texas legislature to put up a significant amount of money to help fund it. At the end of the day the members of the legislature, who are elected by mostly conservative constituents, rejected the proposal. Most of the members did not think that the proposal was viable in a state where the over whelming majority of the people prefer to drive. And at the time highway congestion in Texas was not a major problem. To claim that the project was defeated exclusively by Southwest Airlines is to state a clear lack of understanding of Texas politics.
The founders of Southwest Airlines, who put together what is arguably the most successful airline in the world, did not receive any government support for their airline. In fact, they faced substantial government and competitor opposition. Having overcome significant opposition to their proposed intrastate airline, it is little wonder that they did not want government money used to launch a high speed rail system that had no possibility of covering its costs but would bleed off some of its passengers.
Yes, but Southwest Airlines didn't have to build and maintain their own air traffic control system, navigational aids, and pay property tax to every political entity that it overflies.
I bet that helped a lot in their quest to be profitable.
Southwest had to build maintenace and storage buildings, rent or own office space, and purchase airplanes. They did not have to build airports as various governments and government agencies have already done that. They have thier own scheduleing and dispatching personnel for sure, but traffic control is done by a U.S. government agency. They did not have to build a fixed plant, i.e. right of way and substructure. And their research and development was all done under Federal Military contracts for war planes, etc. And bus and trucking companies have the same situations. Most everything connected with Amtrak was built or contracted for through private enterprises with reasearch and devlopement by private enterprise. And I don't think Amtrak is a 501.3.C. company either.
Phoebe Vet Yes, but Southwest Airlines didn't have to build and maintain their own air traffic control system, navigational aids, and pay property tax to every political entity that it overflies. I bet that helped a lot in their quest to be profitable.
The thing is about the passenger train advocacy community is being stuck back in the 1960's or even the 1950's and not having read the Trains Magazine article "Who Shot the Passenger Train."
This is not about Government Good-Free Market Bad, Government Bad-Free Market Good debates, commentary on which political party favors trains more than some other political party, or any such thing.
The argument that the airlines didn't have to build their own facilities, never mind that the airlines do "build their own facilities" through taxes on airline tickets and jet fuel, that argument had been made a very long time ago. That argument is why we have Amtrak. Yes, Amtrak pays fees to host railroads for passage of Amtrak trains, but those fees are a small portion of Amtrak costs or even a small portion of the Amtrak subsidy.
The idea behind Amtrak was that passenger operations be separated from the whole railroad infrastructure. The train would become a kind of bus or airliner operating on someone elses infrastructure. "If only the passenger train weren't burdened with the railroad's archaic fully-allocated cost formula", "if only the passenger train were like the airliner without all of that trackage expense" went the refrain. So, we got Amtrak, freed from the burdens of being the railroad (apart from the NEC, but that is a whole 'nother story).
Guess what. Even when freed from the burden of infrastructure, passenger trains require subsidy, high levels of subsidy. Efforts to "reform" Amtrak to deal with this situation are dealt with as a plot from the Concrete Lobby.
The Amtrak enterprise has failed, failed on the basis that when given a "level playing field" with Southwest Airlines, it failed to come anywhere near Southwest's balance sheet. How do we in the advocacy deal with this failure? With scapegoating. Trains are never profitable. That trains are held to a standard of turning in an operating profit is a plot of Republicans in Congress/Heritage/Cato/the Concrete Lobby. Amtrak is not given a chance because it is underfunded. Excuse on top of excuse, the advocacy community blaming everyone for this state of affairs apart from ourselves, in the manner of how we have influence this effort.
We really as an advocacy community have to get past the "trains are the poor step child that get no respect" excuse and look more critically at what we are advocating, that is if we want to get off dead center and have more trains.
Sam1the members of the legislature, who are elected by mostly conservative constituents, rejected the proposal. Most of the members did not think that the proposal was viable in a state where the over whelming majority of the people prefer to drive.
What choice other than air have they had for the last 40 years? You cannot predict with any accuracy what even Texans will do if they have a viable passenger rail network as an option.
Paul MilenkovicThe idea behind Amtrak was that passenger operations be separated from the whole railroad infrastructure.
Revisionism? For starters, I would respectfully suggest you look again at the real purpose on Amtrak from the beginning (the Budd statement). I would also suggest that SWA has never had to deal with un-business-like problems like having Congressional mandates to run pointless planes to nowhere at big losses as Amtrak has with trains.
schlimmSam1the members of the legislature, who are elected by mostly conservative constituents, rejected the proposal. Most of the members did not think that the proposal was viable in a state where the over whelming majority of the people prefer to drive. What choice other than air have they had for the last 40 years? You cannot predict with any accuracy what even Texans will do if they have a viable passenger rail network as an option.
Sam1 was referring to the reported perceptions at the time, regardless of validity. California was thought to be auto-centric as well.
Again, what makes sense from a cost-benefit perspective? On the society value of mobility for all?
The real reason Amtrak was formed was to relieve the burdon of operating passenger trains off the shoulders of private corporate railroads. It was hoped, and believed, that passenger trains would thus dissappear and never have to be dealt with again. Private railroads, thus, were not going to be the boogie man by not being involved with the passenger train's dissapearance. What was not counted on at that time were incerasingly choking air pollution, grid lock traffic congestion, lack of inner city parking capacity, and high costs of petroleum and gasoline and other fuels. Plus, private rail thought that by getting rid of the passenger train they would have track capacity which would be totally filled by freight traffic. Well, there did become an underutilized freight system instead before there became an under capacity system: they first took away track then have scrambled to put the infrastructure back in place. In some places, under utilized track provide an opportunity to reposition a passenger service to take up the slack; in other places government paid for track improvements can be made for passenger trains in exchanged for better utilization by freight trains. All in all our transportation system has been poorly thought out and planned over many decades. It has been piecemeal, as needed when needed if needed, a hodgepodge of systems, hardware, technologies, philosophies, uses, non-uses, and an economic and political football. It is time to stop playing games of words and conflicting philosophies, roll up our sleeves, and produce a total, rationalized, useful, transportation system.
Paul MilenkovicThe thing is about the passenger train advocacy community is being stuck back in the 1960's or even the 1950's and not having read the Trains Magazine article "Who Shot the Passenger Train." This is not about Government Good-Free Market Bad, Government Bad-Free Market Good debates, commentary on which political party favors trains more than some other political party, or any such thing. The argument that the airlines didn't have to build their own facilities, never mind that the airlines do "build their own facilities" through taxes on airline tickets and jet fuel, that argument had been made a very long time ago. That argument is why we have Amtrak. Yes, Amtrak pays fees to host railroads for passage of Amtrak trains, but those fees are a small portion of Amtrak costs or even a small portion of the Amtrak subsidy. The idea behind Amtrak was that passenger operations be separated from the whole railroad infrastructure. The train would become a kind of bus or airliner operating on someone elses infrastructure. "If only the passenger train weren't burdened with the railroad's archaic fully-allocated cost formula", "if only the passenger train were like the airliner without all of that trackage expense" went the refrain. So, we got Amtrak, freed from the burdens of being the railroad (apart from the NEC, but that is a whole 'nother story). Guess what. Even when freed from the burden of infrastructure, passenger trains require subsidy, high levels of subsidy. Efforts to "reform" Amtrak to deal with this situation are dealt with as a plot from the Concrete Lobby. The Amtrak enterprise has failed, failed on the basis that when given a "level playing field" with Southwest Airlines, it failed to come anywhere near Southwest's balance sheet. How do we in the advocacy deal with this failure? With scapegoating. Trains are never profitable. That trains are held to a standard of turning in an operating profit is a plot of Republicans in Congress/Heritage/Cato/the Concrete Lobby. Amtrak is not given a chance because it is underfunded. Excuse on top of excuse, the advocacy community blaming everyone for this state of affairs apart from ourselves, in the manner of how we have influence this effort. We really as an advocacy community have to get past the "trains are the poor step child that get no respect" excuse and look more critically at what we are advocating, that is if we want to get off dead center and have more trains.
I'll just add that it was the intention of the creators of Amtrak that the route map would shed LD routes and gain short haul corridors AND the short haul corridors would generate enough cash to prop up the remaining LD routes.
Clearly, that never happened - for a whole host of reasons. Although things are starting to look more favorable for short haul corridors, it appears that the status quo is still powerful. Even Amtrak is talking about purchasing new sleepers and diners. If the country wants to prop up the status quo Amtrak, fair enough. But, lets at least play straight with the facts and stop making excuses.
One more thing about SWA vs Amtrak. SWA is low cost in part because it has an in-shop pilot's union, rather than ALPA. Amtrak has to contend with high union wages, like freight rails, which also consumes much of passenger revenue. Not sure about SWA's pension burdens, if any, but I bet it's a lot less than the pension burden Amtrak has.
Although I largely agree with both Paul and Don on the need to move forward, it is important to simply recognize (as Henry pointed out) the climate Amtrak has been mandated vs the rather free reign SWA has had to drop money losing operations.
I am confounded by Amtrak's compartmentalizing itself around the NEC and LD and lack of concern with the rest of the country. Where is the effort to develop a comprehensive corridors program if this was the vision? Then why dining cars and crew dormitory baggage cars? Why not bi-level cars for the NEC where station capacity is exceedingly costly? Where are the priorities and what is the vision that should precede the fleet plan?
