CSSHEGEWISCH Sam1 CSSHEGEWISCH Texas is also a so-called "right-to-work" (anti-organized labor) state. That's correct. However, that does not mean that workers cannot organize a union or belong to a union. At my former employer - I am retired - the mine workers as well as some of the power plant operators and line persons were members of the union. The employees of Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, Greyhound, etc., as examples, also belong to unions. Having said that, Texas workers turn to shun union organizing attempts. "Right-to-work" laws allow non-union members of the bargaining unit to retain all benefits of union representation without having to pay union dues (legalized theft of services?). Consequently, this discourages attempts to unionize and keeps the labor force cheap and docile.
Sam1 CSSHEGEWISCH Texas is also a so-called "right-to-work" (anti-organized labor) state. That's correct. However, that does not mean that workers cannot organize a union or belong to a union. At my former employer - I am retired - the mine workers as well as some of the power plant operators and line persons were members of the union. The employees of Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, Greyhound, etc., as examples, also belong to unions. Having said that, Texas workers turn to shun union organizing attempts.
CSSHEGEWISCH Texas is also a so-called "right-to-work" (anti-organized labor) state.
Texas is also a so-called "right-to-work" (anti-organized labor) state.
That's correct. However, that does not mean that workers cannot organize a union or belong to a union. At my former employer - I am retired - the mine workers as well as some of the power plant operators and line persons were members of the union.
The employees of Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, Greyhound, etc., as examples, also belong to unions. Having said that, Texas workers turn to shun union organizing attempts.
"Right-to-work" laws allow non-union members of the bargaining unit to retain all benefits of union representation without having to pay union dues (legalized theft of services?). Consequently, this discourages attempts to unionize and keeps the labor force cheap and docile.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
A faster route between New Haven and Boston or Providence is largely rail-banked by Connecticut, and it is the route of the famous "White Train" through Willamantic. South of New York, four tracks under the Hudson appear necesary, and the Bound Brook West Trenton route should be electrified and improved to take some of the load of the route through Trenton. Harrisburg and Pittsburgh trains would be routed that way and thus serve downtown Philadelphia. New Haven - New Rochelle remains a problem. Shell junction is the real choke point, A solution would be the east-of-station flyover plan I designed for Noah Caplin when he was a Metro North planner, using the old Harlem Shuttle track at New Rochelle station as the westbound main for trains bound for Penn Station, then reverse running towards Penn, possibly with another flyover to return to right-hand running.
Two things come to mind: Amtrak owns or controls much of the NEC, so it stands to reason that much of the funds should have gone there. Another consideration is that state supported trains from Virginia and North Carolina, two rapidly growing states, rely on this infrastructure, as well as the LD trains to and from the southeast, also rapidly growing.
The employees of Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, Greyhound, etc., as examples, also belong to unions. Having said that, Texas workers tend to shun union organizing attempts.
Phoebe Vet Companies are moving to Texas because Texas is paying them to move there. Ever since the first politician formulated the delusion that he could create jobs by giving money and tax breaks to wealthy businesses, the people who run those businesses, who are much smarter than politicians, have been making millions moving jobs from place to place.
Companies are moving to Texas because Texas is paying them to move there.
Ever since the first politician formulated the delusion that he could create jobs by giving money and tax breaks to wealthy businesses, the people who run those businesses, who are much smarter than politicians, have been making millions moving jobs from place to place.
Texas has offered some companies incentives to move to the Lone Star State. Every state, including North Carolina, plays the same game. Claiming that the incentives are the only motive to move to Texas or any other state is an over simplification. Climate, education, housing, medical services, transportation, business taxes, regulations, etc. all play a role. In fact, when looked at closely, the economic incentives, which usually take the form of a tax exemption, may be pretty far down the list of reasons to relocate.
I point that I was trying to make, however, was the long term (20 years) population projections for the NEC may not pan out. If my memory is correct, the NEC states have been growing at a relatively slow rate compared to many of the southern and mid-western states. Texas is just one example of where people seem to be going.
