Today was the last chance to receive $3.2B in Federal funds by approving $2.6B in State funds, and the bill passed, work will begin in the Central Valley this year. The US is no longer the only advanced country without purpose-built 200 MPH passenger rail transportation.
I hope we can find a source of money for this and that this actually gets built
Railroad to Freedom
Okay, this is the easy part (except for payments on the bonds by broke California). They'll have one nice little railroad in the Central Valley. North and south of there, the ditches will be full of NIMBYs and greenies armed with crowbars and court orders.
This will be a fair test of whether we can build anything in the United States anymore. For, if high-speed rail can be justified anywhere outside the NEC, it's LA-SF.
dakotafred This will be a fair test of whether we can build anything in the United States anymore.
This will be a fair test of whether we can build anything in the United States anymore.
That is the most profound statement I have seen since the Reagan Administration. I agree completely.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
DwightBranch Today was the last chance to receive $3.2B in Federal funds by approving $2.6B in State funds, and the bill passed, work will begin in the Central Valley this year. The US is no longer the only advanced country without purpose-built 200 MPH passenger rail transportation.
Does England have anything at 200 MPH? There is the Eurostar, but doesn't that run at more restricted speeds on the English side?
Is China running their HSR that fast? I had heard that they imposed speed restrictions on account of safety along with wear-and-tear considerations.
Ultimately, a high-speed train is a tool for permitting commerce between city pairs along its route and rather than an end in itself. The United States is a "bragging rights" culture, and my Poppa told me that the 160 MPH spec on the Metroliner was a bragging rights consideration in relation to the 150 train in Japan, a spec that didn't lead to good things because there were bad engineering design decisions to reach that. A 220 MPH train on these shores would be kewl and everything from a rail enthusiast perspective, but I have expressed concern before if the enthusiasm for this is driven by bragging rights rather than a careful consideration of the design trades.
For example, our trading partners have allowed much higher (legal) highway speeds, and the 55 MPH speed limit was purely a U.S. thing (that idea by the way came from General Benjamin Oliver Davis, Jr., of Tuskeegee Airmen fame, who was advising President Nixon). Apart from car nuts complaining about speed limits, there doesn't seem to be a national-pride worry that people are permitted to drive faster in Germany.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
This map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:High_Speed_Railroad_Map_Europe_2011.svg suggests that the only European countries with 200 MPH+ trains are France and Spain.
Go ahead and call me a critic and a skeptic and everything else. But the 220 MPH California HSR is not simply catching up with what everyone else has. It is the U.S. going from no HSR all the way to the bleeding edge of HSR in one step, and from the history of such bold steps when it comes to major infrastructure projects, my engineering spider-sense gives me a bad feeling about this.
Phoebe Vet dakotafred: This will be a fair test of whether we can build anything in the United States anymore. That is the most profound statement I have seen since the Reagan Administration. I agree completely.
dakotafred: This will be a fair test of whether we can build anything in the United States anymore.
How about the Boeing 747-8? What about the Boeing 787?
How about some of the best drilling equipment in the world that is unlocking hard to reach oil and gas in the United States, thereby greatly reducing the country's dependence on foreign oil.
What about some of the world's best medical equipment, which has been instrumental in improving the quality of our lives and extending them to boot so that a bunch of geezers can rail (no pun intended) about how everything is going in the ditch.
How about all the products produced by Apple Inc.(iphone, ipod, ipad), Cisco Systems, Intel, HP, as well as the software ginned out by Microsoft, IBM, and Adobe? And don't forget the e-readers produced by Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Admittedly some of the computer stuff is made off shore, but the ideas and designs are pure American.
Closer to home, i.e. transportation, what about the magnificent locomotives built by GE. Oh, did I mention it in another post, GE is opening a locomotive assembly plant in lowly Texas (in the minds of some). We call it Fort Worth; the natives call it Cow Town.
Don't overlook the rebuilding of I-35 from the Mexican border to the Canadian border. It is being done by American engineers and workers armed for the most part with American built equipment. Better yet, if some of the Texas's critics decide to come to the Lone Star state, be sure to take a ride on TX 130. It is a new highway designed and built by Americans in record time that allows you to by-pass Austin at a legal 80 mph.
