Share on Facebook     Email This     Tweet This      

81 Comments
Topics: Transportation

Tags: high speed rail

81 Responses to ““Amtrak on Steroids” is Not “High Speed Rail””

1. marko says:

   June 26, 2009 at 7:35 pm

   Heres what I dont get about 110 mph; We had trains doing this and faster in the 1930s on the tracks we already have. Hell we could go dust off the old Zephyr and fire it up.
2. The Urbanophile says:

   June 26, 2009 at 7:38 pm

   marko, you're right. We had 125MPH service on many lines. The issue is that the FRA at some point set the maximum speed at 79MPH unless certain signaling standards were in use. All railroads then cut back to it. I believe you can run faster that that without too much difficulty these days with positive train control and sundry other enhancements. 110MPH is the maximum the FRA allows without grade separations. Also, the FRA standards mandate trains operating on shared trackage that are so heavy they can't practically operate at real high speeds.
3. Anonymous says:

   June 26, 2009 at 9:42 pm

   I agree 100%. I like the idea of high speed rail, but am 100% opposed to it if its run by Amtrak. I don't understand why we give them a dime.
4. Alon Levy says:

   June 27, 2009 at 5:47 am

   The problem is not Amtrak; it's FRA regulations, and incrementalism. It's not Amtrak that made the Acela a lemon. It was the FRA's crash safety rules and its blanket speed limit of 150 mph. It was also Congress, which refused to spend money on upgrading the ancient catenary between New York and Washington, which currently limits trains to 135 mph even as the tracks below are so straight trains can run on them at any speed. Congress was so eager to put Amtrak in the black as soon as possible that it would not spend the money necessary to make sure the Acela was capable of that.

   Even now, there's a decent way of spending $50 billion on HSR. First, Congress should give about $20 billion to California's project; this is almost certainly going to happen anyway. Second, it should give $5-10 to the NEC, for upgrading the catenary, and easing or bypassing difficult curves and bottlenecks. Third, it should expedite environmental review processes for true HSR in the Midwest and South, so that it can give the remaining money for Chicago-St. Louis, Dallas-Houston-San Antonio, and maybe Washington-Raleigh-Charlotte and Miami-Orlando-Tampa.
5. Oinker says:

   June 27, 2009 at 6:17 am

   I here the pork train coming…."a decent way to spend $50 BILLION"…aside from the NEC, just say NO.
6. The Urbanophile says:

   June 27, 2009 at 7:46 am

   Alon I agree totally that the FRA is a huge problem. They put the premium on survivability versus prevention. The net result of which seems to be a system that still has fatalities at a rate I'd suspect is higher than Europe. Germany had one serious ICE crash where a number of people were killed. But IIRC I don't believe there has ever been a death on the French, Spanish, or Japanese system (not counting any of the odd suicides in Japan)

   Also, I'd definitely prioritize the NEC over the Midwest, but it is difficult to politically justify replacing the system we just built. Catenary upgrades would certainly be warranted.
7. The Urbanophile says:

   June 27, 2009 at 7:47 am

   Oinker, welcome back.

   I know you don't like HSR. Honestly, the case for it in the Midwest is not a slam dunk by any means. I can appreciate the skeptics case. I think there needs to be serious, unbiased study on the matter.

   Just saying "Oink, Oink" isn't likely to win many converts to your points of view, however.
8. OINKER says:

   June 27, 2009 at 8:42 am

   Urban – my prior comments/opinions have not changed. If a serious, unbiased study can be done for less than $1M, fine. I am certain that study will cost far more. I can not think of any justification for HSR in the US outside of the NEC and maybe SAN-SFO (that is a big maybe).

   HSR is a big fat pork train that is destined to waste untold billions of taxpayers money. The USA is not Japan; not the EU. It is a very large, spread out country. To spend $50B (for starters) so a few can put their big fat fannies on the Big Fat Pork Train that will get them to their destination not much more quickly than present modes of travel is a big fat waste of taxpayer money.

   OINK OINK OINK
9. Alon Levy says:

   June 27, 2009 at 10:08 am

   The proposed HSR corridors are in areas with Western European densities. Spain's population density is 90/km^2, and France's is 114/km^2; both are among the least dense countries in Europe. This compares with 89 for Illinois, 90 for California, 91 for Michigan's Lower Peninsula, 108 for Ohio, and 130 for Florida.

   Starting with the NEC makes sense depending on how Congress plans to dole out funding. If a national HSR or even semi-HSR plan comes out of those bills, then to maintain political support Congress will have to spread the money around. If there really is $50 billion then it won't be a problem. It's only if the current bill fails that HSR planning will revert back to the states and to Amtrak. In that case, it'll be up to Amtrak and Northeastern state governments to convince the FRA to modify its regulations, and then draw plans for an Acela that's faster than vintage 1964 Shinkansen.
10. OINKER says:

    June 27, 2009 at 11:25 am

    Will all the supporters of HSR, please band together with other supporters and pay the $50B yourselves. Once built you can charge whatever you would like to those who did not support it.

