Falcon48First of all, does anyone seriously believe that any of the HSR "new starts" being proposed will pay their way?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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.
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!
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.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
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.
He must be just now responding to the initial post of some weeks ago.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
wairoaAnother republican at it again. Perhaps if we tell the republicans it is to start an unneeded war they will support HSR.
Another 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?
blownout cylinderWhat were the fares like when you took DB?
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.
What 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):
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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---
Sounds like the one I was asking about. Now I remember there was more than one rail line involved.
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.
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--
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.