HSR under new scrutiny

[oltmannd]

Paul Milenkovic

So we are wasting money on highways in remote areas, we need to waste money on trains to even things out?

There's my laugh for the day!

[oltmannd]

DMUinCT

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 ?  

Certainly you remember the pre-interstate days when prices were "slightly higher west of the Rockies".

[oltmannd]

Paul Milenkovic

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.

I would drew the boundary around the transportation market the HSR line competes in. HSR riders are ones not driving or flying so the avoided capital for highways and airports in the market should be part of calculation.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

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.

[BNSFwatcher]

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

[Anonymous]

schlimm

Bucyrus

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.

 

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.

[blownout cylinder]

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---- 

[Paul Milenkovic]

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?

[schlimm]

Bucyrus

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.

 

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?

[Anonymous]

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.    

[Phoebe Vet]

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. 

[Paul Milenkovic]

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. 

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.

[CMStPnP]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

[henry6]

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?

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?

[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?

[Anonymous]

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. 

[henry6]

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.

[blue streak 1]

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.

 

[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).

[HarveyK400]

diningcar

aegrotatio

diningcar

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.

 

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.

[blue streak 1]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.    

[BT CPSO 266]

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.

 

 

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.