NC Piedmont vs truck load of bricks

OK, there are people willing to ride a train, but a bus ride is a fate-worse-than-death. These people dislike flying, meaning that at least for a certain group of people, trains are more comfortable or suit their requirements better than airplanes. Also, these people lack a car or are unable to drive – suggests to me that they are saving a whole pack of money on car ownership. If they once owned a car, it has been donated to Bart Starr’s youth ranch or given to Buffy or Junior who drives off to college.

That means that there is a body of people who have a strong preference for the train over other modes. If those people have that strong a preference, why not charge higher fares on the train? Or is the preference not that strong, and if the fares were increased that people would seek the alternatives or chose not to travel?

Yes, there is the ability to afford the trip, but I think we are talking about people who can make some choices about how they spend money. If the train is a superior mode of transportation, why not make the choice to pay more for the fare?

That is kind of what has been done on the NEC. Apparently the level of service is such that the train is a preferred mode, and Amtrak finds people willing to pay the fares. If you are poor, you can save a lot of money taking the (slow) commuter trains and changing in Trenton.

I prefer taking a train to a bus. I prefer taking a rapid train, e.g. the Acela, to an airplane over distances of approximately 200 to 250 miles, i.e. New York to Washington.

I also prefer using a transport system that people are willing to pay for and is not heavily dependent on government subsidies. This is why I believe that passenger rail should be required to cover at least its operating costs.

I support the implementation of incremental rapid rail where the cost of constructing additional highway and airway space is prohibitive. Most of the monies should come from the states that are served by the system, since none of the rapid rail segments or proposed high speed rail projects serve the nation as a whole. If Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, etc. want to build a rapid or high speed rail system, they should go for it.

I have serious reservations about true high speed rail. I don’t think the results justify the costs. And I think that the nation has other priorities that need to be addressed before we begin tacking down a high speed rail system that will be used by relatively few people.

It is important to keep in mind that whilst Amtrak has more than 50 per cent of the commercial transport travelers between Washington and New York, the majority of people drive, usually because they are going from one suburb to another suburb, and taking the train is neither economical nor realistic.

Interest in high speed rail is being rekindled in Texas. What the proponents are reluctant to talk about, however, is the true cost. Some of the proponents point to the recent California high speed funding plan as a desirable model.

California voters authorized the issuance of $10 billion of state backed bonds for high speed rail. What the proponents did not tell the voters is that the cost to service the bonds wil

Amen Sam. For the time being it’s an unrealistic goal and HSR is little more than a buzzword. Just get the trains up to an 80mph average speed and the riders will come. That to me is doable and at an affordable cost. The price tag for true HSR would approach that of the “stimulus” legislation that is now pending in congress.

Mark

True the California HSR system is expensive and unlike Sam and others I think passengers will ride the system. What the highway people are not saying is that to add an additional lane in each direction to I-5 between Los Angeles and Sacramento will cost well in excess of $100 billion. Highway taxes and road use taxes will not begin to pay that bill. In addition the existing lanes of I-5 are in bad need of resurfacing another $150 billion(California DOT reports). If ever a State needs some alternative to highways it is California. SFO is close to capacity and it has no room for further expansion as the enviromentalists will not permit more dumping of fill into San Francisco Bay. LAX is already overcrowded and has no further room for expansion. Burbank, Ontario, John Wayne, and Long Beach Airports are also out of the question for expansion. What alternatives do we have but faster train service and if ever there is an area begging for HSR it is the LA to SF route. Unlike others I don’t care if it extends to San Diego or even if it serves Sacramento. The main route certainly needs to be built.

Al - in - Stockton

State sponsorship works well for states like California, Texas, Florida and even New York, Michigan and Illinois, but not so well for states like NC, Ohio, SC, Georgia and any along the NEC. Sometimes the sum of the parts makes a self-sufficient whole, but the pieces alone will sink. No single state’s piece of the NEC would survive on it’s own covering operating costs. I doubt whether NC or Ohio stand alone systems would do nearly as well as a network that integrated their routes with population corridors in ajoining states. The problem is that any state in the network would hold a virtual veto.

Examples of what can go wrong abound already. The Downeaster does pretty well, but Maine is carrying the financial load while New Hampshire is deriving a good chunk of the benefit. Closing the stops in NH would only worsen Maine’s burden.

NJT and SEPTA cannot or will not figure out how to do through service at Trenton.

Conn DOT has been a thorn in Amtrak’s side with their piece of the NEC,

Failure of the impacted states to cooperate in the support of a regional rail system is not a logical argument for hoisting it on the backs of people who cannot use it, which is what happens when federal taxpayers are required to support a regional only solution.

The NEC covers its operating costs and contributes something to the fixed costs. It relies on the federal government subsidies to cover the bulk of the fixed costs. There is no reason to believe that the New England and Middle Atlantic states would not support the NEC. If it is as valuable as its proponents claim, the citizens in the area will demand it, and they will pay the taxes to make it happen.

The Interstate Highway system is a true national system. Practically everyone can use it. The same is true for the postal system, airway system, federal courts, etc.

People in North Carolina should not be required to fund a regional railway system in Texas anymore than they should have been required to support Southwest Airlines when it was an intrastate carrier.

Since the beginning of the republic people who could not find financing for their regional projects have attempted to garner federal support for them. They claim that it will benefit everyone, although they usually lack any hard data to support it. Maybe this is one of the reasons the U.S. has a large national debt.

To be fair, Amtrak accounts for a tiny portion of the national debt and annual deficit. Although it requires a large per passenger subsidy, the amount of red ink that it spills is a drop in the federal bucket.