We all should be grateful for the initiatives taken in California, the Northwest, Midwest, and Carolina; but where is Amtrak? Illinois, for instance, can't get to Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, or Tennessee without going through Indiana and Ohio. Chicago - Milwaukee is an interstate corridor in it's own right; but where's Amtrak? The USDOT seems to have been more active over the years with evaluations and proposals on a broad vision and opportunities; but there is a serious disconnect with both Congress and Amtrak.
schlimm One more thing about SWA vs Amtrak. SWA is low cost in part because it has an in-shop pilot's union, rather than ALPA. Amtrak has to contend with high union wages, like freight rails, which also consumes much of passenger revenue. Not sure about SWA's pension burdens, if any, but I bet it's a lot less than the pension burden Amtrak has.
For a long time I was under the impression that SWA's labor costs were considerably lower than those of the competition. Not so! Southwest pays the going rate, as I learned from a close friend who has been with the company as an executive for decades. However, they have one clear labor advantage. Their employees are or were more productive than the employees for their major competitors.
SWA does not have a legacy pension system. Their employees have had a 401k type plan from the get go. The company and the employee contribute to the plan. The company also has a very good stock option plan. Many of the ordinary people who risked all to help the company get started became millionaires many times over. And we not talking just executives. Many of the line people who got in on the ground floor with Southwest became very wealthy.
Comparing SWA against Amtrak or any other rail operation is dysfunctional. They are entirely different operations. Southwest was able to take advantage of a changing regulatory environment and make use of common facilities. It paid its share of those facilities, as it still does, through fuel taxes and a variety of fees.
I commented on SWA in large part because of the notion that it single handily killed the proposal for high speed rail in Texas. The proposal died because it was constructed poorly and was premature.
henry6 ..... All in all our transportation system has been poorly thought out and planned over many decades. It has been piecemeal, as needed when needed if needed, a hodgepodge of systems, hardware, technologies, philosophies, uses, non-uses, and an economic and political football. It is time to stop playing games of words and conflicting philosophies, roll up our sleeves, and produce a total, rationalized, useful, transportation system.
..... All in all our transportation system has been poorly thought out and planned over many decades. It has been piecemeal, as needed when needed if needed, a hodgepodge of systems, hardware, technologies, philosophies, uses, non-uses, and an economic and political football. It is time to stop playing games of words and conflicting philosophies, roll up our sleeves, and produce a total, rationalized, useful, transportation system.
Whether our transportation system has been planned poorly is debatable. The framework in America has stressed competitive markets, as opposed to overly centralized government solutions, with government supplied infrastructure monies when appropriate, but with an emphasis on local flexibility. Most of the governments that touted centralized planning have pulled back or are no longer in existence.
I have travelled extensively for more than 50 years. The percentage of delays that I have experienced has been minimal.
Recently I drove from Georgetown, Texas to Fort Myers, Florida and back. I ran into a bit of traffic congestion on I-621, which goes around Houston, because of heavy construction. And I ran into a minor traffic jam outside of Mobile, Alabama due to a traffic accident. Otherwise, it was smooth sailing.
Admittely, we have traffic congestion in our major cities, especially during the morning and evening rush hours. In these instances I believe the enhancement or development of existing rail facilities to relieve the congestion is an appropriate investment. But to imply that we are living in a land of transport gridlock because of poor planning does not square with my experience or that of my fellow Texans.
HarveyK400 schlimm Sam1the members of the legislature, who are elected by mostly conservative constituents, rejected the proposal. Most of the members did not think that the proposal was viable in a state where the over whelming majority of the people prefer to drive. What choice other than air have they had for the last 40 years? You cannot predict with any accuracy what even Texans will do if they have a viable passenger rail network as an option. Sam1 was referring to the reported perceptions at the time, regardless of validity. California was thought to be auto-centric as well. Again, what makes sense from a cost-benefit perspective? On the society value of mobility for all?
schlimm Sam1the members of the legislature, who are elected by mostly conservative constituents, rejected the proposal. Most of the members did not think that the proposal was viable in a state where the over whelming majority of the people prefer to drive. What choice other than air have they had for the last 40 years? You cannot predict with any accuracy what even Texans will do if they have a viable passenger rail network as an option.
I have a friend who was a member of the state legislature at the time the proposal for high speed rail was shot down. Moreover, I worked with the VP of our lobbing team in Austin on a variety of industry related matters. They have given me some insights into the proposal for high speed rail in Texas and why it failed. That is a bit more than reported perceptions.
Whether Texans would use an intercity rail system is indeed unknown. What is known, however, is crystal clear. They had abandoned a viable intercity passenger rail system by the end of the 1950s, which was long before Southwest came along.
Numerous public opinion polls have shown that a clear majority of Texans want better roads. Only a very small percentage of them have said that they want an expanded passenger rail system.
I would like to see a moderate speed passenger rail system between the major cities along the I-35 corridor, as well as between Dallas and Houston. But it should be able to cover its operating costs and, preferably, contribute significantly to the infrastructure cost required to support it.
Sam1The founders of Southwest Airlines, who put together what is arguably the most successful airline in the world, did not receive any government support for their airline.
Sam: Most of your statements are correct as I remember but this sentence is not. Remember SW started service out of Dallas airport (DAL) - Houston HOU Hobby). Fortunately for SW Braniff airlines whose main operating and maintenance base was at DAL (some at MIA for South America) went bankrupt and to fill all the infrastructure that BN vacated SWA got a sweet heart deal on the monorail, parking concessions, hangers, terminal, BN gate space, etc, then gate space that was vacated by all the major airlines that moved to DFW. I do not remember the deal at HOU when IAH was moved into by majors. I would believet that some sort of the same deals were proffered. The Wright ammendment also had some effect.
Sam you've got to try driving I80 across NJ, PA, OH, IN and IL or I81 thorugh NY, PA, MD, VA into the South to understand congestion, 18 wheelers at 80+ mph side by side alongside (or being pushed by?) a Toyota. Or be in a fogbound row of 35mph traffic across the NJTurnpike scuking in those diesel fumes....find out what traffic is really like.
As for the "compartmentlaizing" of Amtrak...it is historical, of course. Routes and corridors compounded by union rules and long time railroad division points, rote operations, a fixed plant, and geography; and the individual cities and city pairs that devleoped in the 20th Century. It is what Amtrak inherited or was given in hopes that it would all go away and big railorads would run big freight trains on thier private tracks while people would drive big cars on the Eisenhower Interstate. It was a plan. A plan that time changed, that time caught up with. So here we are today.
And also, through these arguements and comments I get confused about being an American, about my patriotism. What am I missing? Why isn't something like Amtrak good for America and me as much as the highway, waterway, and airway systems? I get the feeling it is pro American to support the three latter forms of transportation yet it is anti American to support a national rail system. The most confusion comes when I think of the United States being a powerful and successful world power which so many here wants to take apart state by state less one gets the better of the other. Who is a real American? what is a real American? Is it patriotic to say you can't have something when you need it because I get nothing at this time? Let's stop playing the game and start building a United States instead a group of parochially defined settings.
Some of our older posters that have lived in southern California have heard much the same arguments when the additional San Diego trains were being debated; then Metrolink and Santa Barbara service all that is now under Pacific Surfliner banner . I was there enough during all those times to hear this. Then later the Capitol corridor and the San Joaquin service (which by the way in todays newswire said "San Joaquin ridership up 6+% in our down economy").
IMHO there would never been voter approval of the California HSR if the voters had not seen the results of the afore mentioned CA projects. The most important item may ( I only say may) have been the voters awareness that there have been incremental improvements in all these services by the various authorities. Not the loss of service and timekeeping so prevelant by 1960.
I almost forgot the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE). Although they only have run 4 round trips a day they are now getting feedback that they may need another round trip to fill in what some riders are having to deal with changed working hours.
Sam1I commented on SWA in large part because of the notion that it single handily killed the proposal for high speed rail in Texas. The proposal died because it was constructed poorly and was premature
That statement I can really believe. The lack of a detailed proposal submitted last fall would reinforce this statement.
Some people might say the HSR proposal was planned that way but I won't go that far. However we are seeing the same thing here in Georgia.
schlimm Paul MilenkovicThe idea behind Amtrak was that passenger operations be separated from the whole railroad infrastructure. Revisionism? For starters, I would respectfully suggest you look again at the real purpose on Amtrak from the beginning (the Budd statement). I would also suggest that SWA has never had to deal with un-business-like problems like having Congressional mandates to run pointless planes to nowhere at big losses as Amtrak has with trains.
And who is it behind the Amtrak mandates that SWA lacks? Could it be the advocacy community? Would Amtrak, on balance, provide more and better service (although not our "pet" service -- cough, Sunset Limited, cough) if the advocacy community weren't lobbying Amtrak and lobbying Congress?:
One of the advantages befalling the airlines, as well as other common carriers, is their sharing of common facilities. That is to say, they don't pay the full cost of the facilities because they are not the exclusive users. The same is true for Amtrak, which is a niche user on most of the rail systems that it runs its trains over. The exception, of course, is the NEC, where Amtrak is the major but not exclusive owner.