Paul Milenkovic map ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:High_Speed_Railroad_Map_Europe_2011.svg suggests that the only European countries with 200 MPH+ trains are France and Spain.
map ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:High_Speed_Railroad_Map_Europe_2011.svg suggests that the only European countries with 200 MPH+ trains are France and Spain.
Although you are technically correct, the highest speed ICE trains on the DB in Germany reach 198.84 mph (320 km/h), only 1 mph shy of the 200 mph threshold.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
well guys even the government HSR route from Sf to Anahiem and La doesn't get built there will always the LA to Vegas route which pretty much has the green light and now all it needs is approval. So we will get HSR just maybe not from the state. Maybe we should privatize the LA to SF route.
Sam:
My comment was intended to comment on infrastructure. Though I could argue about many of the things you named, that would be a tangent.
Every infrastructure project we undertake gets tied up in studies, paper shuffling, NIMBY lawsuits, etc. which results in decades of delays and ever rising costs resulting from those delays. Rail, Roads, Airports, Industrial parks, all take decades to build.
Sam1 has named a lot of stuff that didn't need an EIS. And rebuilding an existing interstate doesn't count. (I do wonder how long it would take us to build the original 40,000-mile interstate system today.)
Phoebe Vet Sam: My comment was intended to comment on infrastructure. Though I could argue about many of the things you named, that would be a tangent. Every infrastructure project we undertake gets tied up in studies, paper shuffling, NIMBY lawsuits, etc. which results in decades of delays and ever rising costs resulting from those delays. Rail, Roads, Airports, Industrial parks, all take decades to build.
TX 130 and TX 145, both toll roads, were built in several years, although the planning required approximately 18 months. My retort was and is to refute the notion that we cannot build anything in this country or the people responsible for doing so are ground to a halt because of regulations.
On another note, several merchant power plants have been built in Texas and gone on line. The total time from design to synch was approximately 18 to 21 months. Power plants, in case anyone is wondering, are pretty big tinker toys.
schlimm Paul Milenkovic: map ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:High_Speed_Railroad_Map_Europe_2011.svg suggests that the only European countries with 200 MPH+ trains are France and Spain. Although you are technically correct, the highest speed ICE trains on the DB in Germany reach 198.84 mph (320 km/h), only 1 mph shy of the 200 mph threshold.
Paul Milenkovic: map ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:High_Speed_Railroad_Map_Europe_2011.svg suggests that the only European countries with 200 MPH+ trains are France and Spain.
Why should we care about matching the speeds achieved in Germany or Spain or France or Japan? The key question is what speeds should we be able to achieve that meet the needs of the United States?
The top speed for the Acela is 150 mph. It will increase to 160 mph when they straightened out some of the kinks (rail and wire) in the New York to Washington line. Why incur the incremental cost to achieve 180 to 200 mph if 160 mph would do the trick? Last time I checked the Germans, French, Spanish or Japanese are not going to pick-up the incremental cost to boost the speed beyond 160 mph.
For most travelers the key is not the top speed. It is the time required to travel from point A to point B. If the overall speed is raised to reduce the trip time to what the public wants, the top speed is irrelevant.
dakotafred Sam1 has named a lot of stuff that didn't need an EIS. And rebuilding an existing interstate doesn't count. (I do wonder how long it would take us to build the original 40,000-mile interstate system today.)
GE will be able to build a new locomotive assembly plant in Fort Worth without having to worry about federal, state, and local regulations? I think not.
The permitting required to build power plants (merchant and otherwise) was challenging but obviously not insurmountable.
TX 130 and TX 145 (mentioned in another post) are toll roads. They have nothing to do with the Interstate Highway System, other than TX 130 connects with I-35. Note the designation TX in front of the route number.
Phoebe Vet dakotafred: "...This will be a fair test of whether we can build anything in the United States anymore..." "...That is the most profound statement I have seen since the Reagan Administration. I agree completely..."
dakotafred: "...This will be a fair test of whether we can build anything in the United States anymore..."
"...This will be a fair test of whether we can build anything in the United States anymore..."
"...That is the most profound statement I have seen since the Reagan Administration. I agree completely..."
It would seem that this is the equivalent of giving money to junkies, and expecting them to go out and buy a home and spend it to change their lifestyle.
My bet is that once this money flows into California State coffers, it will be immediately redirected to stave off their other more immediate money issues; then in several years they'll be back to the Feds asking for more money. Because they don't know where all that HSR money went!