    OINK OINK OINK
11. the urban politician says:

    June 27, 2009 at 1:37 pm

    Oinker, Alon just provided population densities of states and compared them to European densities, thus disproving the crux of your argument.

    And your response was "oink oink oink!". Sounds a lot like what most Republicans do when their arguments are on the opposite side of the evidence.
12. The Urbanophile says:

    June 27, 2009 at 1:38 pm

    OINKER, I appreciate your position, but I think you've made your point.
13. thundermutt says:

    June 27, 2009 at 4:52 pm

    TUP, I agree on the knee-jerk Republican respones.

    However in all fairness, when Democrats are on the wrong side of the evidence, their knee-jerk position is always "well, we have to do SOMEthing about this".

    Like build 110mph passenger trains for runs that cars already do at 75-80mph.
14. TimK says:

    June 27, 2009 at 6:14 pm

    Two points, Oinker (and everyone else):

    - The point of HSR is generally to meet travel demand between two (or more) cities. If that demand exists, it doesn't matter what the population densities are anywhere along the route; the train doesn't stop every five feet, for crying out loud. What matters is that there is travel demand that the train can cater to.
    - Why should HSR supporters "pay the $50 billion [our]selves" when everyone in the areas served by HSR, even skeptics like you, will benefit? Get real.

    And thundermutt, you're really just agreeing with urbanophile here, no? 110 mph isn't fast enough to be game-changing, so we need to do much better. That's the point.
15. Anechoic says:

    June 27, 2009 at 8:47 pm

    I agree with the notion that the USA needs "real" HSR, but I would like to dispel the notion that FRA safety regs are the cause of our HSR woes. Yes, the Acela is subject to more stringent safety/structural regs than comparable European trains and yes, HSR service on the NEC sucks, but the two aren't related. The Acela will happily run for many hours on end at a sustained speed of 150+ mph (I did some environmental work for the Acela and participated in the testing at Pueblo and the New Jersey "race track").

    The service on the NEC sucks because of outdated infrastructure and track sharing with freight service. We could throw out all of the FRA safety regs and bring over a factory-fresh TGV/ICE/Eurostar/Pendolino to the NEC and the service would still stuck.

    Infrastructure is the key. Exclusive ROW + straight track + grade separations + modern electrification = HSR happiness. Unfortunately is also = $$$
16. Steve says:

    June 27, 2009 at 9:23 pm

    Anechoic makes good points; perhaps resources would be best spent building completely new lines in Mid-Western and Western states, then? The fact is, the East Coast is so built up for the most part that eminent domain acquisitions alone would make completely new infrastructure quite exorbitant; there just aren't the sort of wide open spaces that easily lend themselves to the construction of high speed rail lines. I could be wrong about that, though.
17. The Urbanophile says:

    June 27, 2009 at 9:28 pm

    Anechoic, thanks for sharing your experiences from the front lines in the NEC.

    Steve, that's more or less what I'm proposing – go big or go home. I'm not sure if it is feasible to built new terrain in the NEC without extensive tunneling. It might be prohibitively expensive. Anechoic might know.

    But the Midwest is ideally suited for new terrain. As I've said for the line between Indy and Chicago, just snap a chalk line on the map. The terminal connection in Chicago is even a snap since there's plenty of spare ROW on the IC line that delivers you right to the Loop. And it's already grade separated.
18. Anonymous says:

    June 28, 2009 at 12:07 am

    For the money it would cost to build, supervise, protect and maintain the thousands of miles of tracks we could prob just give every man women and child a few free airplane tickets. Then we could have a bailout and subsidy of the airlines. If rail was better than air travel we would ride rails from Chicago to NYC. But instead we fly – one of 20 airlines leaving every 10 min between the 2 cities and arriving 1.5 hours later.

    Rails cant compare to airplanes at all – needless debate by democrat congress with nothing to offer but failed ideas from 50 years ago.
19. Alon Levy says:

    June 28, 2009 at 5:18 am

    The Acela will happily run for many hours on end at a sustained speed of 150+ mph (I did some environmental work for the Acela and participated in the testing at Pueblo and the New Jersey "race track").

    This is incorrect. South of New York, the Acela runs at a maximum speed of 135 mph because of the catenary; that's why it only shaves 12 minutes from NY to DC off Ye Olde Metroliner. In Connecticut, it's limited to 75 mph because Metro-North bans tilting. The Acela only runs at 150 mph on two sections of track in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, where the catenary is modern and the right of way is straight.