With respect to property or other taxes, the following should be kept in mind. "Pursuant to the provisions of Title 49 of the United States Code, Section 24-301, Amtrak is exempt from all state and local taxes, including income and francishe taxes that are directly levied against the Company. Accordingly, there is no provision for state and local income or francishe taxes recorded in the consolidated financial statements....." This statement is contained in the 2009 Financial Statements, which are included in Amtrak's Annual Report.
The nation's airlines pay federal and state income taxes, assuming that they had a profitable year, which clearly has not always been the case. In addition, they pay franchise, inventory, and sales taxes. For example, each year SWA takes down as much of its inventory as possible just before valuation of its inventories in Dallas in an attempt to mitigate its local inventory taxes. The taxes are a significant burden.
blue streak 1IMHO there would never been voter approval of the California HSR if the voters had not seen the results of the afore mentioned CA projects. The most important item may ( I only say may) have been the voters awareness that there have been incremental improvements in all these services by the various authorities. Not the loss of service and timekeeping so prevelant by 1960.
Now the northern New England rail group has announced that Feb 2010 ridership up 5% from 2009 (no cancellations?) even though a 3 day sold out weekend was cancelled because of the Feb storm. Conservative projections of those cancellations would put potential close to 10% increase assuming that some persons traveled after the cancellations. That seems to beg the question "does Downeaster trains need more coaches on some days?" Same old lack of equipment problem.
Question: Does this mean that the incremental improvements on the BOS - Portland are attracting passengers? The improvements are certainly different from the 1950s B&M decline. I cannot answer the question.
blue streak 1 Sam1The founders of Southwest Airlines, who put together what is arguably the most successful airline in the world, did not receive any government support for their airline. Sam: Most of your statements are correct as I remember but this sentence is not. Remember SW started service out of Dallas airport (DAL) - Houston HOU Hobby). Fortunately for SW Braniff airlines whose main operating and maintenance base was at DAL (some at MIA for South America) went bankrupt and to fill all the infrastructure that BN vacated SWA got a sweet heart deal on the monorail, parking concessions, hangers, terminal, BN gate space, etc, then gate space that was vacated by all the major airlines that moved to DFW. I do not remember the deal at HOU when IAH was moved into by majors. I would believet that some sort of the same deals were proffered. The Wright ammendment also had some effect.
SWA got little at Dallas Love Field except a broken down terminal that no one else wanted. It began operations in the early 70s. Braniff did not go belly up until 1982. I began flying SWA in 1975, when I moved to Dallas from the Northeast. I remember walking into a terminal that looked and felt like a morgue.
SWA got a deal on the gates, parking, etc. at Love Field. But no one else wanted them. It was the only deal that the city could get. The facilities were lousy. Flying Southwest during the early years gave a new meaning to budget airline.
Southwest's management saw an opportunity to launch an intrastate air service that turned into a winner. It has made it possible for millions of Americans, who otherwise could not afford to fly, to see their families half way across the country.
Moreover, as Herb Keller has stated, we recognized that many people did not want to fly from a cow pasture between Dallas and Fort Worth to a cow pasture outside of Houston when they could fly from close-in airports. Grabbing an opportunity like this is what makes the competitive market system so dynamic and, although it has its faults, has resulted in the highest living standards around the world. Whoops, hopefully no one will consider this a political statement.
SWA was put together by visionaries who understood the importance of competitive markets and were willing to bet the farm on their idea. Had they failed, they would have lost everything.
The Wright Amendment came along only after Braniff, American, Delta, etc. failed to run SWA out of business. The SWA story is riveting. It is capitalism at its best, and the story is one of the cases that are studied extensively at the Harvard Business School.
henry6 Sam you've got to try driving I80 across NJ, PA, OH, IN and IL or I81 thorugh NY, PA, MD, VA into the South to understand congestion, 18 wheelers at 80+ mph side by side alongside (or being pushed by?) a Toyota. Or be in a fogbound row of 35mph traffic across the NJTurnpike scuking in those diesel fumes....find out what traffic is really like. As for the "compartmentlaizing" of Amtrak...it is historical, of course. Routes and corridors compounded by union rules and long time railroad division points, rote operations, a fixed plant, and geography; and the individual cities and city pairs that devleoped in the 20th Century. It is what Amtrak inherited or was given in hopes that it would all go away and big railorads would run big freight trains on thier private tracks while people would drive big cars on the Eisenhower Interstate. It was a plan. A plan that time changed, that time caught up with. So here we are today. And also, through these arguements and comments I get confused about being an American, about my patriotism. What am I missing? Why isn't something like Amtrak good for America and me as much as the highway, waterway, and airway systems? I get the feeling it is pro American to support the three latter forms of transportation yet it is anti American to support a national rail system. The most confusion comes when I think of the United States being a powerful and successful world power which so many here wants to take apart state by state less one gets the better of the other. Who is a real American? what is a real American? Is it patriotic to say you can't have something when you need it because I get nothing at this time? Let's stop playing the game and start building a United States instead a group of parochially defined settings.
Having lived in the Northeast for nearly half of my 70 years, I am familiar with traffic in the areas you mention. In fact, I drove in or near Philadelphia twice last year. The traffic is no more challenging than the traffic in and near the major cities of Texas. The passenger rail service, however, is much better. I took the train on several occasions from Harrisburg to Philadelphia.
sam1: Try driving from the Chicago area to somewhere in Michigan along the lake. You have to go through a bottleneck of I 80 and I 94, with all their local and transcontinental traffic all squeezing together (and adding I 65 and I94 for fun). I doubt if you'll find it as much of a breeze driving as on your Philadelphia journey.
Oh I have driven all the highways I have mentioned at times being the only car on the road except for I80 in PA. It can be done except Mondays after 3AM, other weekdays after 5AM city bound or after 3PM anyday outbound; Summer Fridays, ya better get the gas peddle to the floor by the end of the lunch hour or you'll not get there till almost midnight! I don't think she understands how bad certain hours on main arteries can be these days. I moved out of the area over 40 years ago and it ain't like it used to be.
How do you put up with/justify the lunatic drivers in the DFW area? They are crazier than those in New York, Illinois, and even Boston! I'll even include New Orleans and Los Angeles in the mix. Ontario might be a close second. Ever do "The 401?". Good training!!!
BNSFwatcherEver do "The 401?". Good training!!!
You "experienced" that lovely highway I see! lol!! The busiest stretch of highway in N.A, is between my "fair" city--London ON--and TO. This is caused by the Windsor/Detroit traffic and the Sarnia ON/ Pt Huron MI traffic from the 402 being funneled into each other here. This will soon be compacted by all the TO garbage traffic as well.
There are 3 stretches along there that have a nasty habit of being closed or reduced in laneage for a long time. The 3 are--
1)--along the southern edge of London---Highway 4 and Col. Talbot Rd interchange to Veteran's Memorial Pkwy
2)--Between Ingersoll ON and Woodstock ON and ---
3)--anywhere from Drumbo Rd interchange and the Kitchener-Waterloo area.
Snowsqualls during the winter have been known to cause multi-vehicle pile-ups in no time flat!
blownout cylinderYou "experienced" that lovely highway I see! lol!! The busiest stretch of highway in N.A, is between my "fair" city--London ON--and TO. This is caused by the Windsor/Detroit traffic and the Sarnia ON/ Pt Huron MI traffic from the 402 being funneled into each other here. This will soon be compacted by all the TO garbage traffic as well.
Sounds like a candidate route for fast, frequent and convenient service!
Sam1To claim that the project was defeated exclusively by Southwest Airlines is to state a clear lack of understanding of Texas politics.
Yeah, your doing it again, making a claim that was never made and then responding to it. I never made any such statement in my post, even in what you bolded the statement was not made that Southwest single handely defeated HSR. So not sure who your responding to with that quote.
Sam1The founders of Southwest Airlines, who put together what is arguably the most successful airline in the world, did not receive any government support for their airline. In fact, they faced substantial government and competitor opposition. Having overcome significant opposition to their proposed intrastate airline, it is little wonder that they did not want government money used to launch a high speed rail system that had no possibility of covering its costs but would bleed off some of its passengers.
Southwest was formed in the era of regulation. A fact you continue to omit in your posts. Southwest was formed in the early 1970's, I don't think the airlines were deregulated until 1978 or thereabouts. So I am scratching my head here trying to figure out why your seperating Southwest from the rest of the regulated industry. Their niche and their main money maker while getting started were flights within the state of Texas during the era of regulation. Amazing how the Wright Amendment just happened to pop up out of nowhere as airlines were being deregulated. Just so happens that the Wright Amendment protects flights within the state of Texas for airlines operating out of Dallas Love Field it was setup to protect Southwest Airlines current position at Love Field as other airlines were being deregulated. What other airline was operating out of Love Field in the late 1970's? What other airline even had an interest in returning to Love Field in the late 1970's? So lets be honest about the entire history here on Southwest airlines..........a look back in time. I don't normally use Wiki-Pedia as a source but I am pressed for time:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In the early 1960s, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) determined that Love Field in Dallas and Greater Southwest International Airport in Fort Worth, Texas were unsuitable for expected future air traffic demands, and the FAA refused to provide continued federal funding for the municipal airports. The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) then ordered the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth to find a new site for a joint regional airport. The result was Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW International), which first opened to commercial air traffic in 1974. To make the new airport viable, each city agreed to restrict its own passenger-service airports from commercial passenger service use, and all airlines serving the old airports at that time signed an agreement to relocate.