Oh! They'll fund some engineering plans, and maybe buy some ROW; the major portion of the Federal HSR will simply 'evaporate'. Most likely, due to the fact the original estimates were low, and therefore 'underfunded'.
Sam1 The top speed for the Acela is 150 mph. It will increase to 160 mph when they straightened out some of the kinks (rail and wire) in the New York to Washington line. Why incur the incremental cost to achieve 180 to 200 mph if 160 mph would do the trick? Last time I checked the Germans, French, Spanish or Japanese are not going to pick-up the incremental cost to boost the speed beyond 160 mph.
Last time you checked what and how? I've personally ridden on many ICE's in Germany at speeds between 160 and 186 mph. Some French TGV's I've ridden are even faster, hitting 322 kmh (201 mph) in fairly long stretches. The Eurostar route I rode from Brussels to London has stretches (in England, Belgium and France) of 300 kmh (186 mph) track. Top speed is highly relevant when the trains are able to maintain that speed or close to it over long stretches of fast track to compensate for slower urban track and station halts, thus permitting the goal of speedy travel from station to station.
schlimm Sam1: The top speed for the Acela is 150 mph. It will increase to 160 mph when they straightened out some of the kinks (rail and wire) in the New York to Washington line. Why incur the incremental cost to achieve 180 to 200 mph if 160 mph would do the trick? Last time I checked the Germans, French, Spanish or Japanese are not going to pick-up the incremental cost to boost the speed beyond 160 mph. Last time you checked what and how? I've personally ridden on many ICE's in Germany at speeds between 160 and 186 mph. Some French TGV's I've ridden are even faster, hitting 322 kmh (201 mph) in fairly long stretches. The Eurostar route I rode from Brussels to London has stretches (in England, Belgium and France) of 300 kmh (186 mph) track. Top speed is highly relevant when the trains are able to maintain that speed or close to it over long stretches of fast track to compensate for slower urban track and station halts, thus permitting the goal of speedy travel from station to station.
Sam1: The top speed for the Acela is 150 mph. It will increase to 160 mph when they straightened out some of the kinks (rail and wire) in the New York to Washington line. Why incur the incremental cost to achieve 180 to 200 mph if 160 mph would do the trick? Last time I checked the Germans, French, Spanish or Japanese are not going to pick-up the incremental cost to boost the speed beyond 160 mph.
I should have been clearer. They are not going to pay the incremental cost to increase speeds along the NEC or any other American corridor.
The key point remains: the option solution for a U.S. problem is one that meets our needs. Not the needs of some other country.
Although I don't remember the source of the information, I understand the average point to point speeds on the ICE have been reduced because of a significant increase in slow order track. It seems that the Germans and Chinese are learning an important lesson. High speeds require high inputs of energy, a cost, and cause a disproportionate amount of wear and tear on the infrastructure, which of course has to be repaired. And repairing it costs money.
I am unaware of any significant increase in slow-order track and was unable to find a reference to it in German searches. Summer is a time when track work typically takes place, however. Of note is the introduction of a competitive train service, initially from Hamburg to Cologne, by the private operator Hamburg-Köln-Express, with cheap fares of 20-60 Euro. Current DB fares are 82-93 Euros for the same route.
Sam1 Phoebe Vet: dakotafred: This will be a fair test of whether we can build anything in the United States anymore. That is the most profound statement I have seen since the Reagan Administration. I agree completely. How about the Boeing 747-8? What about the Boeing 787? How about some of the best drilling equipment in the world that is unlocking hard to reach oil and gas in the United States, thereby greatly reducing the country's dependence on foreign oil. What about some of the world's best medical equipment, which has been instrumental in improving the quality of our lives and extending them to boot so that a bunch of geezers can rail (no pun intended) about how everything is going in the ditch. How about all the products produced by Apple Inc.(iphone, ipod, ipad), Cisco Systems, Intel, HP, as well as the software ginned out by Microsoft, IBM, and Adobe? And don't forget the e-readers produced by Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Admittedly some of the computer stuff is made off shore, but the ideas and designs are pure American. Closer to home, i.e. transportation, what about the magnificent locomotives built by GE. Oh, did I mention it in another post, GE is opening a locomotive assembly plant in lowly Texas (in the minds of some). We call it Fort Worth; the natives call it Cow Town. Don't overlook the rebuilding of I-35 from the Mexican border to the Canadian border. It is being done by American engineers and workers armed for the most part with American built equipment. Better yet, if some of the Texas's critics decide to come to the Lone Star state, be sure to take a ride on TX 130. It is a new highway designed and built by Americans in record time that allows you to by-pass Austin at a legal 80 mph.