    The current problem with the FRA-regulated Acela is not top speed, but acceleration and costs. The Acela is too heavy to accelerate quickly, so it loses more time from stopping at each station. It's more expensive to run because it consumes more energy, and it's more expensive to maintain and repair because it's very different from off the shelf HSR trainsets; the reason it was finished behind schedule was that the FRA's special requirements created difficulties the vendors had no experience with.
20. OINKER says:

    June 28, 2009 at 8:57 am

    To all the Pork Train enthusisasts, please point out any evidence that a USA version of HSR will provide any ROI? Please also provide information as to the expected operating expenses of the Pork Train once the $50B+ is spent?

    All I see is the 'coolness' factor of HSR when the reality is the "coolness" factor will cost $50B+ PLUS the operating expenses to provide (in many instances) a slower and more expensive means of travel between Point A and Point B.

    Comparisons to the EU should note that HSR in the EU requires large annual subsidies from the public till.

    As have said in prior posts, much better, cheaper alternatives exist. They include: a dedicated lane on the interstate for bus service between point A & B (not very cool ut way less expensive); and also suggestions that rail of some sort be considered to link airports to their city cores. Am sure that $50B would allow that to happen across the country and tho the ROI would still not be there at least it would begin to address the bigger challenge and that is improved transport within metros.

    OINK OINK OINK

    PS THis is just the lates example of a Fed Gov gone wild…the recent $1.1T Budget was supposed to keep unemployment at 8%…guess what…it has produced 150K jobs to date and unemploymnet is expected to move to double digits. $50B to spend on HSR is nothing but PORK for a PORK Train.

    OINK OINK OINK
21. OINKER says:

    June 28, 2009 at 9:06 am

    Tim K:

    3 Points

    1)Outside of the NEC I have yet to see any statisitics that indicate a demand for HSR exists. The demand survey should be created and the survey should say:
    Here are your options from Indy to Chicago:
    1) Airlime – Travel Time; Airfare
    2) HSR – Travel Time; Rail Fare
    3) Bus – Travel Time: Bus Fare
    4) Auto – Travel time; Expense.

    2)- Why should HSR supporters "pay the $50 billion [our]selves" when everyone in the areas served by HSR, even skeptics like you, will benefit? Get real. – dude, I said, all of you pork train supporters can pay for it…then you can charge all of us non-supporters whatever you need to charge for us to use it. (not realistic I know, but the point is….we can not afford HSR…it is a Pork Train

    3) And thundermutt, you're really just agreeing with urbanophile here, no? 110 mph isn't fast enough to be game-changing, so we need to do much better. That's the point. ….it probably costs another $50B to build the infrastructure needed for trains to go faster.

    OINK OINK OINK
22. Graeme says:

    June 28, 2009 at 12:26 pm

    Urbanophile, I think the argument you made for true Midwest HSR service is good and valid. I suppose there is no need to go chasing every last vote. Some people are ideologically opposed to spending money on infrastructure in any form. But the majority of US citizens are pragmatists and want better transportation options.

    An equivalent and equally childish argument to the "pay for the oink yourself" would be to tell people opposed to the HSR to leave the country if they don't approve of the way the representative government spends money to improve our infrastructure. But nobody says that because it's childish and reduces options for compromise.

    I support public transportation options that establish synergy with dense urban development. New roads can't do that. High-Speed Rail may not win over converts because of the perceived high costs, but I think there are plenty of quality of life arguments that support it.

    The safety of the system is also very important. There is no safer system then railways. And let's not forget the environmental benefits of mass transportation. Locating near a passenger rail station would get you almost 10% of the way to LEED Gold, the USGBC considers it that important.
23. thundermutt says:

    June 28, 2009 at 12:27 pm

    TimK, we already do much better: I can fly from Indy to Chicago in under an hour. And I can take Megabus for much lower fare (and at far less capital cost). So there are two "better" ways than train, one faster and one cheaper.

    You've inadvertently proven my point about the political side of economic arguments. (I should stress here that I vote for both Democrats and Republicans and do not self-identify as either.)

    Oinker has correctly pointed out the real issue: intracity (or intra-metro) connectivity. Everyone in Indianapolis using HSR would have to DRIVE to the station, just like we have to DRIVE to the airport now.

    Further, I'm sure that "real" HSR would be considered a high-value terrorist target in this country, and it would likely be subject to far higher security than regional rail or Amtrak today.

    Even with a 175mph train, it's still only a marginal improvement (if at all) for any particular person in Indianapolis. I'm probably not far from average in that my business travel to Chicago over the years has been mostly to destinations OUTSIDE the Loop.

    It's a vast and sprawling metro, and it almost matters not whether your one-hour point-to-point time is from IND to ORD (or MDW) or from Downtown to Loop. There's still messing around time on both ends of the trip to get where you REALLY want to go.
24. The Urbanophile says:

    June 28, 2009 at 5:03 pm

    thunder, there's security on trains in Europe, but nothing like airports. And there have been many more terrorist attacks in Europe, including the Atocha bombings. Since then, there have been no incidents on intercity trains. It's a much more painless process, and you can bring your bags with you on the train, so no baggage check.