Southwest Airlines, which was founded after the agreement between the airlines and cities to relocate to DFW International was reached, was not a party to the agreement, and felt that their business model would be affected by a long drive to the new airport beyond the suburbs. Therefore, prior to the opening of DFW International, Southwest filed suit to remain at Love Field, claiming that no legal basis existed to close the airport to commercial service and that they were not bound by an agreement they did not sign. In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, so long as Love Field remained open as an airport, the City of Dallas could not preclude Southwest from operating from the field. However, the ruling was in the pre-deregulated environment where the CAB did not have control of travel within a state, the type of service Southwest offered at the time.
When DFW International opened in 1974, every airline, except Southwest and Braniff (which continued to operate a few flights from Love in addition to the new airport), moved to the new, larger airport. With the drastic reduction in flights, Love Field decommissioned most of its concourses.
After the deregulation of the U.S. airline industry in 1978, Southwest Airlines entered the larger passenger market with plans to start providing interstate service in 1979. This angered the City of Fort Worth, DFW International Airport, and Braniff International Airways, which resented expanded air service at the airport within Dallas[citation needed]. To help protect DFW International Airport, Jim Wright, a Fort Worth congressman, sponsored and helped pass an amendment to the International Air Transportation Act of 1979 in Congress that restricted passenger air traffic out of Love Field in the following ways:
While the law deterred other major airlines from starting service out of Love Field, Southwest continued to expand as it used multiple short-haul flights to build its Love Field operation. This had the effect of increasing local traffic to non-Wright-Amendment-impacted airports such as Houston/Hobby Airport, the New Orleans Airport, and the El Paso and Albuquerque airports.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It's really not fantasy to read in between the lines here and see that Southwest benefitted greatly from the protectionism of the Wright Amendment. Entry into the airline industry requires steep capital costs. With it's protected niche at Love Field in effect, nobody could compete head-to-head with Southwest airlines. The airlines that attempted to do so in the era of deregulation could not compete with the frequencies that Southwest offered and it was quite easy for Southwest to drop fares on the routes that were competing with any new service at Love field while maintaining or raising them on other routes to compensate for the lower fares on the competitive routes.
Interesting politics (which should make it pretty clear that discussing transportation without including the political dimension makes for a pretty incomplete discussion). Although that would seem to put the whole SWA business in a different perspective, I bet we haven't heard the end of it. TBC!
CMStPnP It's really not fantasy to read in between the lines here and see that Southwest benefitted greatly from the protectionism of the Wright Amendment. Entry into the airline industry requires steep capital costs. With it's protected niche at Love Field in effect, nobody could compete head-to-head with Southwest airlines. The
CMStPnP thank you for that history lesson. I would like to add a bit of prior history that will illuminate your post.
Bach in the early 1950s an airline ( Southeast I believe ) started service between the citys of Memphis, Nashville, Chattanooga, Knoxville, and Bristol, Tennessee (TRI CITY). This service was set up in a very short time. The CAB tried to shut it down but unable due to a frendly fed court injunction sayiing CAB had no jurisdiction. Southeast got a bunch of DC-3s and had various routes between the citys and did a booming business ( there were no interstate hwys and it took 16 + hrs end to end SOU RR service. Car travel was even slower There were no legacy airlines except American air flew some of these routes but not in total. AA had pulled out of TRI city and Chatanooga.
In about 1 -3 years South east applied to serve Atlanta and Cincinnati from these Tn citys because many TN Persons needed to go to those locations. Well IMHO the CAB was going to punish Southeast and when the route awards came out Southeast got nothing and Southern air lines (based in ATL ) got Memphis - ATL and Piedmont got TRI and Knoxville - Cincinnati without even applying for the routes. Southern also got the various citys Memphis - Bristol but with frequency and route restrictions. However Southern received "development fares". Well that sunk Southeast ( a plane running into a mountain close to Bristol did not help). "development fares" disappeared when Southeast went under. Southern service over the years got worse and worse.
Now go to SouthWest air in Texas. Your article did not mention that SW learned from the experience of Southeast. The abillity to run hourly service Hobby - Love using 4 aircraft established that route for them. The ability to fill aiirplanes ( at that time average legacy load factors were 50 -55%) allowed them to make more revenue from identical flights with lower fares. SW undercut fares of the legacy carriers and those carriers could not change their fares without a CAB rate case to change all legacy carriers to same fare then SW reduced fares again. The CAB had tried also to limit SW but we know that history. There was no HSR to compete with SW either.
SW ever since has initiated future routes by making the frequent service frequencys on each route they started.
And most importantly they got the Wright amendment.
OK, well enough of the Southwest Airlines bit.
Back to the topic, which is they need to build a decent HSR system with intermodalism, stations that are convienent, fares that are reasonable for the time saved, etc. I think a proper HSR line will add vs detract from productivity and the Economy where it is located. I lived in Germany for 18 months and I was amazed I could reach just about any part of the country without a car and without shelling out a small fortune in fares. Part of the advantage in Germany is that airports are not convienently located but train stations are. They also have intermodialism at a lot of their stations. I have a choice of Taxi, Rental Car, Bicycle Rental, Foot, Light Rail, Bus, etc. Most American train stations do not come close. So that needs to be fixed. The Germans still have a steep Rail Passenger Subsidy which I think could be brought down with some privitization as well further efficiencies. So I would not use the German model entirely.
Oh, no, no, no...not intermodalism here. I don't believe anyone has suggested moving the buggy from one set of wheel or frame or wings to another. What you mean is reliable and convenient schedules interconnecting with other rail and major forms of transporation.
CMStPnPI lived in Germany for 18 months and I was amazed I could reach just about any part of the country without a car and without shelling out a small fortune in fares.
Interesting. I've ridden on DB a lot for 40+ years and seen many changes, mostly for the good. Not as many small towns are served now as even 15 years ago, particularly on the lines in the former DDR (E. Germany). There are very few Kurswagens (passenger cars shunted from one train to another, often in less than 10 minutes) now. But the tremendous increase in really fast, frequent service (not just ICE, but also IC and RE trains) is really something. Getting around is so easy, even with train changes. The waiting time for your connection is short, sometimes a few minutes. The cars are very comfortable. Most stations are places people like to go to. If you've never ridden there or other European countries, you have no idea what a first class rail system can be.
CMStPnP OK, well enough of the Southwest Airlines bit. Back to the topic, which is they need to build a decent HSR system with intermodalism, stations that are convienent, fares that are reasonable for the time saved, etc. I think a proper HSR line will add vs detract from productivity and the Economy where it is located. I lived in Germany for 18 months and I was amazed I could reach just about any part of the country without a car and without shelling out a small fortune in fares. Part of the advantage in Germany is that airports are not convienently located but train stations are. They also have intermodialism at a lot of their stations. I have a choice of Taxi, Rental Car, Bicycle Rental, Foot, Light Rail, Bus, etc. Most American train stations do not come close. So that needs to be fixed. The Germans still have a steep Rail Passenger Subsidy which I think could be brought down with some privitization as well further efficiencies. So I would not use the German model entirely.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) issued a warming this week regarding the excessive debt being piled up by the developed nations. This includes the United States, where the national debt will reach 95 to 100 per cent of GDP by 2011.
According to the IMF, when the debt to GDP ratio reaches 90 per cent, economic growth is retarded by as much as one per cent per year. Amongst other sources of data, the IMF bases its views on the actual numbers from Greece, Portugal, Ireland, etc., all of which are having tremedous debt servicing problems.
Given these doleful numbers, how will the U.S.Government, which is tapped out, fund HSR so as to create a postive rather than drag effect on the economy? Every HSR proposal that I have read is looking to the federal government for a substantial portion of its capital and operating funds.
henry6Oh, no, no, no...not intermodalism here. I don't believe anyone has suggested moving the buggy from one set of wheel or frame or wings to another. What you mean is reliable and convenient schedules interconnecting with other rail and major forms of transporation.
The term "Intermodal" is used for passenger transport as well. The passengers are the "buggies" that move from train to bus, etc. If you're not from an urban area with more than just transit buses, you may not be familiar with this usage.
Sam1...Given these doleful numbers, how will the U.S.Government, which is tapped out, fund HSR so as to create a postive rather than drag effect on the economy? Every HSR proposal that I have read is looking to the federal government for a substantial portion of its capital and operating funds.
...Given these doleful numbers, how will the U.S.Government, which is tapped out, fund HSR so as to create a postive rather than drag effect on the economy? Every HSR proposal that I have read is looking to the federal government for a substantial portion of its capital and operating funds.
That's been in the back of my mind for the past year even without an authoritative source.
If you (CMStPnP) had read my post carefully, you would have seen that I was replying to Schlimn. And this response is directed to comments made in several posts.
"To claim that the project was defeated exclusively by Southwest Airlines is to state a clear lack of understanding of Texas politics" was the last sentence in one of my paragraphs. I did not bold any of the words in the sentence; I presume you have done it. I usually don't use bold letters. It is considered a form of shouting in emails and forums. If I want to emphasize a point, I use italics.
