It is true that we have become so ensnared in bureaucracy that new infrastructure construction is all but paralyzed. It is not unique to railroads. It is the same with roads, power lines, hydro dams, and most other major construction.
I agree that environmental impact must be considered, but over the years it has evolved from the ridiculous to the sublime. The EIS adds about ten years, and millions of dollars to the cost of almost any project into which the government inserts itself.
I think even the vast majority of “shovel ready” projects won’t move a shovelful of dirt until 2011, anyway. It takes a long time just to get the money in position and let out a contract for bidding.
Lattasnip9 worried about federal money going to HSR in mid west back on 2/12/09. There have been several of you worring about HSR in California. Let me ask everyone this question: If the fed government can spend money on several 75 mph interstate highways in the midwest, or in California, don’t you agree the fed gov should spend money on at least a half dozen 75 mph interstate railway segments per region? Besides; in America, we all take transportation for granted. Raw materials, finished goods, people, all need transportation. You have all heard that many states are trying to raise the “at the pump” fuels tax. When the economy gets better, and the price at the pump goes back up to $4 a gallon and more, do any of you think these states will lower their taxes? It has already been mentioned that over the road transportation has peaked, and the days of cheap fuel are on the way out. So why spend tax money on the highway system? Remember also, as less people buy fuel at the pump, the states and federal government collect less taxes to maintain the interstate and US Highway systems.
What are everyone’s thoughts with taking 5-10% of the interstate and U.S. Highway budget and transferring this money (each year for the next 5-10-25(?) years) to IRSA , the Interstate Railway System Administration? Who can argue that America needs to develope passenger railroad transportation? Who will argue that the money should not go to freight railroad companies? Who will argue against keeping the freight railroads seperate from the passenger railroads? Who can argue that Amtrak should not remain the only member of the passenger railroad transportation industry? The idea is as simple as the idea of the interstate highway s
Re: Blue Streak 1
We don’t need to build as many miles of railways across America as we have highways, do we?
Me!
Chicago’s high-speed rail dream is arriving
Posted by Greg H. at 2/25/2009 11:42 AM CST on Chicago Business
All aboard!
After a decade of quiet tinkering around the margins, the dream of making Chicago the center of a high-speed rail network finally is taking real shape, thanks to a massive infusion of cash tucked into President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill.
Big clout – by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Sen. Dick Durbin, D, and other well-placed Illinoisans – likely guarantees that the Chicago-based network soon will get as much as $2 billion for new track, rolling stock, high-tech signals, bridges and other fixes.
If so, in as soon as three or four years, reliable train travel to St. Louis in under four hours, and Madison, Wis., in under three, will be on line, with other routes to the Twin Cities and Detroit on the way.
“The stars have started to align,” says Tom Carper, the one-time mayor of Downstate Macomb who just took over as chairman of the Amtrak Board of Directors. “We’ll really be able to show what we can do.”
Central to what’s about to happen here is the $8 billion for high-speed rail included in Mr. Obama’s stimulus bill – $6 billion literally at the last moment, when most other programs were being cut to bring the overall stimulus tab to under $800 billion.
When I first wrote
Harvey: If this comes to pass, it will provide a serious and much-needed shot in the arm for the economy of the Upper Midwest. Our Elected Representatives must continue to fund it and build it completely, though.
Those who are pleased by the increased spend on high speed rail or other passenger rail in the stimulus package might want to keep the following in mind. The national debt burden in the U.S., following implementation of the stimulus package, will be approximately $12.4 trillion dollars. That works out to $160,113 per taxpayer with a tax obligation. The burden will be laid off on our children and grand children.
I would be a little more enthusiastic about the spend if I thought it would result in a commercial passenger rail system that had a chance of paying at least the operating costs, although I would prefer one that paid all the costs.
To a federal government that throws money down the rat hole in quantities that you can’t even comprehend, $8 billion to upgrade our passenger rail infrastructure is pocket change. If Amtrak was eliminated completely, it would not even make a noticeable blip on a graph of the federal deficit and/or the national debt. The war in alone, has a bigger number than that in the money that they don’t even KNOW where it went.