Phoebe Vet: dakotafred: This will be a fair test of whether we can build anything in the United States anymore. That is the most profound statement I have seen since the Reagan Administration. I agree completely.
The original work about the US not being able to "build anything anymore" is in reference to large, government funded or government-directed infrastructure projects, which it appears, are increasingly bogged down in red tape. Now that Governor Brown has not pushed legislation to exempt the CA HSR from environmental impact reviews, many think that the CA project is vulnerable right now to NIMBYism. These are not the days of Robert Moses just building stuff.
With regard to being corrected that, oh, yeah, Germany has an HSR that cracks 200 MPH (barely), that does not change my assertion, that no, 200 MPH HSR is not some proven tech that the US is lagging in adopting, 200 MPH HSR is bleeding edge tech, that the countries doing it are working out the kinks, and it is something that countries may back off from on account of energy and maintenance costs.
This is a serious issue because if they ever go forward with the CA HSR, they could run into technical problems with the 220 MPH speed that the advocacy community has been touting to people.
Paul Milenkovic With regard to being corrected that, oh, yeah, Germany has an HSR that cracks 200 MPH (barely), that does not change my assertion, that no, 200 MPH HSR is not some proven tech that the US is lagging in adopting, 200 MPH HSR is bleeding edge tech, that the countries doing it are working out the kinks, and it is something that countries may back off from on account of energy and maintenance costs.
Where do you come up with this crap? And here is another for Asia. I still contend that you and Sam have hidden agendas for being anti- rail passenger (probably linkages to either the bus or automobile industries), and I really wonder why you post on this site, doesn't the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation have their own websites?
DwightBranch Paul Milenkovic: With regard to being corrected that, oh, yeah, Germany has an HSR that cracks 200 MPH (barely), that does not change my assertion, that no, 200 MPH HSR is not some proven tech that the US is lagging in adopting, 200 MPH HSR is bleeding edge tech, that the countries doing it are working out the kinks, and it is something that countries may back off from on account of energy and maintenance costs. Where do you come up with this crap? And here is another for Asia. I still contend that you and Sam have hidden agendas for being anti- rail passenger (probably linkages to either the bus or automobile industries), and I really wonder why you post on this site, doesn't the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation have their own websites?
Paul Milenkovic: With regard to being corrected that, oh, yeah, Germany has an HSR that cracks 200 MPH (barely), that does not change my assertion, that no, 200 MPH HSR is not some proven tech that the US is lagging in adopting, 200 MPH HSR is bleeding edge tech, that the countries doing it are working out the kinks, and it is something that countries may back off from on account of energy and maintenance costs.
DwightBranch: What are you trying to say? The maps you link to show no lines over 300 km/h in Asia, and just a few at 300 -- 320 km/h in Europe. I believe 300 km/h = 186 mph. 320 km/h = 198 mph.
So, your maps would seem to support Paul's assertion, that 200 mph is not proven (at least, not commonly used) technology today.
DwightBranch, the Internet is like a graveyard -- it takes anyone. (You're here, aren't you?) Before I started purging people, I'd ask myself if I could survive an election.
Dragoman DwightBranch: What are you trying to say? The maps you link to show no lines over 300 km/h in Asia, and just a few at 300 -- 320 km/h in Europe. I believe 300 km/h = 186 mph. 320 km/h = 198 mph. So, your maps would seem to support Paul's assertion, that 200 mph is not proven (at least, not commonly used) technology today.
"As of mid 2011, scheduled TGV trains regularly reach 320 km/h (200 mph) on the "LGV Est"."
"Starting in 2000, multisystem third-generation ICE trains entered the Netherlands and Belgium. The third generation of the ICE has a service speed of 330 km/h (205 mph) and has reached speeds up to 363 km/h (226 mph)."
E5 series trains, capable of up to 320 km/h (200 mph) (initially limited to 300 km/h), were introduced on the TÅhoku Shinkansen from 5 March 2011.