Most serious researchers view Wikipedia with a jaundice eye because of its loose editorial standards. At a minimum they recommend that anyone relying on Wikipedia cross check the article with more authoritative sources. I don't know of any graduate school, for example, that would allow a student to rely exclusively on a Wikipedia source. Readers who are interested in Southwest Airlines history should read "Nuts", as well as several other excellent histories on the airline, to get an indepth understanding of its history.
The founders of Southwest Airlines did not take their clues from Southeast Airlines. They used Pacific Southwest Airlines in California as their model. In fact, they had originally planned to lease Lockeed Electra's for their operation, which was the plane used by PSA. However, because of the opposition that they encountered in getting the airline off the ground, they realized that the B737 was a better option.
Of course SWA began its operations during the era of airline regulation. That is part of the beauty of its story. It was able to demonstrate, based on what it had learned from PSA, that the regulatory model was flawed, i.e. it promoted inefficient and costly commercial service. Because of regulation, it was unable to operate beyond Texas until the airlines were deregulated in 1979.
Relatively little capital is required to start an airline. Everything is leased. Southwest Airlines, as an example, owns very little. The airlines are 90 day cash flow operations. The reason that they come and go so easily is because the capital requirements to get into the game are relatively low. It is also the reason why they can get out of it quickly.
Southwest Airlines opposed the Wright Amendment. Whether it benefited from it is arguable. The founders claim that it was a major problem for the SWA business model, which contains a lot of features that the proponents of expanded passenger rail should pick-up on.
Sam1 The founders of Southwest Airlines did not take their clues from Southeast Airlines. They used Pacific Southwest Airlines in California as their model. In fact, they had originally planned to lease Lockeed Electra's for their operation, which was the plane used by PSA. However, because of the opposition that they encountered in getting the airline off the ground, they realized that the B737 was a better option.
Sam thanks for reminding me of PSA. According to a few of my PSA friends the original management took a few various other airline personel. If former SE air persons were hired to help form PSA airline they are not aware. However how PSA came up with their business model is lost in antiquity. But you are right that PSA did encounter some of the intrastate opposition that has showed up from the feds to all these airlines. PSA would probably be still be here today if they had not lost their focus on San Diego bypassing LAX area. That and management lost interest in running PSA and essentially sold out to US Air and then US Air left intrastate CA routes later.
HarveyK400 henry6 Oh, no, no, no...not intermodalism here. I don't believe anyone has suggested moving the buggy from one set of wheel or frame or wings to another. What you mean is reliable and convenient schedules interconnecting with other rail and major forms of transportation. The term "Inter-modal" is used for passenger transport as well. The passengers are the "buggies" that move from train to bus, etc. If you're not from an urban area with more than just transit buses, you may not be familiar with this usage.
henry6 Oh, no, no, no...not intermodalism here. I don't believe anyone has suggested moving the buggy from one set of wheel or frame or wings to another. What you mean is reliable and convenient schedules interconnecting with other rail and major forms of transportation.
Oh, no, no, no...not intermodalism here. I don't believe anyone has suggested moving the buggy from one set of wheel or frame or wings to another. What you mean is reliable and convenient schedules interconnecting with other rail and major forms of transportation.
The term "Inter-modal" is used for passenger transport as well. The passengers are the "buggies" that move from train to bus, etc. If you're not from an urban area with more than just transit buses, you may not be familiar with this usage.
The new (coming soon) Charlotte Gateway Station is being called a Multi-modal facility not inter modal.
It will be served by Amtrak, CATS commuter Rail, CATS Trolley, CATS Buses, and Greyhound and is a short Sprinter bus ride from the airport.
schlimm blownout cylinderYou "experienced" that lovely highway I see! lol!! The busiest stretch of highway in N.A, is between my "fair" city--London ON--and TO. This is caused by the Windsor/Detroit traffic and the Sarnia ON/ Pt Huron MI traffic from the 402 being funneled into each other here. This will soon be compacted by all the TO garbage traffic as well. Sounds like a candidate route for fast, frequent and convenient service!
That was one of the reasons there has been this debate about HSR up here for the longest time.
The only thing is that I'd like to know if there was/is any other mainline that bisects a quarry in two. I keep having to remind people that the CN doubletrack actually goes through a quarry complex at Beachville ON--not around. That will be what someone in a potential HSR will have also to contend with----unless we re-route the dang thing--
blownout cylinder The only thing is that I'd like to know if there was/is any other mainline that bisects a quarry in two. I keep having to remind people that the CN doubletrack actually goes through a quarry complex at Beachville ON--not around. That will be what someone in a potential HSR will have also to contend with----unless we re-route the dang thing--
There is a quarry south of chicago near I-80 that is bisected by a N - S RR track. In fact there is a quarry road E - W that tunnels under the track. All you Chicago people know more details?
That would be the quarry in McCook along the BNSF (xATSF) and crossed by the IHB.
There was talk about using the IHB for a O'Hare-Midway rail connection; but people didn't take into account the capacity of the line nor slow speed of the freights - not unrelated. Beside the quarry, much of the narrow row was hemmed in by industrial buildings and their sidings.
A bit farther south on the Tri-state (I 294) it bisects the huge quarry at Thornton. There are rail lines (not sure who owns them, the east one is a N-S mainline, I believe) on the east and west boundaries, as well.
schlimm A bit farther south on the Tri-state (I 294) it bisects the huge quarry at Thornton. There are rail lines (not sure who owns them, the east one is a N-S mainline, I believe) on the east and west boundaries, as well.
Sounds like the one I was asking about. Now I remember there was more than one rail line involved.
Do any of these run a passenger service through?
The VIA from Windsor/Sarnia and from TO go through this quarry---I tried to get to get some pix when I went through on it but my timing is just plain bad---
I keep wondering about how that is arranged in the first place---
schlimm CMStPnPI lived in Germany for 18 months and I was amazed I could reach just about any part of the country without a car and without shelling out a small fortune in fares. Interesting. I've ridden on DB a lot for 40+ years and seen many changes, mostly for the good. Not as many small towns are served now as even 15 years ago, particularly on the lines in the former DDR (E. Germany). There are very few Kurswagens (passenger cars shunted from one train to another, often in less than 10 minutes) now. But the tremendous increase in really fast, frequent service (not just ICE, but also IC and RE trains) is really something. Getting around is so easy, even with train changes. The waiting time for your connection is short, sometimes a few minutes. The cars are very comfortable. Most stations are places people like to go to. If you've never ridden there or other European countries, you have no idea what a first class rail system can be.
What were the fares like when you took DB?
That would be in Thornton, IL. While the Tri-State bisects that quarry, the CN (GTW) and UP (CEI) are safely away and not constrained for adding additional tracks. These lines are farther than the UP (CNW) to the quarry in Elmhurst, IL.
This is getting off the subject since I doubt the IHB would be used in the French HS proposal for the Chicago hub; but we may get more details at tomorrow's Midwest HSR Annual Meeting.
blownout cylinderWhat were the fares like when you took DB?
I last rode DB in 2009. Check this English version of the DB website and check a current fare from Frankfurt to Munich (or whatever cities you choose):
Last time I rode was 10 years ago. Seems to me the Sleeping Car service was cheaper then Amtrak but the 1st class Coach was more expensive. When you use the Sleeping Car Service in Germany you have to specify you want the compartment to yourself and you pay a suppliment. Otherwise in some cases you will be sharing a compartment with a stranger.
I had a German see that once and go off on the conductor right outside my compartment. He was saying there were two more beds and there is no reason I should have the compartment to myself. The Conductor straightened him out on the extra fare I paid. So some Germans get a little miffed sometimes but they can pay the extra fare and make reservations just like I did.
Another republican at it again. Perhaps if we tell the republicans it is to start an unneeded war they will support HSR.
wairoaAnother republican at it again. Perhaps if we tell the republicans it is to start an unneeded war they will support HSR.
Huh? What's this about?
He must be just now responding to the initial post of some weeks ago.
I'm a little late to this thread, but let me state a couple of opinions on HSR for what (if anything) they may be worth.
First of all, does anyone seriously believe that any of the HSR "new starts" being proposed will pay their way? It would be one thing if government fronted the capital costs of construction, and then the service, once it was up and running, repaid them. But how realistic is that? I stand to be corrected by those who know more about foreign HSR systems than I do, but I don't believe that any foreign HSR system covers its capital costs. At most, some of them may cover their operatingl costs. Given differences in population density in this country vs foreign countries with HSR, I seriously doubt whether any of the HSR "new starts" being proposed in this country would even be able to cover their operating costs, let alone their capital costs. If this proves to be the case, any new HSR built will represent a continued cash drain for the govenrnmental unit responsible for the system.
The argument that taxpayers should, nevertheless, support new HSR systems, even if they operate at a deficit, because they already pay great gobs of money to support other govenment programs (both in transport and in other areas) that don't pay their way doesn't cut a whole lot of weight with me. It's like saying that, because you use your credit card to buy more stuff than you can afford at Walmart, you have an obligation to spend even more to buy stuff you can't afford to buy stuff at Target.