What is a better investment; Amtrak, or 28 new custom made Italian helicopters for the President’s use? Amtrak or ONE new aircraft carrier? Amtrak or a missile installation in that is greatly angering 's neighbor and so is ratcheting up the cold war that so many presidents worked so hard to defuse?
If we drop 9 zeros we can put it into perspective: Debt will be $12,400 (in billions) The Amtrak investment will be $8 (in billions).
The route mentioned in the article have a pretty good shot at covering operating costs. I’m sure there are studies out there. I’ll have to check (or maybe Harvey or Paul already know).
Found it. here http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/state/docs/railmidwest.pdf p 13. Operating ratio is stated as inversve of normal railroad practice, however. The system would generate revenue 36%> than operating costs by 2025.
The promoters of high speed rail put the best spin on their numbers. I would not bet the farm that the projects will cover their operating costs. I would like to see an independent audit of the projections, i.e. an audit conducted by one of the big four accounting firms, with the fees paid by an independent agency.
One of the promoters of the California High Speed Rail claims that a ticket from LAX to SFO will go for $55. Really! Amtrak cannot cover its total NEC costs with Acela fares of $155 between Washington and New York. And its investment is less than 25 per cent of the announced investment in the California HSR project. I would love to see the audited numbers for the California projections.
Having spent more than 20 years directing audits of just these sorts of projects, I am amply familiar with how people spin the numbers, most of which are based on estimates, to make their project sound viable.
What the government spends the military, education, social programs, etc. has nothing to do with what it should spend on promoting or operating a commercial activity like passenger rail. The question is whether the spend is a good investment.
Investing in a commercial activity (intercity passenger rail) that has a low probability of covering its operating costs, let alone its capital costs, is a poor business decision no matter what spin you put on it.
The amount proposed for passenger rail projects is small compared to other federal and state government spends. But one does not put out a fire by throwing just a little more gasoline on it.
SAM: First no one has stated but HSR will be a social program. Those people who cannot for whatever reason own or are unable to drive a car will have the benefit of alternate transportation. ie NYC area residents, lower income persons, disabled person, those who live in non air served areas. (SAN JOAQUIN valley for example).
The second is the view expoused by you that I consider is a Balkanization idea for our various US states. President Eisenhour stated that one reason to build the interstates was the need to allow people the ability to travel this great country unimpeaded and be able to communicate. He felt that part of Europe’s problems was their Balkanization. Ganted he could not have forseen Jet aircraft, Satellite comunications, fiber optics, and the resultant explosion of communication world wide. I want to be able to conduct business through out the US without having to drive. I can get billable hours that way buy not driving or taking a short haul barbie jet. The medium distances that will allow both business and pleasure travelers to not drive is also an important metric.
Is it going to be cheap? NO! Will it bind this whole country closer together? I BELIEVE YES! After having some 30 - 40 % of shuttle flights take 3 hours from block out to block in and the same times LAX - SFO an alternate is needed. We need to let the airlines do what they do best. LONG DISTANCE 2HR + FLIGHTS (1000 + STATUE MILES).
If a government commercial activity does not cover its costs, it is a defacto social program.
None of the proposed high speed rail projects are national. Unlike the federal highways and airways, they are regional solutions.
The block to block time for flights from LAX to SFO is approximately 1 hour and 25 minutes. I made the trip three times last year and once this year. I am a former
This is not a promoter’s report. It is one done for the various state DOTs by expert consultants. These generally use fairly standard ridership models. Many times, these same models underestimate commuter and light rail traffic (see Charlotte, Albequerque and lately Phoenix).
This particular study used Amtrak’s highly inefficient current costs to figure train operation costs, but did figure that some newer ROW maintenance methods into that part of the cost.
Of course, there is a lot of uncertainty with any new venture with long lead times. It is particularly hard to calibrate ridership models for new corridors because there haven’t been any implemented anywhere! Sensitivity to trip times, frequency and price are very well known, however.