The AVE Class 102 was constructed by Talgo with Adtranz (later Bombardier Transportation) providing the power car technology. It was principally designed for the Madrid-Barcelona line. The trainsets consist of Talgo passenger cars modified in order to allow speeds of up to 350 km/h (220 mph) with power cars at each end. However, its certified maximum operating speed is 330 km/h (210 mph) due to the limits of its eight 1,000 kW (1,300 hp) motors.
Etc.
dakotafred DwightBranch: Paul Milenkovic: With regard to being corrected that, oh, yeah, Germany has an HSR that cracks 200 MPH (barely), that does not change my assertion, that no, 200 MPH HSR is not some proven tech that the US is lagging in adopting, 200 MPH HSR is bleeding edge tech, that the countries doing it are working out the kinks, and it is something that countries may back off from on account of energy and maintenance costs. Where do you come up with this crap? And here is another for Asia. I still contend that you and Sam have hidden agendas for being anti- rail passenger (probably linkages to either the bus or automobile industries), and I really wonder why you post on this site, doesn't the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation have their own websites? DwightBranch, the Internet is like a graveyard -- it takes anyone. (You're here, aren't you?) Before I started purging people, I'd ask myself if I could survive an election.
DwightBranch: Paul Milenkovic: With regard to being corrected that, oh, yeah, Germany has an HSR that cracks 200 MPH (barely), that does not change my assertion, that no, 200 MPH HSR is not some proven tech that the US is lagging in adopting, 200 MPH HSR is bleeding edge tech, that the countries doing it are working out the kinks, and it is something that countries may back off from on account of energy and maintenance costs. Where do you come up with this crap? And here is another for Asia. I still contend that you and Sam have hidden agendas for being anti- rail passenger (probably linkages to either the bus or automobile industries), and I really wonder why you post on this site, doesn't the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation have their own websites?
Going on a page dedicated to rail passenger transportation to consistently denigrate rail passenger transportation is like going on a website dedicated to classic Chevy Camaros just to say "Camaros suck, you should buy a Mustang." The people on such a board have already agreed that they like Camaros, and want to discuss the fine points of owning one, not to relegislate the entire auto transportation system. if you don't agree, don't go there. In the same way, don't come here and argue that rubber tire on pavement transportation is better. What we want is discourse, not "free speech", i.e. the ability of anyone to say anything they want. Ever tried to have a conversation when an infant continues to interrupt you? That is free speech.
DwightBranch dakotafred: DwightBranch: Paul Milenkovic: With regard to being corrected that, oh, yeah, Germany has an HSR that cracks 200 MPH (barely), that does not change my assertion, that no, 200 MPH HSR is not some proven tech that the US is lagging in adopting, 200 MPH HSR is bleeding edge tech, that the countries doing it are working out the kinks, and it is something that countries may back off from on account of energy and maintenance costs. Where do you come up with this crap? And here is another for Asia. I still contend that you and Sam have hidden agendas for being anti- rail passenger (probably linkages to either the bus or automobile industries), and I really wonder why you post on this site, doesn't the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation have their own websites? DwightBranch, the Internet is like a graveyard -- it takes anyone. (You're here, aren't you?) Before I started purging people, I'd ask myself if I could survive an election. Going on a page dedicated to rail passenger transportation to consistently denigrate rail passenger transportation is like going on a website dedicated to classic Chevy Camaros just to say "Camaros suck, you should buy a Mustang." The people on such a board have already agreed that they like Camaros, and want to discuss the fine points of owning one, not to relegislate the entire auto transportation system. if you don't agree, don't go there.
dakotafred: DwightBranch: Paul Milenkovic: With regard to being corrected that, oh, yeah, Germany has an HSR that cracks 200 MPH (barely), that does not change my assertion, that no, 200 MPH HSR is not some proven tech that the US is lagging in adopting, 200 MPH HSR is bleeding edge tech, that the countries doing it are working out the kinks, and it is something that countries may back off from on account of energy and maintenance costs. Where do you come up with this crap? And here is another for Asia. I still contend that you and Sam have hidden agendas for being anti- rail passenger (probably linkages to either the bus or automobile industries), and I really wonder why you post on this site, doesn't the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation have their own websites? DwightBranch, the Internet is like a graveyard -- it takes anyone. (You're here, aren't you?) Before I started purging people, I'd ask myself if I could survive an election.
