First of all, you should show an Acela for the US. It does exist, right?
And, over $2B was invested doing the NH to Boston electrification, right? And, none of that money came from Amtrak fares, ticket taxes, rail fuel taxes. None of it.
And, if you read Paul's posts and check his numbers, you'd know that Amtrak's overall subsidy is WAY WAY WAY out of line compared to air and highway.
And, if you read the rest of Paul's posts, you'd know there is little hope for economy of scale. (Vision Report)
So, if you want to be fair and scale Amtrak funding to match air and highway, you'd be in favor of cutting it to 10 or 20% of the current level.
We need Amtrak to be better.
We need sane, targeted investment in passenger rail corridors.
We need better economics on the LD trains if we want them to hang around.
We better get busy pushing for these things or we will have nothing.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
So nobody can come up with any benefits from expending billions for HST. If I were the decision maker here are some questions you need to answer for me to advance your cause:1. How does this increase productivity?2. How many jobs are created and what is the average wage?3. Is it profitable?4. What is the actual cost for other countries?5. SHow me a marketing study that say's the public wants this this
ndbprr So nobody can come up with any benefits from expending billions for HST. If I were the decision maker here are some questions you need to answer for me to advance your cause:1. How does this increase productivity?2. How many jobs are created and what is the average wage?3. Is it profitable?4. What is the actual cost for other countries?5. SHow me a marketing study that say's the public wants this this
1. Why does this matter?
2. Job creation is a red herring. Best is if you could make it all happen and run all by itself.
3. Define "profitable". Same standard as other transportation modes? Benefit/cost ratio >=1?
4. Is this a sanity test or a benchmark or what?
5. A marketing study would show demand, not a desire for service to exist. Very different animals. Which do you want? An opinion poll or a ridership study? Every rail project gets a ridership study and a benefit cost analysis. No highway project is ever subjected to this rigor.
The questions above are interesting and important...from both posts. It shows we don't understand what a transportation system is, why it is needed, how it is used, where economic benefits can be attributed to it, what environmental benefits are gained (or lost), in short we don't understand what it is and how it fits into the fabric of our economic and social life. It is not just to drive cars, buses and trucks, fly airplanes, or run trains. It is both a chicken and an egg. Without it we are lost, dead. With a rationalized, economical, environmental, and well run system we will be a strong nation. Transportation system I said, not train or highway or air or waterway...all modes working in unison. We have a entrapenurial philosophy that private enterprise is the answer, the only answer. Yet we are lagging behind other countries in the integration of transportation systems...and HSR is only one small aspect of the overall picture. So, we in this country have to come to terms with the concepts of transportation rather than fight the concepts of modes and poilitical philosophies.
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.
The private enterprise model is a red herring, someone ANYONE show me ANYWHERE in the world where a decent national or regional rail system (HST or otherwise) isnt publicly funded to one degree or the other? It doesnt exist, and where they have tried to go back (Britain) its been a disaster for service.
We HAD a privately run passenger rail system, it failed because the private railroads couldnt afford it, so we got Amtrak, and now the current Congress has made it clear it wants to 100% de-fund Amtrak despite the fact that Amtrak has always had far more public support than nay-sayers, remember the last time they tried to cut funding? They got so much public responce they actually increased funding. If that funding ever did get cut that means everything from Alcela to the Pacific Surfliner could go away and that would result is massive chaos for commuters. I doubt the Senate would ever allow that to happen but it clearly shows a serious SERIOUS lack of vision or long term planning in our leadership of our nations transportation future. Trains work, thats been proved time and time again from all around the world, its just here that no one gets it.
Have fun with your trains
Isn't it odd that we never have this national conversation about the cost of the newest best fighter plane even though the only enemy we seem to have is still riding camels and buying tickets on our own airliners?
Which actually benefits Americans more; a new squadron of even better fighter planes, or a good transportation system?
As I have said before, it's not about the cost it's about priorities.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Please name one country that has the "integrated transportation system" you keep preaching. Most airlines are private enterprise and most of those that were government-controlled have been privatized for years. In many countries, the rail system (passenger and freight) is run by a partially private corporation.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
henry6 The questions above are interesting and important...from both posts. It shows we don't understand what a transportation system is, why it is needed, how it is used, where economic benefits can be attributed to it, what environmental benefits are gained (or lost), in short we don't understand what it is and how it fits into the fabric of our economic and social life. It is not just to drive cars, buses and trucks, fly airplanes, or run trains. It is both a chicken and an egg. Without it we are lost, dead. With a rationalized, economical, environmental, and well run system we will be a strong nation. Transportation system I said, not train or highway or air or waterway...all modes working in unison. We have a entrapenurial philosophy that private enterprise is the answer, the only answer. Yet we are lagging behind other countries in the integration of transportation systems...and HSR is only one small aspect of the overall picture. So, we in this country have to come to terms with the concepts of transportation rather than fight the concepts of modes and poilitical philosophies.