If the Sun Belt states, as an example, are growing at a faster rate than the NEC, why should the nation concentrate its limited resources for passenger rail money in the NEC? There are other areas of the country that may have an equal or greater need.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Given the pressures on the public purse, getting the money from the taxpayers for high speed rail or any passenger rail improvements may not be an effective strategy. Amtrak has not gotten all the money it wants. And it does not appear that the California High Speed Rail Project has either.
blue streak 1 Higher average speeds by doing all the above would allow for a cheaper capacity increase. This is needed to prepare for the growth expected over the next 20 years until a 2nd line can be built (if). Sitting still won't keep pace. This is an important point that is missed by many persons. Improve the times between NYP - WASH and the same amount of equipment will be available for train turns to be quicker. Same amount of rolling stock can carry more passengers in a day. Another factor is as Acela gets more 160 MPH track it can become a time en route differential compared to the 125 MPH regionals. The regional times will also apply to the LD trains once the 90 & 110 MPH limited Heritage cars are removed from those trains with Viewliner-2s replacing them.
Higher average speeds by doing all the above would allow for a cheaper capacity increase. This is needed to prepare for the growth expected over the next 20 years until a 2nd line can be built (if). Sitting still won't keep pace.
Paul MilenkovicThis question was raised, what, back in 2009 by Don Oltmann when there was 8 billion in stimulus money allocated to passenger trains. How do we, as passenger train advocates, want to see that money spent? There were a number of factions, including strong vocal support for long-distance train things like replacing or buying more Superliner cars.
The title of this thread indicates we probably blew the chance.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
blue streak 1Why does Amtrak need a 90 minute schedule between New York and Washington? It already has the lion’s share of the air/rail market between these two cities.
It doesn't. What's needed is more capacity. You can do some things to boost capacity on the existing route, but at some point you're likely better off doing something new. If you go with a new route, why wouldn't you go for the speed that provdies the most benefit?
I'm not sure Amtrak's plans have been made with the sharpest pencil points, but the future is going to have to include big, new things for the NEC. Chesapeake Bay/Susquehanna River bridges, Baltimore approaches are killers.
Sam1 Many of the proponents of improved passenger rail don’t seem to know how to pay for it.
Many of the proponents of improved passenger rail don’t seem to know how to pay for it.
I am going to disagree with you on that point. I believe that as proponents, we know where to get the money -- from taxpayers as another commenter on this thread demanded. What we don't know what to do as passenger train advocates is how to spend the money . . . effectively.
The point of the original thread is that the 11 billion dollars hasn't been spent very effectively. Yes, 11 billion dollars is not very much money at all to build an HSR network for a country the size of the U.S. For those envious of Japan, that country is almost half the population of the U.S. living on a very narrow strip of coastal land on a volcanic island chain, and even there, the HSR spending over time was in the trillion dollar range, depending on how you account for inflation, interest, exchange rates, and relative values between economies.
This question was raised, what, back in 2009 by Don Oltmann when there was 8 billion in stimulus money allocated to passenger trains. How do we, as passenger train advocates, want to see that money spent? There were a number of factions, including strong vocal support for long-distance train things like replacing or buying more Superliner cars.
Long distance, corridor, high speed, regular speed, you have to start someplace. What you do is you spend the 8 billion or the 11 billion where it has the most impact, people see how trains can help them, and you build on that success to get more money to get more trains. Instead, we get people scolding "the American public" or "the politicians who (still) talk about low taxes" or any of a number of groups that one can blame.
You have to start somewhere and build this up over time. You can't get someone to write a blank multi-trillion dollar check for an instant national HSR network. You have to take the initial small amount of money and spend it on something with visible results. Otherwise, no one is going to "cough up" more money to move forward.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
aricat Sam1 Airports that exist for general aviation have nothing to do with High Speed Rail issues. Airports that serve commercial aviation are a different story. You and I both know who pays the salary of the air traffic controllers and for operation of air traffic control system; and that is the American taxpayer. The same goes for the TSA. If airlines had to pay the entire cost for air traffic control, TSA security, and build and maintain the airports themselves, the cost to fly would be prohibitive. This is precisely what railroads had to do in the United States until the inception of Amtrak; and you wonder why American railroads wanted out of the passenger business. Railroads were expected to pay taxes not get tax breaks. In the 1950's and early 1960's the Federal Government subsidized local service airlines to serve small cities like Havre Montana and a myriad of others. Oftentimes these cities had passenger rail service like Havre did with the Great Northern which received no subsidy at all.
