General US High Speed Rail Discussion

The Central Valley of California *is* poor, with high unemployment, and hit hard by the current Depression.

It's being hit hard enough that gas prices and the cost of automobile ownership are starting to become hardships. Airplane service is terrible and expensive.

Meanwhile, it remains a zone which is not internally sustainable; its businesses are dependent on transportation to other, more alive cities; oil drilling is in decline, and while agricultural product may go by truck or freightcar, the people running the businesses need to make deals, too.

It's more alive to the north end than to the south end, though; for someone in Bakersfield, easy access to Fresno is actually a significant improvement.

Sacramento isn't ideal as a "real city" connection, but people in the CV will take the train to Sacramento, and they'll take the train to SF via the current roundabout route, and they'll even take the bus to LA. More will go to LA or SF if good rail connections are ever made. I think tolerance for high fares will be pretty low unless there are some changes made in economic policy.

Yes, finishing the LA-Bakersfield mountain crossing is important.

Regarding "kitchen table economics", it applies well to the people of the Central Valley... but not to the California government. Governments are not like households, economically. (Neither are banks.) Failure to understand this leads to many misconceptions.

Desertdweller wrote:It is true to a large degree that people in this country can choose where they live. But regardless of where that may be, they are going to be supporting passenger rail service in the NEC. And they are not free to choose if they support this or not.......

It is true to a large degree that people in this country can choose where they live. But regardless of where that may be, they are going to be supporting agricultural subsides that make life in rural Nebraska possible, interstate and federal highways that make it possible to ship the agricultural supplies in and the production oui and the odd essential air services subsidy that means there's an airport with service to Denver in North Platte. And they are not free to choose if they support this or not.......

Desertdweller wrote:HSR is not going to work in the big western states. The distances are too great for HSR to compete with aircraft. With the Interstate Highway System and 75mph speed limits, it would have a tough time even competing with automobiles on travel time. ..

an interstate highway maintained with taxes levied on the fuel people in the Midwest and Northeast burn on toll roads that don't get any Federal funding. Get back to us pointy headed Northeasterners when you put tolls on those Interstates to support their maintenance. Median toll in the Northeast and Midwest is 8 cents a mile. That makes taking 200 mile trips at 75 miles an hour much less attractive.

Desertdweller wrote:I do not begrudge people in the NEC their trains if they want to assume paying for them.

..... just how much does the thriving North Platte Regional AIrport get in Essential AIr Services subsidies?
Nebraska pays $1.00 in Federal taxes and gets $1.07 back in benefits. California pays $1.00 and gets 79 cents back. So does New York, those evil NEC riding Noo Yawkers. New Jersey pays a $1.00 and gets 55 cents back.... The stalwart yeoman farmers of South Dakota pay $1.00 and get $1.49 back. Slackers compared to the people in North Dakota who get $1.79 back for every dollar they send to the Federal government.
The Federal government was about to spend 20 billion dollars, with a b like in baker, over the next few years in Manhattan, on rail projects. New York State taxpayers could pay for that that in 9 months if they got back from the Federal government what they send to the Federal government in taxes.

I'm not going to suggest your numbers are wrong or not - they probably vary much from year to year anyways....

But I am going to suggest you are looking at them with a twisted mind. You seem to think farm subsidies only benefit farm states and that rural infrastructure only benefits rural states; from your point of view of living in an urban state. You're forgetting that rural infrastructure built to get farm products to urban cities benefits city dwellers as much as rural farmers. What good is having food sitting in warehouses in rural areas if they can't get transported to warehouses in urban areas? What good is having manufactured goods sitting in warehouses in urban areas if they can't be transported through rural areas to get to other urban areas?
How much of I-70 traffic in southern Utah is coming from Utah citizens vs coming from interstate trucks shipping goods from the east coast to the west coast? I suggest less than half the traffic originates or ends in Utah. From your limited point of view all of it does, since you suggest all of the subsidy spent in Utah benefits Utah only.
But in reality, it doesn't!

electricron wrote: From your limited point of view all of it does, since you suggest all of the subsidy spent in Utah benefits Utah only.
But in reality, it doesn't!