As such, the government will encourage and get directly involved in its development to varying degrees for various specific reasons. Where we get all tangle up is in the details.
Do you try to level the playing field centered around just the direct, easy to monetize costs and benefits or do you try to achieve broader national goals (like reducing CO2 or imported oil)? Do you do it by fiat or by tax policy or by liaise-fair? Do you you try to link users to costs through fees and taxes or do you just fund it out of general revenue? Do you partner with private companies, states and other non-federal agencies or do it all at the Federal level?
We've protected shipping with a Navy paid by general revenue. We've built canals with state money. We've built roads every which way. Direct Federal investment, partnerships with states, bonds through state and regional authorities, funded them with fuel tax, funded them with income tax, funded them with property tax. We've given private railroad companies eminent domain, land grants, low cost loans and direct grants at the state and federal level.
And, it's all been hammered out, all these years, through politics. And, along the way, we have offended nearly everyone involved with perceived unfairness. So, what else is new?
Your are right, Schlim...these other countries you refer to long ago rationalized their political and economic philosophies when it came to transportation and therefore do not hold rhetorical converstions like this one...they don't have to.
And Oldman, what I am saying is that we've got to stop in our tracks right now and rationalize what we need and want asking the many questions I have suggested including your on emissions and imported oil. We have not hammered it out at all, but remain locked in rhtoric anchored in political and economic philosophies forged by our past. In political parlance: it is time for a change, not in rhetoric but in action.
henry6 Your are right, Schlim...these other countries you refer to long ago rationalized their political and economic philosophies when it came to transportation and therefore do not hold rhetorical converstions like this one...they don't have to. And Oldman, what I am saying is that we've got to stop in our tracks right now and rationalize what we need and want asking the many questions I have suggested including your on emissions and imported oil. We have not hammered it out at all, but remain locked in rhtoric anchored in political and economic philosophies forged by our past. In political parlance: it is time for a change, not in rhetoric but in action.
It might be time for all that, but I don't think it's a reasonable goal.
How about we settle for something simpler?
What is simpler than stopping where we are, analyze what we got, determine where we need to go, and decide how we are going to get there. Continuing with conflicting philosophies, economic plans, and political agendas and try to stamp out a single future is not working just building rhetoric and confusion!
We debate the same old pro/con arguments over and over again year after year after year…
Meanwhile in China:
henry6 What is simpler than stopping where we are, analyze what we got, determine where we need to go, and decide how we are going to get there. Continuing with conflicting philosophies, economic plans, and political agendas and try to stamp out a single future is not working just building rhetoric and confusion!
Do you think that analysing what we got, determining where we need to go, and deciding how we are going get there can be done without encountering any conflicting philosophies?
Or should we just continue arguing conflicting philosophies, politics, and modes as we are doing now? Got to take some kind of step in some kind of direction to get something started.
The simple truth is that neither you or anyone else is going to be able to implement any of your grandiose analyses because of the political and economic realities. They cannot be waved away with a magic wand even in this little forum. Why would you think for one second that would or should happen in the larger world?
But waving a magic wand is what American rhetoric indicates is expected on one side and argued against on the other. Something has to be said stern enough and often enough to get the attention of the powers that be to actually do something rather than just talk and argue. Me? I'm not in a position to impliment anything. Excecpt to say we've got to scrap all present and past thoughts based on the past 200 years of no rational or official transportation policy and start dialogue toward doing that without political or social or otherwise philosophical angle.
oltmannd henry6: Your are right, Schlim...these other countries you refer to long ago rationalized their political and economic philosophies when it came to transportation and therefore do not hold rhetorical converstions like this one...they don't have to. And Oldman, what I am saying is that we've got to stop in our tracks right now and rationalize what we need and want asking the many questions I have suggested including your on emissions and imported oil. We have not hammered it out at all, but remain locked in rhtoric anchored in political and economic philosophies forged by our past. In political parlance: it is time for a change, not in rhetoric but in action. It might be time for all that, but I don't think it's a reasonable goal. How about we settle for something simpler?
henry6: Your are right, Schlim...these other countries you refer to long ago rationalized their political and economic philosophies when it came to transportation and therefore do not hold rhetorical converstions like this one...they don't have to. And Oldman, what I am saying is that we've got to stop in our tracks right now and rationalize what we need and want asking the many questions I have suggested including your on emissions and imported oil. We have not hammered it out at all, but remain locked in rhtoric anchored in political and economic philosophies forged by our past. In political parlance: it is time for a change, not in rhetoric but in action.
