Obama to unveil HSR plan Thursday

[Spokker]

Oh contrare, I've been thinking the same thing. If we do get true high speed cross country rail I will miss the leisurely pace of today's LD trains. I take the train as part of my vacation, to relax. Kind of like taking a cruise, but with better scenery.

I don't think we'll see long distance trains go away. The HSR plan is about corridors. I think we could shave a few hours off of long distance routes, but I doubt they'll change considerably.
Anti-Amtrak folks like to talk about the black hole that is Amtrak, but the money spent on long distance trains is a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things. I would argue that they are a national treasure and daily runs should be maintained indefinitely. They also provide transportation to small towns.

 

[MikefromCrete]

I believe the California project will be true high-speed, with new right of way, separate tracks from freight lines, no grade crossings and a TGV-type trains hitting at least 186 mph. It will probably get the "true high speed" spending.

The midwest project of Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison and Chicago-Detroit-Pontiac is a shoe-in for one of the "110 mph" projects since Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan and Missouri already support passenger trains and Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin have been working on high speed rail projects for some time. Also, remember that the president, secretary of transportation, chairman of the Amtrak board and federal railroad administrator are all from Illinois, so the "fix is in" for the Chicago-based system as we say here in Illinois.

The other "110 mph" project would probably be the southeast line, since CSX has said it will cooperate and Virginia and North Carolina are active in the passenger train world.

This spreads the money across the country and will be a good test of support for high speed rail outside of the northeast corridor.

 

[George Harris]

I believe the California project will be true high-speed, with new right of way, separate tracks from freight lines, no grade crossings and a TGV-type trains hitting at least 186 mph. . . .

The other "110 mph" project would probably be the southeast line, since CSX has said it will cooperate and Virginia and North Carolina are active in the passenger train world.

California's concept is to run 220 mph from the start, except close in to Los Angeles and between San Jose and San Francisco where the speed is proposed to be 125 mph. Hopefull the line down the Valley will be straight enough that the speed can be faster in the future. Train type is being kept open, so it may be TGV, Shinkansen, or something else. The French and the Japanese are not the only players in this game.

Part of the SEHSR plan is to rebuild the ex SAL line between Petersburg VA and Raleigh NC as a 110 mph, hopefully 110 mph plus line. At this time I think their last plan update was in something like 2002.

There re web sites for both of these projects.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Anti-Amtrak folks like to talk about the black hole that is Amtrak, but the money spent on long distance trains is a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things. I would argue that they are a national treasure and daily runs should be maintained indefinitely. They also provide transportation to small towns.

For the stations that have service only in the middle of the night at times such as 3AM, is that scheduling also a national treasure you want preserved?

I think once we have a national HSR network, we should break up each LD route at each station along that LD route which is also a HSR stop, and then reschedule the broken up trains so that they start in the early morning and finish their runs by the late evening.

 

[Spokker]

For the stations that have service only in the middle of the night at times such as 3AM, is that scheduling also a national treasure you want preserved?

No, I was thinking more along the lines of the views and the experience of riding an American long-distance train that you just can't get anywhere else.
I wouldn't want to see the LD routes broken up, but I'd like to see the schedules tweaked so that you could transfer to HSR at key stations. Of course, that would assume the LD trains ran on time in the future. Those who want the LD experience can ride the rest of the way.

 

[volkris]

I think once we have a national HSR network, we should break up each LD route at each station along that LD route which is also a HSR stop, and then reschedule the broken up trains so that they start in the early morning and finish their runs by the late evening.

One of the benefits of LD trains is that you can catch one in the evening, sleep for the night, and wake up at your destination. If you do a morning to evening run you've spent a day of conscious hours on travel... not so good.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I think once we have a national HSR network, we should break up each LD route at each station along that LD route which is also a HSR stop, and then reschedule the broken up trains so that they start in the early morning and finish their runs by the late evening.

One of the benefits of LD trains is that you can catch one in the evening, sleep for the night, and wake up at your destination. If you do a morning to evening run you've spent a day of conscious hours on travel... not so good.

If you have a conventional speed daily train with a 12-18 hour run from one HSR station to another HSR station with a bunch of intermediate stops that are served only by this daily train, you either get to make it a day train only, or force some people to board in the middle of the night. Do you really think boarding at 3AM is an improvement over daytime travel?

Also, consider how you get from Connersville, IN to McCook, NE. If we preserve the current long distance schedules, you can board at Connersville around 3 AM, reach Indianapolis around 4:45 AM, perhaps board a HSR train around 6:00 AM, and if its top speed of 220 MPH works out to an average of 150 MPH after you account for the travel through cities to downtown stations at slower speeds, the almost 1100 miles would take a little over 7 hours, so you'd arrive in Denver a little after 1 PM. Then you could wait around until 8:10 PM to board the eastbound Zephyr, and get to McCook a little before 1 AM.

Wouldn't it be better to board a day train at Connersville at 4:45 PM, reach Indianapolis at 6 PM, board a HSR sleeper train that provided early boarding and departed around 10:00 PM and reached Denver around 5:30 AM, and then lingered at the platform for several hours so that you could disembark at your convenience to transfer to a train that would depart Denver at 9:00 AM and reach McCook at 1:40 PM?

