I am a Republican, but the recent craziness of counting a decade's worth of hypothetical savings from a non-bailout of USPS due to the end of Saturday mail delivery to fund one year of the HTF overrun is just too much.
Basically, the House leadership is proposing this as a counter move to the administration's equally silly approach. I don't know if I have any faith in a rational response with this latest move.
PNWRMNM Streak, Schlimm simply copied the Administration's press release which is so vague as to be meaningless. I am opposed to the thing as drafted since it proposes to transfer $150 B from general accounts to the highwaymen. I am not arguing that the roads do not need the work, but the users, and especially truckers, should pay for it, not the general taxpayer or more realistically, bond buyers. Mac
Streak,
Schlimm simply copied the Administration's press release which is so vague as to be meaningless. I am opposed to the thing as drafted since it proposes to transfer $150 B from general accounts to the highwaymen. I am not arguing that the roads do not need the work, but the users, and especially truckers, should pay for it, not the general taxpayer or more realistically, bond buyers.
Mac
Yes that was stupid to move to General Revenue Funding when for so many decades this has been supported by fees and the gas tax. If our President really had a backbone he would raise the gas tax and index it to inflation which has broad support on the Republican side. However, raising the gas tax pizzes off the far left in this country which think the tax hits the poor the hardest (how much do we as a country support these folks........you have a damn car you pay the full costs of ownership). So our President took the easy way out...........bad leadership.........bad for the country........bad for our debt situation.
Transportation budget should continue to be funded by user fees, transportation taxes, etc
SCHLIMM's points have fairly well answered my thinking. Since passenger trains only cover any segment in 1 - 2 hours the higher speed freights especially intermodals and FEDEX / UPS need the same class track as passenger. So fitting in a passenger into a 30 - 60 train operation should work. The slower trains especially the proposed MAX speed of crude trains / haz mat is going to cause more problems than the faster trains. More sidings , closer double track CPs for crossing over and some third main track as well is going to be needed. Those improvements fit for passenger trains as well.
The FRA projections of 2040 traffic are only a guide line as several traffic events have overtaken some of those projections already here in 2014 much less 2040.
PNWRMNM Streak, What has your list of traffic demands got to do with the Act? I did not see anything having to do with freight capacity when I skimmed through it. Mac
What has your list of traffic demands got to do with the Act? I did not see anything having to do with freight capacity when I skimmed through it.
Provide $10 billion for a multi-modal freight program that strengthens America’s exports and
trade. The U.S. transportation system moves more than 52 million tons worth nearly $46 billion 3 each day, or almost 40 tons of freight per person per year, and freight tonnage is expected to increase 62 percent by 2040. The GROW AMERICA Act will help improve the operation of our transportation system to move freight while making critical investments to accommodate this future growth in part through providing $10 billion over four year to establish a new multimodal freight grant program to fund innovative rail, highway, and port projects that will improve the efficient movement of goods across the country. The GROW AMERICA Act will also give shippers and transportation providers a real seat at the table for making investment decisions and incentivizes States to collaborate and establish long term freight strategic plans. • Provide $19 billion in dedicated funding for rail programs. The proposal also includes nearly $5 of billion annually for high performance and passenger rail programs with a focus on improving the connections between key regional city pairs and high traffic corridors throughout the country.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Back to subject please.
The rail portion of Grow America makes reference to RR infrastructure. There are many demands on the infrastructure are different depending on the customer.
1. At the top are passenger trains and high priority customers such as FED EX and UPS that want product moved as quickly as possible.
2. Next is probably most intermodal although there are various levels of time to deliver.
1 &2 ask for the fastest possible transit but at present the apparent intermodal braking speed appears to be 70 MPH until maybe ECP comes into use ?
3. next is probably high priority at train speeds at 50 MPH where possible
4. Minerals and others that have lower HP / weight ratio.
5. Grain -- however due to the demand for scarce cars probably needs more HP
6. those car loads that are not designated to a final receiver yet.
All these different speeds are eating up capacity with poorer fluidity,
There was a post a while back that stated car loads were up about 7% but this is not even over the whole US RR system.
11. nearly 30% grain loadings are clogging a few routes. Crude oil is another commodity.