Here it is:
Amtrak stays. It gets held more accountable for performance - economic and customer service. Some of this is already happening now, believe it or not. (40 years too late, but better late than never....)
The LD trains stay on current routes -as is. They are a political necessity whether or not they are useful or efficient or a heritage display or just rolling wallpaper, or any other thing, good or bad.
Air service - status quo. Cities are happy to provide land for airports. Fees and taxes cover the shared expenses
Highways - raise the gas tax high enough to pay the interstates outside of urban areas and then some. Adjust it so that it covers wear and tear from trucks more fully. Give the urban/suburban interstates to the states. Let them figure out how to maintain and/or expand. They are primarily commuter roads. Maintain the existing network as is. Any expansion has to be judged on cost/benefit standard.
Rail - take a chunk of fuel tax and fund intercity rail corridor construction/expansion. All work to be judged on cost/benefit standard. Hire a contractor to bring equipment and run the service. Bid it out. Whoever you have to pay the least (or bids the most) wins. Winner gets to keep revenue.
All rail and highway project to be judged on single Fed DOT standard for new work.
Leave transit and commuter road, rail and bus to the states and local agencies.
But what I am suggesting is that governnment and business and whatever other group should, is sit down and plan something. There is no Amtriak, FAA, CAA, FRA, DOT, highway lobby, oil lobby, air lobby, but enconomists and planners who will poise the questions, come up with answers, and produce a transportation system.
henry6 But what I am suggesting is that governnment and business and whatever other group should, is sit down and plan something. There is no Amtriak, FAA, CAA, FRA, DOT, highway lobby, oil lobby, air lobby, but enconomists and planners who will poise the questions, come up with answers, and produce a transportation system.
Even if you limit the decisions to be made only by economists and planners, do you think they will all agree on one plan? Would you give them a blank check to fund whatever plan they do agree on, if they can agree on one?
The US is the home of the mass debate...we can talk and talk and talk and talk...doesn't matter what we say, we just talk and talk and talk and talk. Then wonder why the rest of the orld goes by...on the ground...at 200+ miles per hour! Sooner or later somebody is bound to do something instead of talk. He will end up with the power while the rest debate whether he is right or not.
henry6 The US is the home of the mass debate...we can talk and talk and talk and talk...doesn't matter what we say, we just talk and talk and talk and talk. Then wonder why the rest of the orld goes by...on the ground...at 200+ miles per hour! Sooner or later somebody is bound to do something instead of talk. He will end up with the power while the rest debate whether he is right or not.
Well sure there is lots of talk, but talking is not all we have done. Look at everything we have built. Other nations might have built HSR, but that does not necessarily mean they have out-achieved us. It is possible that their HSR is a costly mistake for them and they have not yet realized it. Maybe they did not talk about it enough before they charged right into building it.
If we have talked enough to avoid the same mistake, then we have out-achieved them. Maybe all of our talking has paid off in minimizing our boondoggles.
Bucyrus: I understand you are opposed to HSR because you prefer the federal government to not be involved in programs that compete with the private sector. That is a philosophical position about the role of government that is a reasonable one, although I do not agree. However, your argument is greatly weakened by your suggestion that HSR is a costly mistake or boondoggle. Definitions of boondoggle: 1. a wasteful or impractical project or activity often involving graft. 2. a project funded by the federal government out of political favoritism that is of no real value to the community or the nation. 3. a scheme that wastes time and money.
If you had ever actually used such a service in countries like France or Germany that have it, you would see that it is a valuable, essential and very popular service, hardly a boondoggle.
schlimm Bucyrus: I understand you are opposed to HSR because you prefer the federal government to not be involved in programs that compete with the private sector. That is a philosophical position about the role of government that is a reasonable one, although I do not agree. However, your argument is greatly weakened by your suggestion that HSR is a costly mistake or boondoggle. Definitions of boondoggle: 1. a wasteful or impractical project or activity often involving graft. 2. a project funded by the federal government out of political favoritism that is of no real value to the community or the nation. 3. a scheme that wastes time and money. If you had ever actually used such a service in countries like France or Germany that have it, you would see that it is a valuable, essential and very popular service, hardly a boondoggle.