Finally, have any of those advocating taxpayer support of new HSR systems considered what this might mean to less flashy, but more vital, urban mass transit systems and Amtrak regional services? If HSR proves to be a cash drain (as is likely), a very realistic scenario is that the funding for these other vital, but more mundane, transport services will be cut in order to support the new showcase HSR services. Just look what's happening in Illinois. The state is talking about spending billions on a new Chicago- St.. Louis HSR which, even under its most optimistic projects, will handle only a small number of the passengers hauled by the Chicago mass transit system. Yet, the Chicago transit system is starving, cutting back services and wondering where it is going to get the money to rebuild its ancient infrastructure. And look at California. The state is planning to spend billions for a Los Angeles-San Franciso HSR while the important Caltrains San Jose - San Franciso commuter train service is being cut back due to lack of funds. The HSR service may be more glitzy, but which service is really more important? And what's going to happen to the funding for other California supported transit and regional rail services if the HSR service is ever actually built? This same scenario is likely to play out all over the country. Any HSR lines actually built will drain money away from existing transit and regional rail services.
Don't get me wrong. From a hobby standpoint, I like HSR. If an HSR line is built from Chicago, I would certainly ride it once in awhile, if only for the experience. But I don't expect the taxpayers to support my hobby.
Can we presume that you are equally offended by everything else the government does that doesn't make a profit or at least break even? We could build a tremendous passenger rail network with the money we spend on the largest military in the world, or just the money we spend supporting military bases all over the world. I didn't even include the hundreds of billions spent beating up and occupying small countries.
The government supports things that benefit our society, whether or not they make money. Police, Fire, water systems, sewer systems, road construction and maintenance, public parks, an inexpensive postal system, environmental conservation, NASA, the Coast Guard, Border Patrol, etc. The ability of our people to move around the country easily, comfortably, and quickly is one of those things.
If you are looking for government waste to wave your tea bags at, I can find you a lot of things that are a lot more outrageous than constructing a modern passenger rail network.
Phoebe Vet Can we presume that you are equally offended by everything else the government does that doesn't make a profit or at least break even? We could build a tremendous passenger rail network with the money we spend on the largest military in the world, or just the money we spend supporting military bases all over the world. I didn't even include the hundreds of billions spent beating up and occupying small countries. The government supports things that benefit our society, whether or not they make money. Police, Fire, water systems, sewer systems, road construction and maintenance, public parks, an inexpensive postal system, environmental conservation, NASA, the Coast Guard, Border Patrol, etc. The ability of our people to move around the country easily, comfortably, and quickly is one of those things. If you are looking for government waste to wave your tea bags at, I can find you a lot of things that are a lot more outrageous than constructing a modern passenger rail network.
The most complete, concise, and accurate statement ever posted on any Forum page or topic!
Falcon48First of all, does anyone seriously believe that any of the HSR "new starts" being proposed will pay their way?
Falcon48 Given differences in population density in this country vs foreign countries with HSR,
Falcon48Any HSR lines actually built will drain money away from existing transit and regional rail services.
I wouldn't expect taxpayers to support my hobby, my travel or my commute unless doing so was in the overall interest of the country.
oltmannd Is being delayed 5 minutes, 5 days a week worth the same to you as being delayed once for 25 minutes? And, maybe, it's not even the actual delay that's important, it's the reliability of the trip. If you always have to allow an extra 25 minutes to be sure you get somewhere on time even though 4 out of 5 times you will arrive 25 minutes early, is that not worse than alway having to leave 5 minutes early?
Don: You have squarely hit the nail on the head. I have a doctor that I vist once every 3 months north of Peachtree station. I have to leave 1 hr earlier than needed because once every 3 - 4 times I just make it on schedule. You have spoken of this for Amtrak on time performance and it appears that getting close to the 80% on time for them really attracks many more passengers?
We probably know know persons who leave every day 1/2 - 1 hr earlier to work but cannot start until regular starting time but be one minute late -----------?
The primary place where Amtrak's abysmal on time performance is important is when making connections. It is very unlikely that they will hold a train or an airplane because the incoming train is late.
The amount society decides to spend in the public vs. private sectors is a value judgment, and whether the activity should be in the public sector or private sector is also a value judgment. Hopefully, the efficiency and effectiveness of each option is weighed carefully, although in many if not most instances a heavy dose of emotionalism usually creeps into the equation.
What the U.S. spends on its military establishment is subject to extensive debate. Amazingly, some people even have a few intelligent things to say about it, but my experience tells me that most people outside of the military establishment or the highest reaches of the federal government are not knowledgeable regarding the appropriateness of the military spend, which by the way is roughly 4.5 per cent of GDP.
What the U.S. spends on its military establishment or postal service or national parks, etc. has nothing to do with what it should spend on passenger rail. The key question is what problem is passenger rail designed to fix? And where would it be an optimum solution? How rich should the solution be? The answers to these questions should drive the decisions regarding the appropriateness of any potential spend on passenger rail.
If a robust cost model is used to determine where passenger rail is a good fit, the only places that would come up positive are in those relatively few areas of the country where the cost of expanding the highway and airways systems is prohibitive.
Oh, the "inexpensive postal system" has one of the highest overhead burdens of any organization (government or otherwise) in the United States. It has been losing money by the buckets for a long time, although it is supposed to cover its costs. This year it will require a federal subsidy of $3.8 billion. And this is on top of $3.4 billion that it gets each year from the federal government for services supposedly provided for it. How these services are priced is problematic, but some analysts believe that the government payment greatly exceeds the cost of the services received and in fact is a subsidy.
The postal service has one retiree for every 1.47 active employees. These retirees have generous retirement benefits. It is one of the factors that are contribution to the financial problems besetting the postal service. No business organization could sustain this ratio. Oh, did I say it? The post office is all too typical of many government organizations. And it is why I don't want the government at any level to run anything that can be run by a competitive business, even it the only thing that would fit is a sole source contract.
oltmanndFalcon48 Given differences in population density in this country vs foreign countries with HSR, The eastern half of the US and California are not dissimilar to Europe.Falcon48Any HSR lines actually built will drain money away from existing transit and regional rail services.Not really. It's the non-discretionary portions of the budge that will sink all discretionary spending. Non-discretionary spending is Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (this is the 900# gorilla) and debt interest. Federal spending has typically been about 20% of GNP for the past 40 years. Non-discretionary spending is currently about 60% of the Federal budget and will exceed 20% of GNP in the next 40 years, leaving nothing for defense, education, transit, highways or anything else. I wouldn't expect taxpayers to support my hobby, my travel or my commute unless doing so was in the overall interest of the country.
Your assessment of non-discretionary vs. discretionary federal spending is spot on. However, you left out two items of the non-discretionary spend that are worth mentioning. They are the unfunded military and federal retirement promises.
Unlike firms offering a qualified pension plan, the government does not have to determine the actuarial value of the retirement benefits for its employees (military and civilian) and fund them on an on-going basis. It just takes the money from the yearly operating budget, which is course is paid for by the taxpayers. The amount of unfunded military and federal employee retirement benefits is nearly as great as the amount of unfunded Social Security obligations.
What do you think would happen to a candidate for Congress if he or she promised to modernize the military retirement plan, which was put together in 1866, when male life expectancywas approximately 45 years? Or touch the civilian retirement plan?
Phoebe VetCan we presume that you are equally offended by everything else the government does that doesn't make a profit or at least break even?
Like henry6, this was one of the most succinct expressions of the inconsistencies and clearly political bias of our resident accountant. I can only remark that perhaps she would prefer to "privatize" the remainder of our military not already out-sourced. For that matter, why not privatize the whole government?
schlimm Phoebe VetCan we presume that you are equally offended by everything else the government does that doesn't make a profit or at least break even? Like henry6, this was one of the most succinct expressions of the inconsistencies and clearly political bias of our resident accountant. I can only remark that perhaps she would prefer to "privatize" the remainder of our military not already out-sourced. For that matter, why not privatize the whole government?
A careful read of my post reveals two key points;
I have maintained consistently these views since I began posting to these forums more than three years ago.
No suggestion that the military should be outsourced was made or implied. Since the beginning of the Republic the U.S. military has relied on contractors for equipment and supplies, as well as critical support services best performed by civilians.
There are numerous activites performed by governments at all levels that could be outsourced. In fact, there are many examples of where they have been with good results.
The military is already being privatized, what else explains Blackwater and other similar private security (mercenaries) contractors.
This thread if not the entire advocacy community has "run off the rails" and "put 'er on the ground" as it were.
A person cannot express skepticism whether the time is ripe for HSR without the conversation devolving into partisan politics.
Look people, if HSR is going to be tied to the "Red State-Blue State" divide, HSR or anything else rail is going to be a big loser. Why? Because the partisan divide is pretty much right down the middle of the electorate, pretty much a 50-50 or maybe as much as a 52-48 split.
So, you take your 52 percent on your side of the partisan divide, and maybe, just maybe, if you are persuasive, you get 90 percent of that, and what do you have 47 percent, at best. You lose. No growth of Amtrak. No HSR. You are certainly not getting any votes from the other side of the partisan divide because you have made train advocacy a "hot button issue."
A person on this forum tries to express some modest skepticism regarding HSR, concerns readily addressed, but no, this person gets branded a right-wing zealot and a bunch of other people "pile on" saying how much they are in agreement. I see the same thing in the bricks-and-morter advocacy world, and our in-your-face local advocacy group will yet find some way to torpedo the Madison-Milwaukee train by offending people.