12. As well these 2 items are traveling much longer than the previous total average distance.
13. It appears that only certain routes are getting clogged some to the point that some traffic is being diverted to other routes. It would be interesting to see 1st and 2nd quarter traffic levels this JulyAlso compare the levels to the last FRA forecast.
14. Some of the know routes clogged are the BNSF thru the northern plains and CSX & NS east to Chicago. CSX Baltimore - Florence
15. Others may be at the 75% capacity figure.
16. The coal routes are mostly well placed
17. other routes are way below capacity such as NS Atlanta - Manassas.
18. Other routes have the potential to get clogged once certain improvements are completed such as Crescent corridors and CSX intermodal to Baltimore.
I think you missed the point. The numbers were for EB from Sacramento, about 1/10 of WB. I think it is safe to conclude that at least 1/2 of the EB are not short distances (commuters) but 100 miles or more. So the CZ is still a tiny fraction. Short corridors, not necessarily HSR, are the future. There is no good reason why with electrification for quick acceleration and top speeds of 90 or more, these services would not take a significant portion of the traffic.
"it is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to 35,000 cars..."
Yes, the comparison is being missed. Some city streets carry over 20,000 vehicles a day but they are not making long trips at all. Most urban interstates or even those anywhere near a city are carrying a majority of their volume as short distance trips.
Here is a classic trip distance chart from the 1939 Toll Roads and Free roads, where it was concluded that toll financed intercity highways would only work in a few corridors where the short, less than 50 mile or so, midsized city to city travel would overlap. The trip distances on the legacy east-west tollways still reflect this.
Below is a modern chart from a Georgia Interstate study where the starting point was trips over 100 miles in length. Notice how infrequent trips are as a portion of the total volume mix once the trip length exceeds 300 miles, which is practically just past the begining point of the Amtrak long distance market at 200 miles. So, the actual market for intercity trips is not the total volume of a road at a particular point, but say 5-10% of that volume (remember chart cliped the volumes under 100 miles). This is why I wish the DOT could get together and do a Bluetooth ID study of real trip origin-destinations for planning.
The current Amtrak printed timetable shows only the California Zephyr providing rail service east of Auburn--there is a morning train from Auburn to Oakland Coliseum and an afternoon train from Oakland-Jack London Square to Auburn. There are bus connections between Sacramento and Sparks, Auburn, or Roseville. Do these bus connections count as rail service?
Johnny
schlimm V.PayneThe issue is nobody compares intercity rail to what the actual total travel market is between cities. Three trains a day of several cars running 60 mph on average out of convenient stations can have a significant impact. The only route with something close to this now is the silver service. I found this in a study called MTP 2035 for Sacramento: I-80 East, linking to North Lake Tahoe, Reno, and states east of California, 4-lane freeway carrying 29,000 vehicles daily, of which 5200 (18%) are trucks. US 50 East, linking to South Lake Tahoe and central Nevada and Utah, 2-lane highway carrying 12,000 vehicles daily, of which 500 (4%) are trucks. contrast with California Zephyr, linking west to San Francisco Bay Area and east to Reno, Denver, and Chicago, with 1 train each way daily, serving about 100 Sacramento passengers daily. Even if the whole train carries 300-400, it is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to 35,000 cars (~52,000 passengers??).
V.PayneThe issue is nobody compares intercity rail to what the actual total travel market is between cities. Three trains a day of several cars running 60 mph on average out of convenient stations can have a significant impact. The only route with something close to this now is the silver service.
I found this in a study called MTP 2035 for Sacramento:
I-80 East, linking to North Lake Tahoe, Reno, and states east of California, 4-lane freeway carrying 29,000 vehicles daily, of which 5200 (18%) are trucks.
US 50 East, linking to South Lake Tahoe and central Nevada and Utah, 2-lane highway carrying 12,000 vehicles daily, of which 500 (4%) are trucks.
contrast with
California Zephyr, linking west to San Francisco Bay Area and east to Reno, Denver, and Chicago, with 1 train each way daily, serving about 100 Sacramento passengers daily. Even if the whole train carries 300-400, it is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to 35,000 cars (~52,000 passengers??).