You don't need a toll free interstate grade highway to ship goods from California to New York. It's debatable whether or not you need a highway, goods got shipped cross country before there were highways.

Adirondaker,

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not call anyone "evil" or "pointyheaded". Those were your words, not mine.

I find it rather contradictory that you would object to the Federal subsidiary for the little North Platte airport. How would that compare to the subsidies paid to JFK and LaGuardia?

If a person is required to fly to a larger hub airport, it might make more sense to at least fly to one in the general direction one is traveling. To fly from Denver to Hartford/Springfield, I first had to fly to Phoenix. This sort of routing not only wastes fuel, it wastes money and time as well.

Because I live in rural Nebraska, don't assume I am in favor of farm subsidies. I think it is a waste of money to subsidize corn production in an area that requires irrigation to grow corn. If grain were traded in a free-market economy, without subsidies, dry land farmers would not be able to compete with corn farmers in areas that receive adequate rainfall for the crop. If the Government were really concerned with fuel supplies, they would address things like flying jet planes the wrong direction, and pumping water to grow corn on the high plains.

The ethanol industry is another boondoggle. I have seen many ethanol plants go broke because of lack of corn and water. Just one plant put in production in my corner of the state was capable of consuming a quarter of the corn grown here. The result was a spike in the cost of corn, resulting in increased prices to consumers for food products and an increase in costs to farmers for feed. Ethanol production requires a lot of water, and results in very little increase in energy produced in comparison to energy consumed. It also results in the production of an inferior fuel that lacks the heat energy produced by burning gasoline. This results in poorer gas mileage in a lot of vehicles. Even here, in a subsidized (for growers and ethanol producers) region that produces ethanol, a lot of people are refusing to buy it. Gas stations are now advertising that they sell gasoline that does NOT contain ethanol. Of my personal vehicles, my wife's Ford van runs all right on the stuff, but my Lincoln required a trip to the garage to recover from the effects of the stuff.

When ethanol production was being promoted by the state, a grant of seven million dollars would be given any firm who could produce a given minimum amount of ethanol within a time frame set by the state. It was thought this would encourage the building of pilot plants that would develop into legitimate production plants.
Instead, it resulted in the production of portable stills that could be moved from location to location to collect the grants.

The production of irrigated corn has resulted in a heavy drain on the aquifer. To conserve water, farmers have to purchase a permit to drill into the aquifer. Only so many permits are issued in a given area. One heavily-promoted ethanol plant was not built because there were no available permits to buy. The plan then was to draw water directly from an adjacent river, but this was not permitted by the State Department of Natural Resources.

There seems to be some confusion here about my criticism of hub-and-spoke operating schemes, while advocating the idea of rail hubs. Rail hubs are necessary in a rail network, quite the opposite of hub-and-spoke. The idea is to establish points where passengers can transfer between trains to get where they want to go without having to travel to a major hub (like Chicago). This is a concept that goes back to the nineteenth century, but is not grasped by AMTRAK. The insistence of sending everything to Chicago not only wastes fuel and time, it is one of the reasons a lot of people don't consider AMTRAK a practical transportation option in the Midwest.

Denver was once a major rail hub, and, hopefully, will be one again. But not due to AMTRAK. A state transportation authority will run north-south out of Denver.
For the location of other regional rail hubs, just consult a pre-AMTRAK rail map. We have dismantled a network and replaced it with a wheel.

Les

Adriondacker, your position sounds just like what a coastal elitist would say. The study that you refer is fatally flawed in that it is a straight forward revenues/expenditures calculation. The rich tend to live in coastal states, thus paying more in taxes. Typically, funds are distributed based on population, not income. Distributing based on average income would mean that poorer areas don't get enough money to pay for basic services while the rich states end up swimming in cash.

I concur with ending Essential Air Service. In your example of North Platte, the drive to Denver is 6-7 hours with Greyhound available for those unable to drive. If North Platte or the state of Nebraska considers a flight to Denver important enough, they can subsidize it with their own funds. Wikipedia gives the total annual cost for the program is only $117 million, a mere drop in the bucket compared to everything else the government spends money on.