Paul Milenkovic This thread if not the entire advocacy community has "run off the rails" and "put 'er on the ground" as it were. A person cannot express skepticism whether the time is ripe for HSR without the conversation devolving into partisan politics. Look people, if HSR is going to be tied to the "Red State-Blue State" divide, HSR or anything else rail is going to be a big loser. Why? Because the partisan divide is pretty much right down the middle of the electorate, pretty much a 50-50 or maybe as much as a 52-48 split. So, you take your 52 percent on your side of the partisan divide, and maybe, just maybe, if you are persuasive, you get 90 percent of that, and what do you have 47 percent, at best. You lose. No growth of Amtrak. No HSR. You are certainly not getting any votes from the other side of the partisan divide because you have made train advocacy a "hot button issue." A person on this forum tries to express some modest skepticism regarding HSR, concerns readily addressed, but no, this person gets branded a right-wing zealot and a bunch of other people "pile on" saying how much they are in agreement. I see the same thing in the bricks-and-morter advocacy world, and our in-your-face local advocacy group will yet find some way to torpedo the Madison-Milwaukee train by offending people.
But Paul, isn't the reverse also true? If you support government involvement you are labled an Unamerican Socialist and thus also bring the discussion to a halt? What Phoebe Vet stated clearely was the state of the situation: no matter what form of transportation or other public utility, the government plays a big role. Period. Whether or not to change railroads, i.e. HSR, Amtrak, freight, etc., to either all private or all public ownership is the question posed again and agian with no resolve except to name calling. Historically, progress-- industrial, business, transportation, services and utilities--has been a constortium, a cooperation, and joint venture, a give and take and take and give, of both the private and public sectors. In effect, we, the US, has run down the middle of the road, picking the best of each side and using it to progress with no one side really getting ahead of the other. Is the question, therefore. that we must choose between an all private sector control of business and commmerce including infrastructure or an all socialistic governement control of business and commerce including the infrastructure? I really don't think that is the question because there is no 100% answer for either side.
henry6 In effect, we, the US, has run down the middle of the road, picking the best of each side and using it to progress with no one side really getting ahead of the other. Is the question, therefore. that we must choose between an all private sector control of business and commmerce including infrastructure or an all socialistic governement control of business and commerce including the infrastructure? I really don't think that is the question because there is no 100% answer for either side.
In effect, we, the US, has run down the middle of the road, picking the best of each side and using it to progress with no one side really getting ahead of the other. Is the question, therefore. that we must choose between an all private sector control of business and commmerce including infrastructure or an all socialistic governement control of business and commerce including the infrastructure? I really don't think that is the question because there is no 100% answer for either side.
Well put. A good example would be the tremendous amount of government funded research that NASA has done to benefit civil aviation. NASA has researched and developed engine technology, airfoil designs, and composite construction materials now used extensively in civil aircraft, etc.
No, no, and no. The reverse is not also true.
I have seen the posts about "Unamerican Socialist", and it is simply untrue that the discussion comes to a halt -- that person gets a swift and rapid response in these parts.
We have a guy come on here and meekly ask whether HSR is first priority of the passenger rail dollar and get the same swift rapid-response treatment and entirely unprovoked too. The question was not raised on whether government money should go to trains but whether it should go to HSR at the expense of other types of trains.
We have a published railroad author come to our local advocacy group to talk about the historical Hiawatha train and get blacklisted by our group for a return engagement for expressing the view that the "future of trains is in corridors and not in long-distance." The same attitudes occur in both the on-line and local advocacy communities, and the net effect is to set the cause back.
We can talk forever and ever about how "those other guys get all of that subsidy, direct and hidden", but until we address the question whether rail is addressing particular transportation problems in a more cost-effective manner than the competition, we will be spinning our wheels. Rail could address certain transportation problems more cost effectively than alternatives than new road or airport construction, but few in the advocacy community want to do the leg work to make these cases (and accept the outcome if the case is negative for rail) -- we simply fall back on the old shibboleths that airlines are getting subsidy and trains need to get the same thing. It's lazy advocacy, and it has kept us 40 years in the transportation wilderness.
Paul Milenkovic We have a guy come on here and meekly ask whether HSR is first priority of the passenger rail dollar and get the same swift rapid-response treatment and entirely unprovoked too.
We have a guy come on here and meekly ask whether HSR is first priority of the passenger rail dollar and get the same swift rapid-response treatment and entirely unprovoked too.
You keep using the term meekly asks if it's a first priority. Followed by an accusation of an unprovoked attack by me.
These quotes are from the post to which I was responding:
That is accusatory. He stated that the "glitzy" HSR is a hobby that is being built solely out of ego and that if the government chooses to fund it it is an inappropriate use of his tax dollars.
I merely stated why I disagree with that assessment. That is IS a proper use of tax dollars. The Tea bag reference was probably over the top, but for the last several months we have been blasted almost daily in the media with coverage of ignorant people waving often misspelled signs with derogatory pictures and phrases screaming that anything that does not directly benefit them individually is government waste. It's wearing thin, and I am not the only person who is getting fed up with them. So every time I hear someone say the government shouldn't fund (your pet project here) I tend to react reflexively.
Sam1Unlike firms offering a qualified pension plan, the government does not have to determine the actuarial value of the retirement benefits for its employees (military and civilian) and fund them on an on-going basis. It just takes the money from the yearly operating budget, which is course is paid for by the taxpayers. The amount of unfunded military and federal employee retirement benefits is nearly as great as the amount of unfunded Social Security obligations. What do you think would happen to a candidate for Congress if he or she promised to modernize the military retirement plan, which was put together in 1866, when male life expectancywas approximately 45 years? Or touch the civilian retirement plan?
Phoebe Vet Paul Milenkovic We have a guy come on here and meekly ask whether HSR is first priority of the passenger rail dollar and get the same swift rapid-response treatment and entirely unprovoked too. Paul: You keep using the term meekly asks if it's a first priority. Followed by an accusation of an unprovoked attack by me. These quotes are from the post to which I was responding: The argument that taxpayers should, nevertheless, support new HSR systems, even if they operate at a deficit, because they already pay great gobs of money to support other govenment programs (both in transport and in other areas) that don't pay their way doesn't cut a whole lot of weight with me. It's like saying that, because you use your credit card to buy more stuff than you can afford at Walmart, you have an obligation to spend even more to buy stuff you can't afford to buy stuff at Target. Don't get me wrong. From a hobby standpoint, I like HSR. If an HSR line is built from Chicago, I would certainly ride it once in awhile, if only for the experience. But I don't expect the taxpayers to support my hobby. That is accusatory. He stated that the "glitzy" HSR is a hobby that is being built solely out of ego and that if the government chooses to fund it it is an inappropriate use of his tax dollars. I merely stated why I disagree with that assessment. That is IS a proper use of tax dollars. The Tea bag reference was probably over the top, but for the last several months we have been blasted almost daily in the media with coverage of ignorant people waving often misspelled signs with derogatory pictures and phrases screaming that anything that does not directly benefit them individually is government waste. It's wearing thin, and I am not the only person who is getting fed up with them. So every time I hear someone say the government shouldn't fund (your pet project here) I tend to react reflexively.
This is a true story, by the way, and it is illustrative of the problem with getting people served by rail transportation in a highway-oriented society. A man is all tired and worn out and crabby from driving and fighting traffic, the worst part of it is he got stuck behind one of those "Tea Party" demonstrations on State Street when trying to get through Chicago, and by now all he wants to do is park his car and complete the remainder of his journey in a nice, comfortable, air-conditioned train.
He comes up upon a "minimart", and asks the man behind the counter for help finding a train station, buying a ticket, and getting on a train. It turns out that his other man is, um, an ethnic Near Eastern person from Chicago (OK, he is a Serb who is Catholic because the priest made him change religions to marry an ethnic Yugoslav-German woman, if you have to ask) who has a license to sell the I-Pass for the Illinois Tollroad Authority. The shop owner says that he can't help with the train, he only sells the I-Pass to go on the Tollroad.
The tired and crabby driver curses the shop owner out, pointing out that Illinois DOT now supports trains as well as highways, and that the shop owner is a disgrace to to the State of Illinois for not helping him out, and that he is just as bad as that disgraced former Governer of Illinois, and all of you ethnic Serbs are all alike. So the shop owner says, "OK, so you don't want to buy an I-Pass from me, but I tell you what, if you just drive another mile or two on this country road, you will find someone who can help you find the train station."
So the angry and cursing motorist comes back 20 minutes later and says (somewhat apologetically this time), "Your friend over there at the toll station who calls himself Blagojevich tells me I need an I-Pass to get to the next exit where the train station is located."
.
Falcon:
I don't think we are on the same page.
No one in the federal government is proposing true high speed rail in this country. The only true high speed projects under consideration are being proposed by state governments, and in those cases the local voters have been approving the funds so far.
Amtrak's definition of high speed rail is anything over 79 MPH. Amtrak is proposing "high speed corridors", but they mean 90 to 110 MPH and the elimination of slow speed segments and grade level crossings. It's a small step, but I support it.