Schlimm,
The high speed rail services you enjoy riding are never profitable. They cost more than people are willing to pay. They destroy wealth. Sounds like a boondogle to me.
Amtrak is in the same position, only more so. It is subsidized by both the government and the freight railroads. It can not charge fares sufficient to cover its operating costs, let alone its full costs. The reason is that we have chosen to invest untold billions in highways and airports for which we undercharge the operators, whether airlines or drivers.
Another point relevant to highway competition is that drivers do not count their full cost when they make their modal choice. If you ask what it costs to drive from here to there and back, most will quote you a figure based on gas and oil, say 10 to 15 cents per mile. Even the IRS, not a charitable institution, allows a 55 cent per mile deduction without any proof. Conclusion; highways are a boondogle too but most of us use them every day. Solution raise the gas tax and make the truckers pay far more.
The past congress and current administration are aiming us over the cliff of insolvency. If congress does not put on the brakes the country will crash like Thelma and Louise. Cuts will hurt because we have grown addicted to more spending than we are willing to pay for in taxes.
The federal government has very few constitutional functions. Defense and protecting the border are clearly Federal Functions. We have to cut all extra constititional spending and eliminate the nonessential. Amtrak is both extra constitutional and nonessential. It should be defunded, shut down, and killed.
Mac
schlimm,
Well, boondoggle is just something that tends to gravitate toward public sector projects rather than private sector projects. It is the natural consequence of bureaucratic empire building, the pull of unions, and the expenditure of public funds. And also, if a boondoggle occurs, and yet does not kill a project, it is not necessarily evident in the final performance of the project.
So European HSR would be capable of impressing the users with its service and usefulness, while at the same time, be bleeding the funds of the population through the shortfall of what it cost to build and operate versus what it takes in through fares. So I don’t use the term boondoggle to be inflammatory, but only to identify a trend that generally attaches to public sector work.
But perhaps there is a larger concern, in that you seem to misunderstand the reason behind my view on government projects versus private sector projects. I am not concerned about the public sector competing with the private sector. In other words, I am not concerned about the government depriving the private sector of work projects. I think that that sort of injury to the private sector is self-limiting in that the government only tends to take on work that the private sector has already determined to be a non-viable investment.
The real point of my concern about public versus private sector is that the public sector is not just a neutral entity that objectively does only what needs to be done to serve the public, as way too many people believe. Instead, the public sector has its own self-motivation just like any corporation does. So they will actively seek to promote and build railroads and other projects whether they are needed or not. In that regard, they have everything to gain and nothing to lose. The private sector does not enjoy that same luxury.
So my concern is about the public sector competing with the public, and not about the public sector competing with private sector business.
Meanwhile in China....
Not a bad idea, until you get actual humans involved.
But, our real world is full of all those well entrenched institutions. What's the best we can get given they exist? Can some be bent to works at common causes? What are they?
vsmith Meanwhile in China....
Sure. High population, High density, urbanized population with low auto ownership an not many roads - this is what you get.
Does it make sense in the US? Some places, perhaps.
Did you read the High Speed rail article in Trains last year and catch the part about the TGV trains being unable to make the usage payments to the federal authority that owns and maintains the ROW? This in a country that is more urbanized than the US.
Just ride high speed trains in Spain, France, Germany and Japan, oh and now China. Watch for the opening this spring or summer of the 800+/-mile Beiging - Shainghai line that will be covered downtown to downtown in just over 4 hours with not a drop of imported fuel oil or the insults of security searches. And this doesn't evern begin to consider the frustrations of airport access or the environmental concerns of effluent belching aircraft engines. High speed rail is simply civilized, convenient, comfortable, fast, safe and environmentlly clean in that it burns no fuel oil. What more do we need to justify it?
WJM2223 High speed rail is simply civilized, convenient, comfortable, fast, safe and environmentlly clean in that it burns no fuel oil. What more do we need to justify it?
High speed rail is simply civilized, convenient, comfortable, fast, safe and environmentlly clean in that it burns no fuel oil. What more do we need to justify it?
We still need these items in order to justify it:
1) A non-coal source of electricity to power it.
2) The demand to justify the social funding.
3) The ability to fund it.
4) Routing that does not interfere with the freight railroads.
5) A power distribution system for the non-coal electricity.
oltmannd Did you read the High Speed rail article in Trains last year and catch the part about the TGV trains being unable to make the usage payments to the federal authority that owns and maintains the ROW? This in a country that is more urbanized than the US.
On the other hand, the German DB system seems to make money on their ICE services.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.