Critics say the mistake was putting the money into existing Amtrak (110 mph limit) services, rather than directly into projects.
So build high speed trains without upgrading or enhancing the conventional trains necessary to support them. Oh my, how American.
Building another high speed corridor outside the northeast would have demonstrated modern passenger railroading and gotten the public beyond the NEC enthusiastic for the possibilities for a real passenger rail service. LD trains interest few beyond a small segment of the population.
That’s being tried in California, and look where it’s been going.
I am flabergasted that the New York Times would print an article stating the obvious, the Emperor never had any clothes. What is the world coming to?!
Mac
The problem is the money was sprinkled and not really invested. The money was available on a “come and get it” basis. There was no real goal behind the spending and it was spread out rather thinly.
The lead time and regulations surrounding these kinds of projects tend to hurt their viability.
There is no “magic” speed. It depends on what you’re trying to accomplish. 79 mph might be a perfectly high enough speed some places. High speed links in an established network is how the Europeans are going about it. It seems to be a good model to follow.
Beefing up local mobility along proposed routes might be a better place to start.
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.
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.
The people who complain it’s not a TGV tend to be of a progressive bent. HSR to them isn’t so much about transportation utility, but about the ego boost from being “modern.”
Those that oppose conventional rail that is cheap to build, but requires an operating subsidy tend to be of a conservative bent. To them, it’s all about what they beleive are “free markets”- not cost/benefit.
The trick is not finding concensus but building a common sense place in the middle. There will always be fringe.
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.
Too much NIMBY? Remember all the lawsuits and threats of lawsuits. It was easier for them to start where there were fewer people to complain. Of course, the first leg of their new railroad – if built – will run from nowhere to nowhere, and bleed money. But you can’t have everything!
I think Chicago-Milwaukee, Chicago-St. Louis, and Chicago-Detroit have all been good investments and we need to wait for the reconstruction and additional frequencies to be added before we come down too hard on the money spent. Chicago-Milwaukee got a few million but nevertheless the ride is entirely CWR now and a little faster with added capacity so Amtrak can add three more round trips (they have not done so yet). Chicago-St. Louis seems to be coming along but needs new equipment, plus a new or reconstructed bridge into St. Louis. Chicago-Detroit is probably the furthest behind and I am not sure will be finished anytime soon with the distraction by the State of having to financially rescue Detroit itself. We’ll see. California was a waste of money and I think that will prove to be the boondoggle everyone fears. If they get enough constructed with public funds they just might get a private company interested in taking the project over.
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.
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.
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.
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 gove
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.
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.
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.
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 assis
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.
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.