    Your point about collection and distribution is appropriate, which is why 110MPH service won't cut it.

    However, European cities also feature extensive sprawl, and Alon has cited the examples of secondary cities in France (where the hypermarket was invented) with poor transit options just like Indy where the train was well patronized.

    The idea of HSR isn't per se to serve today's travel demand via modal substitution. But rather to enable new transit applications such as the ones I laid out in my previous posts. I'm not saying there's a case there to do it. But it's certainly worth study if nothing else.
25. Anechoic says:

    June 28, 2009 at 8:10 pm

    Alon Levy, I think you misinterpreted my comment (or I wasn't clear). I wasn't saying that the Acela runs regularly at 150 mph on the NEC – I was saying that the Acela trainset equipment is perfectly capable of running for hours on end at 150+ mph because I witnessed it doing so on the Pueblo test track. It can't do so on the NEC because of the infrastructure limitations and track-sharing arrangements.

    And you're correct that the "vintage" catanary south of Penn limits its speed, but we did have it up to 150 mph through Princeton during the testing phase. After the train passed, it sounded like the catenary was going to fall down!

    As for the other problems you mention, I don't think those are necessarily a given. If you compare the Acela's power consumption per seat with the TGV's figure, the TGV comes in lower in part because modern TGV incorporate bi-level coaches. If you were to outfit the Acela with bilevel coaches (accounting for the increased weight and seating capacity of bilevel coaches) the power consumption will be about the same.

    The acquisition cost of an Acela trainset falls within the cost range of European HSR trainsets (albeit on the high end). I don't buy the maintenance/off-the-shelf argument – taken to it's logical extreme, we should need one type of HSR trainset worldwide so parts can be exchanged. Different systems have different needs and trains are built to address these needs.
26. Anonymous says:

    June 28, 2009 at 9:00 pm

    Besides moving people, what specific economic development benefits is HSR expected to bring? Please feel free to name cities and HSR development-related projects.

    Will it generate revenues that generate revenues to help pay its direct costs?

    What kind of institutional opposition will HSR face from competitors of conventional transportation modes and resources?

    What is HSR really about? Moving more people more efficiently? Reducing public costs for intraregional transportation? Reducing the carbon? Economic development stimulant?

    Will it make the Midwest more competitive globally? How?
27. Anechoic says:

    June 28, 2009 at 10:46 pm

    Will it generate revenues that generate revenues to help pay its direct costs?

    If you're asking if HSR will generate revenues to pay all it's costs, the answer is no. But here's a little secret: none of the U.S. major transportation modes (highway, rail, air) actually pay for themselves. They all have user fees that defray their costs but they all need massive general fund contributions to make ends meet.

    And I don't have a problem with that. Transportation is a vital national need, in the same way that schools, firefighters, police and the military are – when is the last time any asked if your police department paid for itself?
28. D Morse says:

    June 28, 2009 at 11:24 pm

    Urbanophile seems to think that painting the project as "not HSR" makes it somehow "not what we need". The two issues are unrelated.

    What we need more than anything is a scalable, cheap way to move people and freight cheaply between cities. The assumption that only ~1% of the passenger traffic between cities will be mass transit is based on the assumption that the relative costs of the modes in the future will resemble the relative costs in the past.

    So what if oil production really did peak in 2008, as some say it did, and our oil-based economy is capped by whatever oil we can pump out of the ground on any given day.

    In that new environment, the winning technology will be the most efficient one. This 110mph system is it, because we can buy a heck of a lot more of it, and it can pretty well scale to take 500% more passengers overnight – just slap more ancient coaches on the back.

    Megabus can't create coaches out of necromancy the way rail can, because buses shake themselves to death over time. Trains last forever. If we cast aside ADA requirements on most coaches of a given train, every rusting old coach in every old rail yard is $20,000 away from being functional – look out!

    By improving the rails, we also reduce freight latency on the same tracks. That's something the midwest direly needs, especially in Chicago.

    Midwest High Speed Rail Initiative provides a peak oil safety net for the Midwest. We would have been glad of it last summer. Sure, if oil remains $40/bbl forever, its not a good deal. But if oil goes to $300/bbl, airlines are bust, and cities not linked to Chicago are in severe trouble. So link as many as possible on existing infrastructure first, then go for the 200mph technology if we have time left over.
29. OINKER says:

    June 29, 2009 at 7:32 am

    Anechoic:

    "But here's a little secret: none of the U.S. major transportation modes (highway, rail, air) actually pay for themselves. They all have user fees that defray their costs but they all need massive general fund contributions to make ends meet."

    Here's a not so little secret: The user fees generated actually would pay for the upkeep to the infrastructure except that 40-60% of those fees are eaten up by the federal/state bureaucracies that manage those funds. The same would happen for HSR I am certain.