Sam:

Everyone pays for things they don’t use or of which they don’t approve in their federal tax bill. Pork reigns supreme. I would list some of the things that I am offended at paying for, but it would spin this thread off on a political tangent.

The transportation infrastructure benefits the country as a whole. Rather than complaining that everyone pays into the subsidies, my complaint is that the system is not being expanded so that it serves the entire country. A backbone of federally financed high speed, limited stop, rail among the large urban centers, and a network of state and locally financed small light self propelled vehicles connecting the smaller communities to that backbone. How much light rail could be added in the existing Interstate Highway right of way?

State boundaries are arbitrary boundaries. If Texas was divided into three states, one with a capital of Dallas, one Houston and one San Antonio, do you think any “regional” rail line would ever get on the drawing board? (much less off it?)

I think you truly an optimist if

OltmannD, That is one of the best statements that I have read regarding the funding of Interstate rail service. What you wrote regarding the disagreements between various government entities could easily be transferred to WI or MN. Without Federal Initiative, much rail service for both freight and passenger will not depart the station. Thank you.

Don, I’m curious. What part of US 29 in NE Georgia was still dirt in the early 1960’s? I drove on it from Anderson, S. C., to Atlanta in 1962, and it was paved all the way. Also, I rode on it from Decatur to Royston in 1960–paved all the way.

Johnny

Phoebe: This thread has broaden from your original post suggest you edit original title to something more appropriate. I’m really enjoying it.

A couple of 40 something locals who did some work on my house a while back told me that it was dirt in when they were kids. Perhaps they were confused…or messing with the Yankee!

Perhaps “Groundhog Day” would be a good title…[:-^]

I understand the first truck was loaded with straw, and the second was loaded with sticks …

Oltmand: Would like to elaborate on your points. State boundarys are arbitrary: look at most history. The early states were mostly set up under a charter from the King. The states (territory) of Georgia and North Carolina once went all the way to the Mississippi river. The rest of the states were limited by transportation issues and length of time to get from one end to another (may be why NC &Ga split off. Of course the Nation of Texas was and is an exception because of their desire to succeed from Mexico. I feel that there has been a tendency to Balkanize the US. We have too much of I’ve got mine you get yours any way you can as long as there is no overall directing authority. Study the history of the Balkans to see how those states (nations) have survived the past years. Now I do recognize that Texas is isolated enough from any nearby population centers not to need interstate HSR. All this smacks of the “states rights” talk that occurred in my southern past.

There are types of public services that need various coverages. Locally - Police, trash collection, local streets, maybe water service, schools… REGIONAL - Sewer(drainage water follows terrain), STATE - Tax collection, road maintenance, major road contracts, regulation enforcement, etc. US— National security, National business regulation, Weather forecasting, Health, transportation AIR (can’t imagine air traffic control by each state airports are bad enough), Water - Rivers and streams don’t follow boundarys + flood control a national problem. Rail - If Lincoln had not pushed the start of the middle transcon the whole US history might have been different.

The proposals the are given in the US DOT for HSR is to try to connect population centers. However by no streach do I call it HSR. It more sound like medium speed rail (80-110 MPH). HSR I feel is 125MPH +. Low speed being less than 80 MPH. (Wish the U

On this evening’s local newscast they reported that the CEO of Bank of America, which is headquartered here, will be taking the train to and from DC. Wells Fargo (headquartered here when it was Wachovia) is going to fly commercial.

I would do just about ANYTHING to avoid driving I-95 from Fredericksburg to DC! (or the NJTP north of exit 9, or the GSP north of the NJTP, or just about any interstate in Conn, etc.)

Don, I think they were funning you. Some people from the Nawth have believed that the people in the South are unbelievably backward, and these boys thought it would be great fun to perpetuate the idea that Georgia really was that backward some forty-fifty years ago. When I was going to school in Decatur (not at Agnes Scott) in '59-'62, it seemed to me that Georgia was doing well in keeping up with civilization. There was a time, a few years later, when I was driving through Atlanta on the freeway that I thought the highway could have been built a few feet wider; it was frightening to go around the curves at the speed necessary to keep from being run over.

Did they do a good job on your house?

Johnny

As to highway safety, some of my most bothersome driving has been on divided highways. Twenty years ago, we visited my sister-in-law who lives in Greenbrier county, W. Va., and another sister-on-law who was living in Greensboro, N. C. Going from Washington to West Virginia, we traveled mostly on two-lane roads (winding and hilly), and going north from Greensboro, we took US 29. I felt much safer on the mountain roads than on the divided highway; of course, there was not as much traffic on them as on US 29, and there were certainly fewer trucks. Two years ago, we were driving from Little Rock to Memphis, and US 70 was safer than I-40. there is a stretch which has the two highways close together, and it seemed that the trucks on I-40 were about one riglength apart as I looked to the north. Six years ago, we again visited my West Virginia sister-in-law, and she advised that we not take I-81 because of the truck traffic. Perhaps it was the time of the day that we left Washington (we arrived on the Crescent), but I noticed very few trucks even though we ignored her advice.

For preference, we travel by train for pleasure. If we have to make another trip on short notice such as we had to two months ago (to Baton Rouge and back by air both ways), we would go by air and return by rail.

That is just political grandstanding, or perhaps avoiding the wrath of grandstanding politicans. It is hardly a trend. Taking the train from NC will occupy an entire day each way. If you assume the B of A CEO only makes a million a year, then he has used $8,000 of his salary taking the train. Leaving aside the questions of 1) if he is worth the million or 2) if his contribution to the organization is actually worth anything, it is a badly inefficient use of his time.