Why should the farmer in South Dakota give more of his meager wage so New York can build yet another overpriced transit project? The head of the MTA said that a project that needs 25 workers in NY can be done with 9 in Spain. Fort Collins, CO recently overhauled one of the busiest intersections in the city for 5.5 million. An intersection reconstruction in Lower Manhattan (Park Row, I think) will need 50 million to rebuild. Now, I understand that NYC is working with older utilities, foundations, etc. However, that should only cost 10-15 million MAX, not 50 million.

At this stage and until the Northeast can bring down their costs to the rest of the country, I am in favor of shutting off the federal funding spigot on them. They must simply learn that they can't just succumb automatically to the unions whenever they demand more money.

Why should the 5 million people of Colorado be taxed for rail service, and in return, only get once a day Amtrak? A Coloradoan and a New Yorker both pay the same percentage in taxes for Amtrak, yet one receives much better service that the other. It is the citizens of the west that are being cheated out of rail service, not the coasts.

Zmapper,

Good points. Essential Air Service, in some situations, may actually be essential. If it is, then it ought to be a state-funded service.

I recall reading in one of my books about a situation that developed in Cut Bank, MT. An airport was built with public funds, and two competing airlines provided service, in addition to the passenger rail service there. The logic was that competition for the railroad was desirable. Then the railroad dropped passenger service to the town (after all, it was served by two airlines). Then one of the airlines decided it could not afford to serve the town. Then the other one left too. The place was left with neither air nor rail passenger service.

As small airlines drop service to small cities, this scenario will continue. I saw on the news today that smaller airliners are being phased out, because they are not as efficient to operate as larger jets. As these smaller planes are pulled from service, I expect the number of cities served will be reduced.

The common carrier of last resort has traditionally been the bus. But bus service has been cut back drastically in the past twenty years. They no longer serve just about any small town. They concentrate on the long runs between major cities.

If you look at an AMTRAK system map, you will find an almost total lack of north-south routes west of Kansas City-Texas. This lack of north-south service ensures a lack of connectivity to east-west routes for the bulk of the plains states and Rocky Mountain west. This guarantees the primacy of Chicago as a hub at the expense of creating a true rail network.

Les

If you look at an AMTRAK system map, you will find an almost total lack of north-south routes west of Kansas City-Texas. This lack of north-south service ensures a lack of connectivity to east-west routes for the bulk of the plains states and Rocky Mountain west. This guarantees the primacy of Chicago as a hub at the expense of creating a true rail network.

OK, suggest one or more north-south routes, with track available.

George,

Well, for starters, how about Minneapolis-Omaha-Kansas City? Or, Denver-Amarillo-Dallas? Or, Denver-Albuquerque- El Paso? Or, Duluth-Minneapolis-Cedar Rapids-St. Louis? Or Amarillo-Lubbock-El Paso? Or Grand Forks-Fargo-Sioux Falls-Sioux City-Omaha?

Many of these cities were once rail hubs, providing connection between east-west trains and north-south trains. They could be again.

Les

Zmapper wrote:Adriondacker, your position sounds just like what a coastal elitist would say. The study that you refer is fatally flawed in that it is a straight forward revenues/expenditures calculation. The rich tend to live in coastal states, thus paying more in taxes.

I'm not rich...

But cost of living IS more expensive out this way (you pay more for less) which goes back to the point I had made earlier about folks in the northeast paying their fair share in an indirect way. We have the infrastructure and we're paying for it via higher cost of living. We'll pay the same monthly price for a roof over our heads but I guarantee you that the northeastern resident is paying the same rate for less roof.

Zmapper wrote:Why should the farmer in South Dakota give more of his meager wage so New York can build yet another overpriced transit project? The head of the MTA said that a project that needs 25 workers in NY can be done with 9 in Spain. Fort Collins, CO recently overhauled one of the busiest intersections in the city for 5.5 million. An intersection reconstruction in Lower Manhattan (Park Row, I think) will need 50 million to rebuild. Now, I understand that NYC is working with older utilities, foundations, etc. However, that should only cost 10-15 million MAX, not 50 million.