Sam1 Airports that exist for general aviation have nothing to do with High Speed Rail issues. Airports that serve commercial aviation are a different story. You and I both know who pays the salary of the air traffic controllers and for operation of air traffic control system; and that is the American taxpayer. The same goes for the TSA. If airlines had to pay the entire cost for air traffic control, TSA security, and build and maintain the airports themselves, the cost to fly would be prohibitive. This is precisely what railroads had to do in the United States until the inception of Amtrak; and you wonder why American railroads wanted out of the passenger business. Railroads were expected to pay taxes not get tax breaks. In the 1950's and early 1960's the Federal Government subsidized local service airlines to serve small cities like Havre Montana and a myriad of others. Oftentimes these cities had passenger rail service like Havre did with the Great Northern which received no subsidy at all.
You raised the issue of aviation. You are correct; it has nothing to do with high speed passenger rail. But many of your comments re: funding commercial aviation in the U.S. are mistaken.
I set the commercial airports in the context of all airports to help show, at least by implication, that a significant portion of the airport Improvement funds go to airports that are not served by commercial airlines and, therefore, are not a subsidy for them. Moreover, again by implication, I wanted to show that approximately 70 per cent of the air traffic control load, as detailed in other threads, is for general aviation and military aviation operating in civilian air space.
Historically approximately 85 per cent of the FAA;s budget has been covered by fuel taxes, ticket taxes, registration fees, etc. These are paid by the users. One hundred per cent of operations, which includes the air traffic controllers, is covered by these user fees. Since the Great Recession a higher percentage of the FAA's budget has been covered by transfers from the general fund. Most of these monies were dispensed under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for airport and airways improvements as well as safety initiatives. This information can be found in the FAA's Annual Performance Reports.
Approximately 40 per cent of the TSA's airport security program is covered by ticket taxes (fees). This is about to increase to 50 per cent. The airlines did not bring on 9/11. One could argue that a multiplicity of factors brought it on and, therefore, it is right that the country bear the consequences as opposed to dumping them all on airline passengers.
With the exception of the Long Island Railroad, as well as perhaps a few others, passenger rail has ridden on the backs of the freight carried by the railroads from the get go. Without the dual use of rail facilities, i.e. for freight and passenger, passenger rail probably would not have come about. The same notion applies to the nation's airports and airways. The airlines are just one of several user groups. In fact, they only use approximately 30 to 35 per cent of the airways and air infrastructure capabilities. Even at many large airports, i.e. Dallas Love Field, commercial aviation accounts for less than half of operations.
A healthy commercial aviation industry is vital for the U.S. economy. So too is a first class highway system. We are where we are with respect to aviation and highways. So the question is where does passenger rail make sense, what should it look like, and how should it be funded.
blue streak 1 Why does Amtrak need a 90 minute schedule between New York and Washington? It already has the lion’s share of the air/rail market between these two cities. With an average speed of 100 mph, an Acela could cover the distance in 2 hours and 15 minutes, which is a half hour less than the current best schedule. The current route probably could be upgraded to a point where an average speed of 100 mph is feasible without breaking the piggy bank. And it would clearly be more cost effective than building a new railroad through the crowded northeast and Middle Atlantic States. A two hour schedule would probably not only clear the air routes but entice many auto & bus passengers ? + also entice many of the Providence - Baltimore travelers as well. It is not IMHO the high speed that will win passengers but the removing of slow sections to allow for an 120 MPH average speeds. The NYP - BOS route is another matter as the curves do not allow for higher speeds. The only thing on that section can improve is a few bridges.
Why does Amtrak need a 90 minute schedule between New York and Washington? It already has the lion’s share of the air/rail market between these two cities. With an average speed of 100 mph, an Acela could cover the distance in 2 hours and 15 minutes, which is a half hour less than the current best schedule. The current route probably could be upgraded to a point where an average speed of 100 mph is feasible without breaking the piggy bank. And it would clearly be more cost effective than building a new railroad through the crowded northeast and Middle Atlantic States.
A two hour schedule would probably not only clear the air routes but entice many auto & bus passengers ? + also entice many of the Providence - Baltimore travelers as well. It is not IMHO the high speed that will win passengers but the removing of slow sections to allow for an 120 MPH average speeds. The NYP - BOS route is another matter as the curves do not allow for higher speeds. The only thing on that section can improve is a few bridges.