I think something is missing in the comparison. A quick look at Amtrak's timetable for the Capitol Corridor indicates that there are a number of trains each day that serve the Bay Area - Sacramento and some even to Reno. So if you are looking at comparing that segment, please include the ridership of those trains in addition to the CZ (After all, only a fraction of the cars on the freeway came all the way from Chicago, Omaha and Denver). It's not going to be huge compared to the cars, but it will definitely be a bigger drop in the bucket.
V.Payne The issue is nobody compares intercity rail to what the actual total travel market is between cities. Three trains a day of several cars running 60 mph on average out of convenient stations can have a significant impact. The only route with something close to this now is the silver service.
The issue is nobody compares intercity rail to what the actual total travel market is between cities. Three trains a day of several cars running 60 mph on average out of convenient stations can have a significant impact. The only route with something close to this now is the silver service.
" If LD has a social service function, then call it that, but let's not pretend it actually is an important part of passenger transportation or realistically can be."
in most urban areas commuting represents 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the total vehicle miles on the interstates. Actual use of the interstates for you know interstate travel is a vast minority. Actual trips over say 200 miles is also a minority of vehicle miles.
Schlimm, I don't care what catagory you place LD trains as long as they continue. I am willing to agree that they are more analogous to National Parks and Libraries than to rapid transit or light rail or buses or commuter trains economically, if not technologically. My point is that they are too valuable to the USA to end.
V.Payneof course accidents still aren't priced.
Another externality. But how likely is it that any taxpayers would actually realize the full savings in their auto and health insurance premiums if you could even figure out a way to attach to highways? I think very little, if any of that saving would be passed on.
daveklepperI believe I contradicted the two previous posts previously and need not repeat my specific arguments as to why the USA would loose a lot if LD trains were discontiniued and why railroads do indeed have some responsibility to move passengers. Even if they have to loose money doing so.
My objection to LD is not even the cost. It is that it represents such a tiny piece of passenger transportation, even within Amtrak. It would be rather like saying the stage coaches were great, let's keep them. If LD has a social service function, then call it that, but let's not pretend it actually is an important part of passenger transportation or realistically can be. Corridors are a whole different matter where real passenger services can become a growing and important part of the mix.
These opposing types of conclusions are what make a transportation bill so difficult.
On one side you have justifications of new highway facilities based on saved time economic methods, like I-69 which is longer than the existing routes but is going to save time, trust the economists in the EIS. This is why I harp on SH-130's failure so much as it was supposed to be the vanguard of nearly private toll road building but even with a 85 mph speed limit is not paying its way on a mostly donated ROW, and of course accidents still aren't priced.
On the other side you have the pot-o-money groups chasing after the public good and mitigating externalities.
Neither have any financial basis, which is a problem when we run out of money. Most of us are somewhere in between the two camps.
Meanwhile small disruptions in a moderately improving economy through the large portions of the rail infrastructure into massive delays. I would suggest that expansion of the infrastructure is really the only option. I wish the real drivers of consumer behavior could be explored in a transportation bill.
schlimm PNWRMNMThat case can not be made for the LD trains, which are as obsolete as stage coaches. On that point, we are in total agreement.
PNWRMNMThat case can not be made for the LD trains, which are as obsolete as stage coaches.
On that point, we are in total agreement.
I agree, but I think it is a moot point. Kansas and Colorado have already anted up a small mountain of money to keep the SW Chief on it's current route. The LD trains appear to be bullet-proof pork.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd PNWRMNMThe result will be either a failure of the East River tunnels or a massive transfer of wealth from the rest of us to NY & NJ commuters. What a crock, but only one of many in the "Welfare for everyone State". It'll balance out the massive flow of fed fuel tax receipts from NJ to Kansas, Nebraska et. al. Those fly-over states are massive net recipients of Federal money.
PNWRMNMThe result will be either a failure of the East River tunnels or a massive transfer of wealth from the rest of us to NY & NJ commuters. What a crock, but only one of many in the "Welfare for everyone State".
It'll balance out the massive flow of fed fuel tax receipts from NJ to Kansas, Nebraska et. al. Those fly-over states are massive net recipients of Federal money.
I believe I contradicted the two previous posts previously and need not repeat my specific arguments as to why the USA would loose a lot if LD trains were discontiniued and why railroads do indeed have some responsibility to move passengers. Even if they have to loose money doing so.