    Also, in regards to airlines….there is no burden on taxpayers…as their operating expenses are not funded by the taxpayer but by the passenger who pays the airfare. The airlines have their own challenges that allow them to make $ or not; the only consistently profitable airline is WN and even it has had trouble the past yr 1/2 a result of oil prices and the economy.

    Speaking of WN, if HSR were to gain traction, likely WN (and maybe other airlines) would mount various challenges that would further lengthen the time the Pork Train would be built and increasing its costs.

    Again, I propose a survey (likely to cost millions cause that is how things get done by gov) that asks taxpayers:

    You want to go from Indy to Chicago. Your options are:
    1) Air – Travel time + Airfare (including taxes/fees)
    2) Bus – Travel time + Busfare (including taxes/fees)
    3) Auto – travel time + expenses
    4) HSR – travel time + Rail fare )inclusing taxes/fees)

    The result of that survey would likely bury the idea of the Pork Train for another 50 years.

    Then remind those taxpayers that the Pork Train will cost every taxpayer $372.10 to build it + more money to keep it running. (that presumes it does not exceed $50B; also presumes the 134M taxpayers actually pay taxes; also consider how many of those 134M taxpayers can actually use the Pork Train…oops….that cuts it by at least 1/2)

    OINK OINK OINK
30. Alon Levy says:

    June 29, 2009 at 10:19 am

    Will it generate revenues that generate revenues to help pay its direct costs?

    If you're asking about operating costs, then yes. Every HSR line in the world makes an operating profit. Even medium-speed lines occasionally do – the Northeast Corridor was overall profitable until this year. Chicago-St. Louis basically breaks even, making a profit in good years and losing money in bad ones.

    Overall costs, including capital construction, are a different matter. Some lines recoup them: Paris-Lyon and Tokyo-Osaka-Fukuoka have. The rest haven't. Some will eventually; the only two that really didn't are two Japanese HSR lines that were completed only a few years before Japan National Railways was broken up and privatized. The current private owner is profiting from both lines and building extensions.

    Here's a not so little secret: The user fees generated actually would pay for the upkeep to the infrastructure except that 40-60% of those fees are eaten up by the federal/state bureaucracies that manage those funds.

    Do you have any reference for that claim? The articles I've read about this issue, for example the Texas DOT publication explaining how Texas highways pay far less than half of their maintenance costs, doesn't mention administration at all. It only calculates gas tax revenues and maintenance costs.

    We already do much better: I can fly from Indy to Chicago in under an hour. And I can take Megabus for much lower fare (and at far less capital cost). So there are two "better" ways than train, one faster and one cheaper.

    This has not prevented HSR from succeeding elsewhere. HSR is always expensive, often more so than flying, and people who can't afford it do take buses. Others take low-cost airlines. Still, HSR succeeds.

    For example, the TGV costs €90-100 from Paris to Marseille and takes about 3:10; Ryanair costs €12 and takes 1:30. The TGV still has more than twice the ridership of all airlines on that route taken together.

    This pattern repeats itself elsewhere, on routes such as Madrid-Barcelona, Seoul-Busan, and even Paris-London. Rail is expensive, often in order to compensate for unrealistic ridership projections, but it still trumps its lower-cost competitors.
31. OINKER says:

    June 29, 2009 at 11:04 am

    Alon:

    "the Northeast Corridor was overall profitable until this year"

    - if the NEC is unable to be profitable…there is no other route that could possibly be profitable in the US (and the NEC is subsidized annualy by Amtrak aka the Federal Gov)

    - the infrastructure cost is enormous…as are airports…BUT…HSR infrastructure is only used for HSR. Airports are used for all aviation (commercial, military, general aviation)

    OINK OINK OINK
32. Alon Levy says:

    June 29, 2009 at 12:28 pm

    We're in a depression. Nothing's profitable right now – not banks, not automakers, and not railroads. At least HSR has the advantage that it makes money when the economy's growing, something that's not true for roads.
33. thundermutt says:

    June 29, 2009 at 12:46 pm

    Alon, the NEC and Europe have much better intra-metro public transit than all Midwestern cities but Chicago.

    My point: let's subsidize public transit within metros first, and get the places Aaron blogs about up to the standards of Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, DC, and Chicago. THEN intercity high-speed rail makes sense.

    We could spend a couple of billion in Indianapolis alone for light rail, BRT, and express lanes on the interstates.
34. Kevin says:

    June 29, 2009 at 2:19 pm

    Here's good interview with a pro-rail conservative.

    Here's the relevant passage:

    "How do you feel about High Speed Rail?"
    "I am skeptical about any immediate future for high speed rail in this country. If you look at the European countries and Japan that have high speed rail, it’s icing on a cake. And the cake is the preexisting network of passenger rail services. What high speed rail here amounts to is icing without a cake. You would put enormous amounts of money into a few lines that would serve geographically only a small portion of the country. Our priority is a lot more trains running at speeds that are competitive with the automobile, which is somewhere between 79-90 miles an hour, which are two gradations on the FRA speed limit scale.