Remember basic fundamentals, older infrastructure ->TLC->more $$$.

Zmapper wrote:At this stage and until the Northeast can bring down their costs to the rest of the country, I am in favor of shutting off the federal funding spigot on them. They must simply learn that they can't just succumb automatically to the unions whenever they demand more money.

Cost of construction varies based on geography and the labor situation. Since NY is a very labor-friendly state, things cost more (and typically take longer to build), but that's another topic. But I agree with that last statement. The only problem with that is that it's a dangerous game of chicken to play. I'll avoid my personal views on the subject of labor unions in NY but I'll say that I can see why you would make that statement, and I can't blame you.

Fortunately, the area/region has the population to justify the funding of these public works projects. The problem with the development of infrastructure in this country now is lack of vision. Funding priorities are reactionary (i.e. wait until there's a problem then build) as opposed to developing based on future grown projections. This is what I admire about the state of MD. They plan based on future growth, they try not to wait until there's a problem to build themselves out of it.

I'd like to respond further to Mr. Neroden's observations; while I can't agree with many of them, I respect the consistency in his arguments.

First. "monopoly profit" can't be legislated out of existence -- some of the more outspoken advocates of laissez-faire might view it as the entrpreneur's natural reward for the risk of sinking his capital into a fixed property which is then the target for every local politician and their captive clientele. And the experience of history demonstrates that much fixed capital is subject to de facto confiscation via the political process. It runs in cycles, but the names of the individual winners and losers change -- like iife itself, it's seldom fair.

And it should be noted at this point that even the strongest monopoly often faces competition from other industries, or other forms of utility within the same market ... trucks vs. rails vs barges/lakeships/pipelines.

Admittedly, at this point, I must frame most of my points in the context of freight railroading. Passenger service, both by its basic nature and current economic structure, cannot turn an operating profit. Like most "enlightened" or "pragmatic" free-market advocates, I don't have a problem with this, just as I don't have a problem with a basic and sustainable social "safety net" .... IF the true costs are fully explained to the electorate.

It sould also be recognized that individual rail systems (and not just the "Big 6/7") vary considerably in their market strategies. Wheeling and Lake Erie, for example. eschews the intermodal traffic which is the principal prize for the big players (ansd does quite nicely, thank you).

And there should be no reason why several like-mided regionals could not band together to offer slower-speed bulk-commodity "land barge" service over a wider area,

Or that abandonded rail grades in the relatively-flat central portions of the North American continent could not be rehabilitated for the purpose stated above,

Or that siding-to-siding exclusive-use service along the lines of the former Reading "Bee Line" could not be revived.

And that, if such ideas came to fruition, public policy could not be moderately adjusted in favor of the newcomers via the democratic process.

But regrettably, recent experiece shows that this is generally not the drift of things, no matter which party is in power. The Supreme Court's 2005 decision in the New London case being the most glaring example.

And I must conclude that the attitude displayed by the overwhelming majority of those at the levers of power in the current Administration offers little hope for a reversal of this trend.

....so says Slate:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technolog ... ingle.html

Brief passage:

• If you live in Los Angeles, Orlando, Cincinnati, Chicago, Milwaukee, Raleigh, or any number of other U.S. cities, chances are you’ve read a news story that started something like this: “Imagine stepping on a train in [your city] and stepping off in [another major city] just two-and-a-half hours later. This dream could become a reality in the next [unrealistic number] years, thanks to plans for a national network of high-speed rail lines.”
  
  Well, you can stop imagining it now. High-speed rail isn’t happening in America. Not anytime soon. Probably not ever. The questions now are (1) what killed it, and (2) should we mourn its passing?
  