Perhaps the best outcome for the NEC is to continue to upgrade and improve the existing route as opposed to building a new, high speed railroad. Day lighting the tunnels in Baltimore, upgrading the bridges, improving the access to NYC, and straightening out some of the curves may be the most cost effective way to get a desired outcome.
I doubt that the air routes are going to be cleared by rail in the NEC. For someone living on Long Island or in Hartford and traveling to Baltimore or Washington, flying is likely to be a better option.
I don't want any commercial carrier to have a monopoly on any route anywhere. Once they get it, they can dictate prices and service levels without being responsive to their existing and potential customers. Amtrak would be no different than any other monopoly. I want choice wherever possible.
aricat ...Americans just paid for their airports and .......with taxes.
...Americans just paid for their airports and .......with taxes.
As per Page 16 of the FAA's 2012 Fact Book, at the end of FY11, which is the latest year for complete numbers, the United States had 13,450 airports, of which 5,172 were civic public use airports. Of these 547 or 10.6 per cent had some form of commercial air service.
Most airports in the United States are owned by a city, county, regional authority, etc. They are accounted for in an enterprise fund as opposed to being included in the general fund. Enterprise fund accounting is intended public owned activities that are operated like a business. Under enterprise accounting an entity, although it is publicly owned, is expected to cover most of its costs from the users as opposed to the general taxpayers.
Most of the funding for the nation's airports was raised through the sale of municipal bonds. Some of the airports get a small amount of funding through the FAA's Airport Improvement Program, but the percentage of federal funding in relation to the capital budget is relatively small. The interest on municipal bonds is exempt from federal taxes. In addition, if the holder of the bond is a resident of the state issuing the bonds - most airport authorities are created by the state - the interest is exempt from state income taxes.
Because municipal bonds are tax exempt, they have a lower effective interest rate than fully taxable bonds, which means the cost of construction is somewhat lower than would be the case if the bonds were fully taxable. The difference between the revenues generated from fully taxable bonds and municipal bonds is absorbed by the taxpayers.
Airports recover their costs, including the monies needed to service their bonds, through gate fees, landing fees, FBO rents, parking fees, vendor rents, etc. These are sufficient to cover the costs of most large airports, although there are some rural airport that require taxpayer assistance to cover their revenue shortfalls.
In addition to the rents that they pay, most airport vendors, i.e. restaurants, clothing outlets, news stands, bars, etc., pay local, state and federal taxes. These taxes probably are substantial, and they probably offset most if not all of the difference between the tax revenues generated from tax free financing and fully taxable financing.
blue streak 1 Why does Amtrak need a 90 minute schedule between New York and Washington? A two hour schedule would probably not only clear the air routes but entice many auto & bus passengers ? + also entice many of the Providence - Baltimore travelers as well. It is not IMHO the high speed that will win passengers but the removing of slow sections to allow for an 120 MPH average speeds. The NYP - BOS route is another matter as the curves do not allow for higher speeds. The only thing on that section can improve is a few bridges.
Why does Amtrak need a 90 minute schedule between New York and Washington?
Why does Amtrak need a 90 minute schedule between New York and Washington? It already has the lion’s share of the air/rail market between these two cities. With an average speed of 100 mph, an Acela could cover the distance in 2 hours and 15 minutes, which is a half hour less than the current best schedule. The current route probably could be upgraded to a point where an average speed of 100 mph is feasible without breaking the piggy bank. And it would clearly be more cost effective than building a new railroad through the crowded northeast and Middle Atlantic States.
Talking about HSR gets a bit frustrating. In 1965 I rode Japan's bullet train when I was in the Navy. It was the finest train in the world. I would ask myself why we can't have that train here. I know why now. Three generations of Americans have decided that it was better to build freeways and airports than invest in inter city passenger trains and mass transit. Japan and Western Europe also built freeways and airports; but they also built HSR and more importantly kept up its intercity passenger trains. They abandoned little used branch lines and redundant passenger routes in the 1960's and bought new passenger equipment for lines that carried large volumes of passengers. Today Americans ask why we can't have trains here? The reason is simple, we didn't want them. Now that Americans are sick of crowded airports and choked freeways with long commutes they want HSR. That means coughing up the money. Britain and Continental Europe's taxpayers paid for both their intercity passenger trains and for their airports and freeways; Americans just paid for their airports and freeways with taxes. Now we have Amtrak, roads and bridges that are falling apart, interstates jammed with trucks; and politicians who still talk about low taxes.