    To talk about running at a couple hundred miles an hour, you’re talking about an enormous amount of money to build a dedicated line, and you leave the rest of the country with this Amtrak network that is so skeletal that, as in Cleveland, it’s essentially unusable."

    "So it’s putting the cart before the horse, so to speak."

    "A basic conservative motto is: what worked then can work now. We don’t need a lot of fancy, high-tech convoluted approaches to today’s transportation problem. The revolution in personal mobility did not begin with the automobile. It began several decades earlier with the advent of the safety bicycle and the electric railway. And those two together still offer America mobility that is independent of foreign oil, using nothing new. As I said to Congressman Blumenauer at one point, all we want to do is get back what we had."

    I'm not sure if I agree with every word in this interview, but a good deal of it makes sense to me. We have to walk before we can run, and right now passenger rail can barely crawl in this country.

    Megabus is fine. However, I still feel that a train that doesn't share a track with freight would be better. Traffic backups near Chicago would not even be part of the equation.
35. thundermutt says:

    June 29, 2009 at 2:35 pm

    From a green point of view there's the issue of origin of electric power to run Midwest HSR.

    Hint: the vast majority of electricity does NOT come from solar, nuke, hydro, wind, natural gas, oil, or trash sources.

    Coal is king here for the foreseeable future.
36. OINKER says:

    June 29, 2009 at 3:17 pm

    Alon:

    It appears that depression/recession/expansion does not matter:

    “The Northeast Corridor is the only part of Amtrak that actually makes money.” False, again. When you apply real world accounting to Amtrak’s books, and properly apply all of the costs of owning and operating the NEC infrastructure, the NEC trains (Acela and Northeast regionals) do not make money. Amtrak often assigns routine maintenance costs of the NEC incorrectly to capital expsense cost accounts, which skews the real financial burden of the NEC. Additionally, none of the commuter tenants of the NEC pay anything close to the real cost of their share of infrastructure maintenance costs. For decades, this has been a silent subsidy from the federal government to these various Northeast commuter agencies, allowing them to keep passenger fares unrealistically low because the commuter railroads pay far less than their proportionate share of infrastructure maintenance costs."

    OINK OINK OINK
37. Anechoic says:

    June 29, 2009 at 4:17 pm

    The user fees generated actually would pay for the upkeep to the infrastructure except that 40-60% of those fees are eaten up by the federal/state bureaucracies that manage those funds.

    Do you have any documentation to back up this claim?

    Also, in regards to airlines….there is no burden on taxpayers…as their operating expenses are not funded by the taxpayer but by the passenger who pays the airfare.

    The operating expenses aren't covered by the taxpayers, but the capital expenses (namely the airports, ATC/TRACON, and environmental monitoring) are.

    Speaking of WN, if HSR were to gain traction, likely WN (and maybe other airlines) would mount various challenges that would further lengthen the time the Pork Train would be built and increasing its costs.

    This is almost a certainty – WN is well-known for killing any number of HSR, inter-city rail and LRT projects in Texas. But WN's opposition is not a reason to proceed anymore than the RIAA's opposition to digital music was reason enough for Apple to not develop iPods.

    If you want to see increased costs due to litigation, just wait until airports need to start adding runways. For example, BOS runway 14/32 took 30 years to come on line.

    Again, I propose a survey…

    I'm actually fine with that, as long as it includes all the relevant costs (fare + subsidies + opportunity costs) as well as door-to-door times (as opposed to travel times).

    In any event, it's not about trying to get everyone to travel via HSR exclusively at all times. It's about providing options. In my Boston to NYC travels, there have been times when it makes sense to drive, to take the train or take the plane depending on my schedule, budget, and cargo. Trying to shove everyone into the existing modes of transit ain't working.
38. oinker says:

    June 29, 2009 at 4:17 pm

    While not as sexy as HSR…why not spend the money necessary to upgrade current rail lines to handle passenger rail at speeds up to 110? Do not let Amtrak operate it. Maybe allow the airlines into the business. They could utilize rail as feeder lines into their hubs/focus cities; conversely the rails could offer alternatives for long hauls to the air passenger who does not need to get there in 4 hours but might rather enjoy a 2 day trip to the West Coast on an "Orient Express" type of long haul train.

    Stitch the entire country together with passenger rail service as it was in the olden days with attention paid to long haul trains that can actually make money. As taxes/fees are collected from the passengers to keep the infrastructure sound and then produce a surplus from that…then begin HSR projects…as they generate additional surplus from their operations…continue to expand HSR. It might take 50 years but it will at least have built itself up from the ground up on the backs of passengers who use the service vs the backs of taxpayers who would not.

    oink oink oink
39. Alon Levy says:

    June 29, 2009 at 4:37 pm

    Alon, the NEC and Europe have much better intra-metro public transit than all Midwestern cities but Chicago.