  There was a brief burst of enthusiasm around the future of high-speed rail in January 2010, when President Obama announced $8 billion in federal stimulus spending to start building “America’s first nationwide program of high-speed intercity passenger rail service.” Since then, however, the project’s chances of success have been heading in one direction: downhill. First, Tea Party conservatives in Florida and wealthy liberal suburbanites in the Bay Area began questioning their states’ plans. Then, just as Joe Biden was calling for $53 billion in high-speed-rail spending over the next six years, a crop of freshly elected Republican governors turned down billions in federal money for lines in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida. Finally, Republicans in Congress zeroed out the federal high-speed rail budget last month. (To understand why conservatives hate trains, see my colleague Dave Weigel’s story from earlier this year.)

"The beginning of the end" was ARRA 09 and the "$8B for HSR provisions within such. Those funds should simply have been allocated amongst existing rail passenger agencies with "shovel ready" projects with the objective of "incremental improvements". The rest is fantasyland (a position I have consistently held since the Administration's HSR initiative began) and was "easy pickings' for the opposition.

Here is related material:

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 46&t=64913

Zmapper wrote:At this stage and until the Northeast can bring down their costs to the rest of the country, I am in favor of shutting off the federal funding spigot on them. They must simply learn that they can't just succumb automatically to the unions whenever they demand more money.

Why should the 5 million people of Colorado be taxed for rail service, and in return, only get once a day Amtrak? A Coloradoan and a New Yorker both pay the same percentage in taxes for Amtrak, yet one receives much better service that the other. It is the citizens of the west that are being cheated out of rail service, not the coasts.

Really? I think the people in the Northeast would be MORE THAN HAPPY to have the federal funding spigot shut off......if the feds allow the spigot to be shut that goes from the Northeast into the national Treasury, only to be doled out to other parts of the country. Please do that. It would not only be welcomed, it would be cheered.

The thing most of the rest of the country doesn't understand about the Northeast (and CA as well) is that incomes are way higher overall and corporate profitability is huge. That translates into higher income taxes that go to the Feds, higher property tax revenues into the states and large corporate tax receipts go into the Fed Treasury as well.

The question isn't why the citizens in the west are being "cheated" out of rail service, it should be why the citizens on the coasts are subsidizing everyone else in the middle of the country!

This country has become nothing more than subsidies for everyone. Robin Hood is running DC. Leave the money in local hands from where it came, and you'll see how rough it will become in places like Colorado. There aren't enough people paying into the Fed system there to justify everything they get. The population centers that drive commerce are the ones being shortchanged. The 5 million people of the entire state of Colorado pales in comparison to the 8+ million---in NYC alone. The island of Manhattan, with almost 2 million people, is on 23 sq miles of land. Denver Intl Airport is on 53 sq miles of land by itself. Thats like comparing gold and pebbles. And if anyone is getting "shortchanged, " its clearly the Northeast.

All this high speed rail talk in the middle of nowhere? Why? There are not enough people who could afford to pay what it costs to ride it to justify its construction. Thats even with the acquisition/purchase of the cheap land and low construction costs out there. Now build REAL high speed rail in the Northeast and you would see huge ridership of people who coluld afford to pay the going rate for it. Airport and road congestion would decrease, and some of that Fed money that subsisizes roads and airports can go into HSR in highly populated areas. I'd rather see the money put back into the local economy with HSR than to subsize some flights into some far-flung hamlet in some basin state.

Why not end all subsidies everywhere and let the free market sort it out? Ahh, then the crying really begins from those who get all the handouts now but think they are entitled to it, thinking they are actually paying too much and getting shortchanged. Again, the Northeast would be happy to keep their Fed tax money locally. Ecstatic. The transfer (back) of wealth would be unbelievable...

Penncenter,

If you guys have so much money up there, why don't you organize to fund your HSR out of state revenues? That way, you could get what you want and the rest of us would not have to pay for it. It's your money, I don't care what you do with it.

But I don't think any more Federal funds should go into HSR in the NEC until basic passenger train service in places like Nebraska are improved.

Gilbert,

It's about time this happened.

Les

Les,

I agree! And with all due respect, Nebraska should build their own with their own funding source. Remember, however, that also means the tax dollars that are paid into DC from the Northeast ALL have to go back to the Northeast. The Northeast could do wonders with the funds they pay into DC if only it ALL got distrinuted back to them. But its not. Its redsitributed to far off places. Is that fair?