It has been pointed out to me that I tend to over react when people start complaining about the cost of supporting our infrastructure, so I will try to reduce my "tea" references. I do, however believe that we have our spending priorities wrong.
I would love to see a true high speed rail network, supported by regional rail feeders and local transit in the communities served, but I have no delusions that that will happen in my lifetime.
"The largest share of the $8 billion in grants awarded in January went to California, which got $2.3 billion for a 220-mph route between Los Angeles and San Francisco."
Whether the government is putting its eggs in the best high speed rail basket, however it is defined, is debatable, as shown in an article that appeared recently in the LA Times.
"LOS ANGELES - an academic study has found that ridership forecasts for the California high-speed rail project is flawed and needs further work.The analysis released Thursday by the University of California; Berkeley challenges the optimistic projections that by 2035, 41 million passengers could ride the trains every year.UC Berkley transportation experts said certain methodology used in the forecasts are unreliable, making it impossible to predict whether the 800-mile system would be profitable.Ridership predictions are critical to the $42-billion project because they form the basis for route selection, private investment and public funding decisions.The CEO of the California High-Speed Rail Authority is standing by the forecasts, calling them a "sound tool" for planning the system."
Unfortunately, as pointed out by the Government Accountability Office in its report on high speed rail projects, the proponents tend to overstate the number of riders and revenues that will be generated by their project whilst understating the costs. Moreover, the estimates tend to be moving targets. For example, proponents of the California high speed rail project claimed that a passenger would be able to travel from LA to San Francisco for $55. This estimate was subsequently raised to $115. In any case, these projects will never pay for their capital costs and, in most instances it is unlikely that they will be able to covering their operating costs without some fancy accounting. Thus, the taxpayers will be on the hook for the deficits generated by the projects.
Sam1Unfortunately, as pointed out by the Government Accountability Office in its report on high speed rail projects, the proponents tend to overstate the number of riders and revenues that will be generated by their project whilst understating the costs.
I would suspect there are significant political and social differences between the US and other countries to render ridership and cost comparisons almost useless.
The California HSR might be the cleverest way to not spend $2B and make it look like you're actually doing something. I'm starting to doubt whether they will ever be able to ante up their portion to get the $2B.
Generally it is preferable to provide a link to the actual article rather than summarize and put quotes around it.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-high-speed-rail-20100701,0,1714268.story
So this project seems to be headed down the usual American path. It will eventually cost 4 times what it should have, if it gets built at all, because we have strangled it with studies, hearings, law suits, and bureaucratic nonsense that will cause it to be ten years before the first shovel of dirt is moved.
schlimm Generally it is preferable to provide a link to the actual article rather than summarize and put quotes around it. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-high-speed-rail-20100701,0,1714268.story
Your are entitled to your views. I disagree.
The quoted points, which were lifted from a recent Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainman Publication, captured the essense of the full article. The key point is clear. The estimates of ridership and revenue are unreliable.
oltmanndSam1Unfortunately, as pointed out by the Government Accountability Office in its report on high speed rail projects, the proponents tend to overstate the number of riders and revenues that will be generated by their project whilst understating the costs. They must be talking about projects worldwide. There are none to measure on shore....correct? I would suspect there are significant political and social differences between the US and other countries to render ridership and cost comparisons almost useless. The California HSR might be the cleverest way to not spend $2B and make it look like you're actually doing something. I'm starting to doubt whether they will ever be able to ante up their portion to get the $2B.
It has been about a year since I reviewed the GAO report. As I remember the key points, the auditors visited Germany and France to look at high speed rail in other countries. They also reviewed the documents for the Japanese system. From their observations of these systems, they concluded that high speed rail has not and probably will not be able to cover its full costs. They observed correctly that high speed rail requires a large government capital input.
The auditors reviewed the revenue and ridership projection models for many of the proposed U.S. high speed projects. I cannot remember the exact number. They concluded, based on their analysis of the models, that many of them used numbers that were not well supported. Moreover, they found that some of the models were inconsistent.
Proponents for a course of action, i.e. high speed rail, mergers, acquisitions, etc. tend to wear rose colored glasses. This was true in the case of the Fortune 250 Company where I was employed for decades. Management finally authorized the auditors to look at the models used by the proponents of major projects or contracts to determine whether they made sense. We found in most instances that the project proponents adopted the most optimistic estimates, even when a little scrutiny suggested that achievement of the most optimistic outcome was unlikely.
Clearly, estimating ridership and revenue 20 years out is chancy. Most of the corporate financial and organizational planners that I knew told me that anyone who thinks they can predict more outcomes more than 3 to 5 years with any degree of accuracy is just fooling themselves as well as their clients.
Sam1schlimm Generally it is preferable to provide a link to the actual article rather than summarize and put quotes around it. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-high-speed-rail-20100701,0,1714268.story Your are entitled to your views. I disagree. The quoted points, which were lifted from a recent Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainman Publication, captured the essense of the full article. The key point is clear. The estimates of ridership and revenue are unreliable.
There are many good reasons for using the original article, if available. For example, in the actual article, it stated that the projections were:
"The authority estimates that the system would have between 88 million and 117 million passengers a year by 2030. However, under various scenarios offered by the agency, the number of passengers could be as low as 40 million a year."
This is quite a contrast to your summary, which indicates 41 million. You are applying the conclusion of the Berkley study that the numbers are unreliable to this low, outlying figure,. Given that the population of California is expected to be 46 million by 2030 (currently 38 million) , a ridership estimate in which each resident uses the HSR service only one time per year does not seem especially optimistic.
schlimm Sam1 schlimm Generally it is preferable to provide a link to the actual article rather than summarize and put quotes around it. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-high-speed-rail-20100701,0,1714268.story Your are entitled to your views. I disagree. The quoted points, which were lifted from a recent Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainman Publication, captured the essense of the full article. The key point is clear. The estimates of ridership and revenue are unreliable. There are many good reasons for using the original article, if available. For example, in the actual article, it stated that the projections were: "The authority estimates that the system would have between 88 million and 117 million passengers a year by 2030. However, under various scenarios offered by the agency, the number of passengers could be as low as 40 million a year." This is quite a contrast to your summary, which indicates 41 million. You are applying the conclusion of the Berkley study that the numbers are unreliable to this low, outlying figure,. Given that the population of California is expected to be 46 million by 2030 (currently 38 million) , a ridership estimate in which each resident uses the HSR service only one time per year does not seem especially optimistic.
Sam1 schlimm Generally it is preferable to provide a link to the actual article rather than summarize and put quotes around it. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-high-speed-rail-20100701,0,1714268.story Your are entitled to your views. I disagree. The quoted points, which were lifted from a recent Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainman Publication, captured the essense of the full article. The key point is clear. The estimates of ridership and revenue are unreliable.
It was not my estimate. It was from a summary of the article contained in the BLE&T news letter. Again, the key point is crystal clear. The estimates are suspect, as tends to be the case for all long term estimates.
OK. Here is the actual study in its entirety.
In its conclusion it states this:
"Our main conclusion is that the true confidence bands around the estimates from thesemodels must be very wide. They are probably wide enough to include demand scenarioswhere HSR will lose substantial amounts of money as well as those where it will make ahealthy profit."
As the 41 million figure mentioned in summary article from the BLE newsletter is clearly a lot lower than the other projections mentioned in the LA Times article, it is my contention that the Berkley review is not disputing that lower number.
Also missing from the article is any indication that this is one group of academics (Berkley) critiquing the statistical modeling assumptions of another, rival group (Cambridge/MIT).
Sam1It has been about a year since I reviewed the GAO report. As I remember the key points, the auditors visited Germany and France to look at high speed rail in other countries. They also reviewed the documents for the Japanese system. From their observations of these systems, they concluded that high speed rail has not and probably will not be able to cover its full costs. They observed correctly that high speed rail requires a large government capital input. The auditors reviewed the revenue and ridership projection models for many of the proposed U.S. high speed projects. I cannot remember the exact number. They concluded, based on their analysis of the models, that many of them used numbers that were not well supported. Moreover, they found that some of the models were inconsistent. Proponents for a course of action, i.e. high speed rail, mergers, acquisitions, etc. tend to wear rose colored glasses. This was true in the case of the Fortune 250 Company where I was employed for decades. Management finally authorized the auditors to look at the models used by the proponents of major projects or contracts to determine whether they made sense. We found in most instances that the project proponents adopted the most optimistic estimates, even when a little scrutiny suggested that achievement of the most optimistic outcome was unlikely. Clearly, estimating ridership and revenue 20 years out is chancy. Most of the corporate financial and organizational planners that I knew told me that anyone who thinks they can predict more outcomes more than 3 to 5 years with any degree of accuracy is just fooling themselves as well as their clients.
Sam1 is largely seconded by the French (TGV: What the US should learn from France's high speed train, Trains).
http://charlotte.bizjournals.com/charlotte/stories/2010/07/12/daily5.html
HarveyK400"SNCF could not afford to build the TGV system today...now that...oprators are split from infrastructure owners...."
This should have been an easily predicted outcome when set this arrangement up. It's as if they thought rearranging the deck chairs would magically change the flow of money in and out of the whole system. Only government can go full speed ahead into stupid. (Well, maybe BP, too...)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.