Successful businesses focus on doing a few things very well. They don’t try to be all things to all people. The Administration’s approach to high speed rail attempted to spread the nation’s limited resources for passenger rail enhancements to too many projects instead of focusing on a few potentially successful ones.
Amtrak has been a failure, at least financially, because it has been forced for political reasons to meet the wishes of too many special interests, i.e. operate a skeleton national passenger rail system instead of focusing on a few corridors where passenger rail makes sense.
Whether the United States’ high speed rail program is behind Europe and Asia is irrelevant. An improved passenger rail network should be crafted to meet the needs of America’s diverse regions. Once size fits all is not an effective problem solving strategy. There may be some best practices that can be taken from other countries, but the solution(s) should fit U.S. requirements. It also should be crafted for U.S. culture, which is different than European or Asian cultures.
Many of the proponents of improved passenger rail don’t seem to know how to pay for it. If the users won’t pay for it, then the taxpayers will have to pick-up the tab. For a nation that is deep in debt, i.e. total government debt, personal debt, unfunded liabilities, etc., finding the money to pay for it will be a major challenge. One thing is certain. The Europeans, Japanese, and Chinese taxpayers are not going to pay for high speed rail service in the United States.
The Michigan corridor got a lot of help from the feds. The following is from an MDOT news release (2013) regarding Michigan buying the NS Kalamazoo-Detroit line:
"...The $140 million used to purchase the line included FRA High-speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program grant funds, plus a state match of $37.5 million. The FRA also awarded $196.5 million to MDOT for major track and signal improvements on this corridor, to be performed by Amtrak..."
I could not find any recent news release on how its going this year, but 30 miles of new rail was installed last year.
oltmannd I don't know why they didn't start by building the HSR route from LA to Bakersfield. That link gets them the most bang for the buck and makes the existing trains much more useful (actual, competitive LA to SF trains) while they improve the rest of the route. They'd build a lot more enthusiasm among the public that way.
I don't know why they didn't start by building the HSR route from LA to Bakersfield. That link gets them the most bang for the buck and makes the existing trains much more useful (actual, competitive LA to SF trains) while they improve the rest of the route. They'd build a lot more enthusiasm among the public that way.
oltmannd An interesting experiment - or a soap opera. It's hard to tell which! I suspect the CAHSR is going to wind up sort of half built and not very effective. I'll bet they spent about 1/3 of the total and wind up with some nice, straight high speed track in the Central Valley hosting hourly, 110 mph San Joaquins. I don't know why they didn't start by building the HSR route from LA to Bakersfield. That link gets them the most bang for the buck and makes the existing trains much more useful (actual, competitive LA to SF trains) while they improve the rest of the route. They'd build a lot more enthusiasm among the public that way.
An interesting experiment - or a soap opera. It's hard to tell which!
I suspect the CAHSR is going to wind up sort of half built and not very effective. I'll bet they spent about 1/3 of the total and wind up with some nice, straight high speed track in the Central Valley hosting hourly, 110 mph San Joaquins.
I seem to remember that an influential congressman was from the south Central Valley, and he insisted it start there. Also, as I remember from the CA HSR plan, they want to go to Bakersfield-Palmdale next to close the passenger rail gap.
CG9602 OK -- I've been around this argument before. If a TGV type train service is proposed, critics will label it a "billion dollar boondoggle," and a "rip-off that no one will ride." Proposed a conventional yet faster speed train service and critics will complain that it isn't a TGV type bullet train. I've experieced this sort of criticism here in Wisconsin. Some folks will pan it and oppose it no matter what -- they'll simply change the objections.
OK -- I've been around this argument before. If a TGV type train service is proposed, critics will label it a "billion dollar boondoggle," and a "rip-off that no one will ride." Proposed a conventional yet faster speed train service and critics will complain that it isn't a TGV type bullet train. I've experieced this sort of criticism here in Wisconsin. Some folks will pan it and oppose it no matter what -- they'll simply change the objections.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.