Going on a page dedicated to rail passenger transportation to consistently denigrate rail passenger transportation is like going on a website dedicated to classic Chevy Camaros just to say "Camaros suck, you should buy a Mustang." The people on such a board have already agreed that they like Camaros, and want to discuss the fine points of owning one, not to relegislate the entire auto transportation system. if you don't agree, don't go there.
Paul M seems to be saying many of the the same things that I am saying. Passenger trains make sense in relatively short, high density corridors where expansion of the highway and airways systems is cost prohibitive. What is it about this position that is so hard to understand?
I also support each mode of commercial, as well as private modes of transport, going it alone. That is to say, without government subsidies. What is so hard to understand about this position?
I ride the long distance trains because they are there, and I am paying for them irrespective of whether I use them. This is especially true given my income and high tax burden. Having said that, the long distance trains are way past their prime, and they should be discontinued. They are a 1950s anachronism.
As to the argument that the long distance trains are a rounding error in the federal budget, it misses a key point. The average monthly loss on the long distance trains since Amtrak began operations in 1971 has been approximately $43.8 million. Had that money been invested at the U.S. Treasury benchmark note, i.e. ten year note, it would have grown to $115.8 billion. And that I submit is more than a rounding error. It could have financed or at least provided the seed money for several corridors or, heavens forbid, provided hot lunches to many of the nation's poor school children.
Those who would comment on my ideology have no idea what they are talking about, other than I admitted to supporting President Obama in the 2008 election. To ascribe ideology or hidden agendas to a person without a clue as to who he is other than to draw inclusive conclusions from his or her (lets keep the mystery alive although it is irrelevant) postings to a trains forum is quite unbelievable. Whew, is this is supposedly from people with advanced degrees. I know bib overall wearers who would not make these assertions.
Frankly, I don't care whether you (who ever you are) agree with my views or whether you think that I have or don't have a right to express them. This is an open forum. I don't agree that only the orthodox are permitted to express their views or that my views are unacceptable because they don't fit your notion of what is orthodox and unorthodox..
Sam1 Paul M seems to be saying many of the the same things that I am saying. Passenger trains make sense in relatively short, high density corridors where expansion of the highway and airways systems is cost prohibitive. What is it about this position that is so hard to understand? We understand just fine, we just don't agree (and we don't like the patronizing tone your two's page long comments are usually delivered with, say in the above paragraph). I also support each mode of commercial, as well as private modes of transport, going it alone. That is to say, without government subsidies. What is so hard to understand about this position? (Again with the patronizing tone). Railroads, highways, airports, waterways etc are public goods: "The public sector provides most highway infrastructure for several reasons that tend to limit the role of the private sector. First, such infrastructure displays, at least to some degree, important characteristics of “public goods.” Such goods are usually not profitable for the private sector to produce, because once they have been produced, they are available to anyone who wants to use them; as a result,they are often provided by the public sector. Second,because such infrastructure is costly to build, though less expensive to operate and maintain, having competing highway networks is not practical. As a result, such “natural monopolies” are often either provided directly by the government or regulated by it. Third, the benefits of highways—promoting commerce, for instance—may extend beyond the places where they are built and beyond the people who use them directly. All three of those characteristics of highway infrastructure tend to limit the incentives for the private sector to provide it. The private sector, on its own, would provide less of that type of infrastructure than is socially beneficial." What is about this position that is so hard to understand? I ride the long distance trains because they are there, and I am paying for them irrespective of whether I use them. This is especially true given my income and high tax burden. Having said that, the long distance trains are way past their prime, and they should be discontinued. They are a 1950s anachronism. As to the argument that the long distance trains are a rounding error in the federal budget, it misses a key point. The average monthly loss on the long distance trains since Amtrak began operations in 1971 has been approximately $43.8 million. Had that money been invested at the U.S. Treasury benchmark note, i.e. ten year note, it would have grown to $115.8 billion. And that I submit is more than a rounding error. It could have financed or at least provided the seed money for several corridors or, heavens forbid, provided hot lunches to many of the nation's poor school children. In the same time period we have spent in excess of $2 Trillion on highways. How many school lunches could we buy if that had been deposited? Those who would comment on my ideology have no idea what they are talking about, other than I admitted to supporting President Obama in the 2008 election. To ascribe ideology or hidden agendas to a person without a clue as to who he is other than to draw inclusive conclusions from his or her (lets keep the mystery alive although it is irrelevant) postings to a trains forum is quite unbelievable. Whew, is this is supposedly from people with advanced degrees. I now bib overall wearers who would not make these assertions. I know all about argumentum ad hominum, and try to avoid it where I can, but there just is no other answer for the anti passenger rail arguments you both keep serving up here. Frankly, I don't care whether you (who ever you are) agree with my views or whether you think that I have or don't have a right to express them. This is an open forum. I don't agree that only the orthodox are permitted to express their views or that my views are unacceptable because they don't fit your notion of what is orthodox and unorthodox.. Yes, well I am not the only one who wonders what you are doing here, we are here to debate the fine points of something we already agree on the need for- public rail passenger transportation.