    No, only the big cities do, just like in the Midwest. Wilmington, New Haven, and Providence have no intra-city rail transit at all, and yet rank among Amtrak's busiest stations. The Lyon Metro is smaller in length than the Cleveland Red Line, and the Marseille Metro network is even shorter.
40. Alon Levy says:

    June 29, 2009 at 4:52 pm

    When you apply real world accounting to Amtrak’s books, and properly apply all of the costs of owning and operating the NEC infrastructure, the NEC trains (Acela and Northeast regionals) do not make money. Amtrak often assigns routine maintenance costs of the NEC incorrectly to capital expsense cost accounts, which skews the real financial burden of the NEC.

    In 2007 and 2008, the NEC's operating profits were nearly enough to offset Amtrak's entire unallocated costs, both administrative and capital. Unless Amtrak somehow decided to move costs from the NEC to other lines, the NEC was clearly profitable then even including capital expenses.
41. OINKER says:

    June 29, 2009 at 6:06 pm

    Alon: Please visit this site – http://www.unitedrail.org/

    they seem to know what they are talking about

    oink oink oink
42. Alon Levy says:

    June 29, 2009 at 7:05 pm

    I'm not sure how seriously I should take a website that compares Amtrak negatively with rail operators in Germany and Japan and then berates Amtrak for concentrating on short-distance corridor trains, precisely the service that predominates in Germany and Japan.

    The long-distance obsession has to stop. Yes, the California trains and other corridor services are a money sink. But they're a small money sink – in the first six months of fiscal 2009, spanning October to March, the non-NEC short-distance trains ran a $114 million operating loss altogether, compared with $303 million for the long-distance trains. And that's a high water mark for long-distance trains, which are consistently running ahead of schedule due to low freight traffic.
43. Jake formerly of the LP says:

    June 29, 2009 at 7:36 pm

    What foes of rail forget is that improving rail not only can be better travel for those on thew rails, but it also can be time and cost-saving for those still on the roads and in the air, as it reduces the amount of travel used in those modes, and reduces congestion as a result (which is a huge economic cost).

    Having reliable rail is a key part of an integrated transportation system that is far overdue in this country. Aaron points this out very well in his response, mentioning that HSR is not a cure-all, but a part of an intermodal transportation solution. While you may be able to fly from Indy to Chicago in an hour, it doesn't count the 90 minutes you spend driving to the airport and waiting for security. And that doesn't take into account any possible weather or congestion delays for the flight. And oh yeah, it's a lot more expensive than a rail or auto trip should be. If rail is run reliably at times that people will actually use it (a big problem with Amtrak right now), it will be a useful substitute for both planea and autoa for 200-500 mile distances, and in the long term, lead to lower costs of rebuilding roads, as well as improved productivity.

    A train doesn't need to go 110, but it does need to go fast enough and reliably enough to be a legit alternative to what you could take. If it's run that way, it will be a positive development.

    And lastly for the Ditto-head that keeps oinking. Nothing is more pricey and porkilicious than road-building. Complaining about rail as a mark for special interests is a weak straw man fallacy…or the mark of someone who wants a 1940s infrastructure system in the 2010s.
44. OINKER says:

    June 29, 2009 at 9:16 pm

    Alon: Not likely you would seriously take any site that doesnot agree with you.

    Jake: "What foes of rail forget is that improving rail not only can be better travel for those on thew rails, but it also can be time and cost-saving for those still on the roads and in the air, as it reduces the amount of travel used in those modes, and reduces congestion as a result (which is a huge economic cost)."

    - the NEC captures 1% of the inter-city market….if it went away it would hardly have an impact

    Having reliable rail is a key part of an integrated transportation system that is far overdue in this country. Aaron points this out very well in his response, mentioning that HSR is not a cure-all, but a part of an intermodal transportation solution. While you may be able to fly from Indy to Chicago in an hour, it doesn't count the 90 minutes you spend driving to the airport and waiting for security.

    - you will still need to drive to the station to catch the pork train and security will inevitably be bolstered…

    And that doesn't take into account any possible weather or congestion delays for the flight.

    – weather/congestion also afflicts rail (try taking the Red line in DC lately)

    And oh yeah, it's a lot more expensive than a rail or auto trip should be.

    - really…have you checked the fares between BWI and NYC or PHL?

    If rail is run reliably at times that people will actually use it (a big problem with Amtrak right now), it will be a useful substitute for both planea and autoa for 200-500 mile distances, and in the long term, lead to lower costs of rebuilding roads, as well as improved productivity.

    - the NEC runs trains on the 1/2 hour during the week…there is no route in the midwest that could support that frequency

    And lastly for the Ditto-head that keeps oinking. Nothing is more pricey and porkilicious than road-building. Complaining about rail as a mark for special interests is a weak straw man fallacy…or the mark of someone who wants a 1940s infrastructure system in the 2010s.