(I’m surprised you didn’t take the chance to show this an example of regionalism that’s working. Look at how many states pitched in to do the st
I spent all of last Saturday and Sunday handing out advocacy and Amtrak travel literature at the Madison Model Railroad Show. I was handing out a glossy pamphlet stating that when the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative is fully implemented, it will cover operating costs. This report is published by the compact of states (Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio) involved in this thing.
This kind of project is a two-edged sword, people. If this thing goes in an covers its operating costs, will this permanently retire the talking points in the advocacy community “Amtrak ‘reform’ is a plot to do away with trains”, “glide-path to profitability – how silly”, “trains everywhere in the world require high levels of (direct operating) subsidy.”
If this thing goes in and it is business-as-usual and needs in excess of 50% subsidy for operation, common for commuter operations and I believe true of the California trains, this will be further proof of the skeptics’ belief that such projects are all wishful thinking and the reality is that trains are a high-cost mode.
The one knock I have on the advocacy community is that there is such an intensive, passionate, perhaps religious belief in the inherent goodness of trains that there are no standards we can set for trains to be a good investment of public money. If anyone suggests any standard of performance that trains need to meet, one is part of the “opposition.” And the argument “oh, they waste all kinds of money on all kinds of things and why are they picking on Amtrak, only a drop in the bucket” simply does not fly, and I am getting annoyed hearing this over, and over, and over again. Every single discretionalry program in the Federal budget has advocates believing it is a “drop in the bucket and why are they picking on little ol’ me?” But as the one-time Senator from Illinois said, "A billion here, a billion there
It is you who cited the huge national debt, even quoting the debt per taxpayer to support your argument that Amtrak is a terrible burden that we are leaving to our heirs. I merely pointed out that Amtrak’s portion of the deficit is infinitesimal, and is worth the investment. Mass transit benefits society as a whole. That is why every municipal bus system, light rail system, and subway system is subsidized by the political entity it serves. A national rail system benefits the entire country and therefore is a proper use of federal tax dollars, no matter what spin YOU put on it.
I think that one of the last Amtrak monthly reports I looked at had the Pacific Surfliners and Capitols pretty much covering their costs. Whether this was before or after CA chipped in, I don’t recall.
None of the short haul routes on Amtrak come close to poor performance of the LD trains.
I would like nothing better than to see something , somewhere, get built and cover it’s costs in pretty short order. That would turn 30 years of yapping on it’s head! It’s really important to pick the right project and do a good job with it.
I wish I had information on covering operating costs. Sam’s comments have spurred me to look for answers on costs, fare revenue, and benefits from economic development, the environment and energy use with high speed rail compared to faster regional intercity services. Justification must be available for significant investments in intercity, and especially high speed, rail passenger service to achieve a majority of public approval.
Most studies I have seen, albeit now dated, for Illinois (Chicago - Saint Louis), Tri-State (Twin Cities - Chicago), Michigan (Chicago-Detroit), and Ohio (Cleveland - Columbus - Cincinnati) show the best return on investment to be at 110 mph with an average speed around 70 mph that is competitive with expressway driving. Ridership increased at least by half. High speed service doubled ridership or better; but the implementation cost was many times higher. Revenue exceeded operating costs for the improved service alternatives; but as I recall the difference was least for high speed.
The question can become whether it would cost less and result in better land use, environmental, and energy impacts to improve rail service or that of another mode, or to supplement and minimize the needs for increased capacity of other modes? It’s not either one or the other; but more or less and a reason why the rail advocacy community needs to be less pedantic.
Regional corridors can overlap as is the case in the Northeast, Southeast, the Great Lakes, Kansas-Oklahoma-Texas, Florida, and California. The question of compatibility arises, especially when the discussion turns to high speed trains that require an electrification infrastructure. Travel overlaps the boundaries of electrified and non-electrified territories such as at Washington, DC currently. Equipment needs to be versatile to provide a seamless one-seat service wherever possible regardless of a change in the power mode.