We understand just fine, we just don't agree (and we don't like the patronizing tone your two's page long comments are usually delivered with, say in the above paragraph).
(Again with the patronizing tone). Railroads, highways, airports, waterways etc are public goods:
"The public sector provides most highway infrastructure for several reasons that tend to limit the role of the private sector. First, such infrastructure displays, at least to some degree, important characteristics of “public goods.” Such goods are usually not profitable for the private sector to produce, because once they have been produced, they are available to anyone who wants to use them; as a result,they are often provided by the public sector. Second,because such infrastructure is costly to build, though less expensive to operate and maintain, having competing highway networks is not practical. As a result, such “natural monopolies” are often either provided directly by the government or regulated by it. Third, the benefits of highways—promoting commerce, for instance—may extend beyond the places where they are built and beyond the people who use them directly. All three of those characteristics of highway infrastructure tend to limit the incentives for the private sector to provide it. The private sector, on its own, would provide less of that type of infrastructure than is socially beneficial."
What is about this position that is so hard to understand?
In the same time period we have spent in excess of $2 Trillion on highways. How many school lunches could we buy if that had been deposited?
Those who would comment on my ideology have no idea what they are talking about, other than I admitted to supporting President Obama in the 2008 election. To ascribe ideology or hidden agendas to a person without a clue as to who he is other than to draw inclusive conclusions from his or her (lets keep the mystery alive although it is irrelevant) postings to a trains forum is quite unbelievable. Whew, is this is supposedly from people with advanced degrees. I now bib overall wearers who would not make these assertions.
I know all about argumentum ad hominum, and try to avoid it where I can, but there just is no other answer for the anti passenger rail arguments you both keep serving up here.
Yes, well I am not the only one who wonders what you are doing here, we are here to debate the fine points of something we already agree on the need for- public rail passenger transportation.
Sam1 GE will be able to build a new locomotive assembly plant in Fort Worth without having to worry about federal, state, and local regulations? I think not. The permitting required to build power plants (merchant and otherwise) was challenging but obviously not insurmountable. TX 130 and TX 145 (mentioned in another post) are toll roads. They have nothing to do with the Interstate Highway System, other than TX 130 connects with I-35. Note the designation TX in front of the route number.
Sam,
Note that all these examples are in Texas, not California. (big sigh....)
An example of the situation here - NCTD (operator of the Coaster service) started design work ca 1994 on a siding in Encinitas (between Chesterfield and Enicinitas Blvd) that would effectively recreate a siding pulled up by the AT&SF in the late 1960's. Construction didn't start until ca 2003 due to getting through the permitting process and this was for a couple of miles of siding. (My inner cynic thinks that a bunch of real estate types thought they could make some money by getting rid of the tracks and developing the ROW.)
----
I'm in agreement with Paul M about going full tilt to 220 MPH is a recipe for disaster, thinking that starting off with Acela trainsets at 150MPH would be the safest approach. At the same time, the alignment should be such that the track can be readily upgraded to 220MPH operation when the HSR crew gains sufficient experience at 150 MPH.
- Erik
I don't know of anyone who has suggested that private enterprise should build or have built the nation's highways. Or the nation's waterways (improvements) or airways, etc. The key questions is whether the users pay to use them. The answer is a nutshell is that they do, although in many instances the cost recovery is indirect, as I have enumerated in previous posts and do not intend to repeat.
I am not going away. I will advocate for passenger rail where it makes sense, which is relatively short, high density corridors. If participants don't understand my views, it is their problem. If they don't agree, it is their option.
Presenting and discussing different view points is what Trains forums are all about. I see nothing in the rules stating that uniformity of views are a requirement for participation.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.