Schlimm,
It is because of the externalities that I think a case could be made for the NEC. Said another way rail is probably the cheapest way to accomplish the objective of allowing people a reasonable degree of freedom of movement.
That case can not be made for the LD trains, which are as obsolete as stage coaches.
I would have far fewer issues with ATK if it paid their hosts a reasonable rate, but congress wrote the marginal cost standard into the law which makes ATK a parasite on the freight carriers and the commuters a parsite on ATK.
PNWRMNM schlimm Well, Dave. Perhaps some folks on this thread would like to return to the pre-Amtrak days where being a railroad meant "common carrier" of both freight and passenger, unless they were released of that obligation. They want what they see as the best of both worlds. If there was a market for rail passenger service that would support it at the actual costs incurred there never would have been an ATK. The Federal government has been paying for and encouraging highway development since roughly 1917. That killed the passenger train. Passenger trains are not a need, they are some people's hobby. Everybody needs a hobby, but each should pay for his own. That said there may be a case for passenger service in the NEC. Here the Feds own the fixed plant and see the full cost of capital investment and maintenance but here they are giving the same free ride to commuters that the freight carriers are giving ATK elsewhere. That is part of the reason that the NYC tunnels are so congested. ATK can not meetits capital needs from revenues or in the capital markets, again because the business does not generate enough cash flow to support necessary capital investment. Unless major changes are made in the law and its competitive position it never will. The result will be either a failure of the East River tunnels or a massive transfer of wealth from the rest of us to NY & NJ commuters. What a crock, but only one of many in the "Welfare for everyone State". Mac
schlimm Well, Dave. Perhaps some folks on this thread would like to return to the pre-Amtrak days where being a railroad meant "common carrier" of both freight and passenger, unless they were released of that obligation. They want what they see as the best of both worlds.
Well, Dave. Perhaps some folks on this thread would like to return to the pre-Amtrak days where being a railroad meant "common carrier" of both freight and passenger, unless they were released of that obligation. They want what they see as the best of both worlds.
If there was a market for rail passenger service that would support it at the actual costs incurred there never would have been an ATK. The Federal government has been paying for and encouraging highway development since roughly 1917. That killed the passenger train. Passenger trains are not a need, they are some people's hobby. Everybody needs a hobby, but each should pay for his own.
That said there may be a case for passenger service in the NEC. Here the Feds own the fixed plant and see the full cost of capital investment and maintenance but here they are giving the same free ride to commuters that the freight carriers are giving ATK elsewhere. That is part of the reason that the NYC tunnels are so congested.
ATK can not meetits capital needs from revenues or in the capital markets, again because the business does not generate enough cash flow to support necessary capital investment. Unless major changes are made in the law and its competitive position it never will. The result will be either a failure of the East River tunnels or a massive transfer of wealth from the rest of us to NY & NJ commuters. What a crock, but only one of many in the "Welfare for everyone State".
"The Federal government has been paying for and encouraging highway development since roughly 1917. That killed the passenger train." Agreed, it also killed off a lot of high margin time sensitive rail freight which was the real problem of the late 1960's along with declining track and an industry left holding the bag on pensions.
Then... "Passenger trains are not a need..."
How is that conclusion reached if one sees a distortion of the infrastructure market, particularly for one person travel parties that want more in a marketplace than what a motorcoach offers?
Perhaps it would also be informative to discuss the diesel tax rebates for motorcoach operators in past transportation bills on the Federal and State levels that are still in effect, leaving them paying little for infrastructure (very much less than Amtrak does on a per passenger basis).
If the Amtrak subsidy for the long distance routes was just provided for infrastructure access (line haul and station tracks) I can fully see operating long consists that cover either all the above the rail costs from fares or come in under the publicly borne automobile accident costs (completely disregarding any fuel savings benefit to tilt the decision). Why do we accept capital spent for infrastructure on the NEC but not leased from private owners elsewhere?
This infrastructure only funding argument for off-NEC routes might be a lot more politically palatable, but there would need to be a demo of longer consists offering multiple classes of service as we seem to have forgotten how to tailor a rail service to the customer.
PNWRMNMATK can not meetits capital needs from revenues or in the capital markets, again because the business does not generate enough cash flow to support necessary capital investment.
The capital investment in the NEC not covered by Amtrak's cash flow may be justified by comparison to alternatives.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.