    - Roadways are not the target of this ditto-head. HSR is the Ham, bacon, sausage, chops all rolled into one Big Ole Pork Train…that if built would be run by the real dittoheads at Amtrak making it the biggest, slowest, most expensive pork train in the world.

    OINK OINK OINK
45. Anechoic says:

    June 29, 2009 at 10:04 pm

    the NEC captures 1% of the inter-city market….if it went away it would hardly have an impact

    Where are you getting your numbers? There are any number of sources that show that BOS-NYC, NYC-DC and BOS-DC Amtrak traffic ranges from 20% to 100% of air traffic between BOS/EWR/LGA/JFK/BWI/DCA/IAD.

    Taking one random month, BOS to NYC Penn Acela (Acela only, not including Metroliner riders) traffic was 78,000 passengers in March, 2005 – this comapres pretty favorable with the 900,000 or so passengers who flew between Boston and NYC in 2005.
46. JG says:

    June 29, 2009 at 10:14 pm

    URBANO makes the case for good HSR.

    Try flying into NEWARK Liberty. Flights are frequently delayed due to the congestion and excessive winds. Good HSR in the NEC can ease the overburdened airspace around cities like Boston, Washington, and New York.

    It will not be perfect but HSR is inevitable in the United States. I urge conservatives and libertarians to take the side advocating for APPROPRIATE HSR as opposed to opposing it with misinformation and goofy euphemisms (OINIK.) Unfortunately if the money is misallocated, this will become another "liberal spending project" not as AARON put it a great legacy of the OBAMA administration.

    Cheers to those who have proposed further studies of usefullness of HSR in said corridors.
47. the urban politician says:

    June 29, 2009 at 10:42 pm

    Oinker:

    I think Jake's whole point was to bring to attention the hypocrisy of labeling rail systems "pork", which while subsidized, still generate a user fee; yet your type will never criticize the excessive roadbuilding that has characterized transportation spending in our country.

    I can't think of a bigger pork project than a highway–built entirely by tax dollars, but NO user fee whatsoever. You conveniently bowed out of addressing that issue when it was broached by Jake, but if you're so against pork, then let's hear where you stand?

    Funny how those who cry "pork" are pork's biggest benificiaries. I'd like to see how you would respond ifn for example, every highway had an expensive toll enacted (ie user fee) to lighten the load on the taxpayer.

    Truth is, one man's "pork" is another man's "investment". You can act like you are against pork and oink on for the rest of this discussion, but the truth is you've done nothing less than pick your "sausage".
48. D Morse says:

    June 29, 2009 at 10:57 pm

    Urban Politician: I think you're overlooking state and federal gas taxes, man. Those are user fees, though they don't fully pay for the system, of course.

    Unless you live in Europe.
49. Anonymous says:

    June 30, 2009 at 1:02 am

    "I can't think of a bigger pork project than a highway–built entirely by tax dollars, but NO user fee whatsoever."

    It can depend on the road. Here in Michigan, cities often use property tax millages to make up the shortfall between the actual costs to build and maintain roads and what comes in revenue from gas taxes (user fees). In SE Michigan, the latest projections is that there will be $30 billion in unmet transportation infrastructure needs over the next 20 years because user fees don't cover the full cost of building and maintaining roads.
50. OINKER says:

    June 30, 2009 at 7:30 am

    For the 'highway enthusiasts':

    1) The original posting was about HSR and my oinkers are aimed at that
    2) Highway's and their funding is Pork out-of-control.
    3) I am not opposed to adding fees/tolls for construction/maintenance; however, would like to see the various federal/state/local highway bureacracies be audited to show the taxpayer just where all the current fees/taxes are spent. Most people would be amazed at the amount of money under their stewardship that is spent on administrative/bureaucracy.

    Anechoic: – 1% of the intra-city market is ALL travel between those markets…not just air. The source is the same site that Alon has problems with and I would suspect you would as well…because it is factual. (it is a rail ADVOCACY site)
    http://www.unitedrail.org/

    JG – "Appropriate HSR" – hmmm what exactly would that look like? Seems to me that is just slicing off a piece of ham…but alas it remains the Pork Train.

    Alon – from the rail advocacy site:
    “The Northeast Corridor is the only part of Amtrak that actually makes money.” False, again. When you apply real world accounting to Amtrak’s books, and properly apply all of the costs of owning and operating the NEC infrastructure, the NEC trains (Acela and Northeast regionals) do not make money. Amtrak often assigns routine maintenance costs of the NEC incorrectly to capital expsense cost accounts, which skews the real financial burden of the NEC. Additionally, none of the commuter tenants of the NEC pay anything close to the real cost of their share of infrastructure maintenance costs. For decades, this has been a silent subsidy from the federal government to these various Northeast commuter agencies, allowing them to keep passenger fares unrealistically low because the commuter railroads pay far less than their proportionate share of infrastructure maintenance costs.

    OINK OINK OINK