(Or maybe you change trains at Omaha instead of Denver and take the westbound Zephyr instead, but I think in that case the travel time works out roughly the same.)

Another thing to consider is that since Connersville is the only stop between Cincinnati and Indianapolis currently, if there were a train that ran from Cincinnati to Connersville to Indianapolis and that was its entire run, adding some more intermediate stops would probably be viable in a way that isn't when the train runs all the way from Chicago to New York City.

If we had enough sleeping cars, the other alternative is an overnight train with a set out sleeper for each intermediate stop. You end up needing two cars per stop to make that work, one carrying passengers towards the HSR station each night, and another carrying passengers away from the HSR station each night (unless there's enough demand at each stop to need more than that).

 

[WhoozOn1st]

Raising the issue of HSR funding, this L.A. Times editorial advocates, as do I, jacking up gasoline taxes to help pay for the network(s), as opposed to funding it with debt.

"High-speed rail networks might very well be the "smart transportation system" of the 21st century, as President Obama declared Thursday. The trouble is, we're using a very 20th century method to pay for them."

No way to build a railroad (print edition headline)

 

[sunchaser]

Raising the issue of HSR funding, this L.A. Times editorial advocates, as do I, jacking up gasoline taxes to help pay for the network(s), as opposed to funding it with debt.
"High-speed rail networks might very well be the "smart transportation system" of the 21st century, as President Obama declared Thursday. The trouble is, we're using a very 20th century method to pay for them."

No way to build a railroad (print edition headline)

If the HSR funding is provided soley by gasoline taxes and also to discourage using your vehicle, I do not think that will work. If you over tax the gas, people will drive less, then you will get less funding. To acheive funding in the best way, the source of funding should be examined from all angles. And the possiblity of unintended consequences.

I realize many people use their cars for commuting to work, as well as travel, but people also use them to go to the store & other places. In my city, I could take the bus to the store, but it would be silly to haul the groceries home that way. I have done it in the past, it is difficult, to say the least. HSR, Public Transportation, Planes, Trains & yes Cars all serve a purpose-to get us from point A to B. It really depends on how you use them.

 

[AlanB]

Raising the issue of HSR funding, this L.A. Times editorial advocates, as do I, jacking up gasoline taxes to help pay for the network(s), as opposed to funding it with debt.
"High-speed rail networks might very well be the "smart transportation system" of the 21st century, as President Obama declared Thursday. The trouble is, we're using a very 20th century method to pay for them."

No way to build a railroad (print edition headline)

If the HSR funding is provided soley by gasoline taxes and also to discourage using your vehicle, I do not think that will work. If you over tax the gas, people will drive less, then you will get less funding. To acheive funding in the best way, the source of funding should be examined from all angles. And the possiblity of unintended consequences.

I realize many people use their cars for commuting to work, as well as travel, but people also use them to go to the store & other places. In my city, I could take the bus to the store, but it would be silly to haul the groceries home that way. I have done it in the past, it is difficult, to say the least. HSR, Public Transportation, Planes, Trains & yes Cars all serve a purpose-to get us from point A to B. It really depends on how you use them.

Congress needs to increase the Federal gas tax just to pay for the roads, before they even start to think about funding high-speed rail via the same method. Last year the gas tax failed to cover the outlays from the Highway Trust Fund, which pays for the bulk of the repair work and expansion of our Interstate Highways. The HTF required an cash infusion of $8 Billion of our Federal Income Tax dollars to keep it from going bankrupt. It's estimated that without any increases in the gas tax rate, that the HTF will need $9 Billion this year and next, and that will jump to $12 Billion in 2011 & 2012.

 

[birdy]

Raising the issue of HSR funding, this L.A. Times editorial advocates, as do I, jacking up gasoline taxes to help pay for the network(s), as opposed to funding it with debt.

No hair shirt required, Whooz. Total transportation spending is only 3% of the federal budget. We have $40 bil per year going out the door to "name-brand" tax havens like Switzerland. As these entities cooperate in investigations against drug dealers, these are mostly accounts held by overground economy scofflaws. the Euros want us to crack down on this and I believe we will. We could raise maybe $20 billion per year this way.

Another way to pay is simply to NOT pass Senator Jon Kyl (R. AZ) plan to raise estate tax deduction to $10 million. Killing that one provision and leaving the tax at its already generous $7 million (joint deduction) level would raise $90 billion over the next ten years, more or less fully funding a true HSR network.

Remember also, there is a recyling effect on all this. All the contractors and their employees pay federal tax, which is effectively like a discount to us. Finally, its not unreasonable to expect the states to kick in 10% of the construction cost, allowing probably one whole extra system to be funded over the next ten years.

 

[birdy]

I believe the California project will be true high-speed, with new right of way, separate tracks from freight lines, no grade crossings and a TGV-type trains hitting at least 186 mph. It will probably get the "true high speed" spending.The midwest project of Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison and Chicago-Detroit-Pontiac is a shoe-in for one of the "110 mph" projects since Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan and Missouri already support passenger trains and Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin have been working on high speed rail projects for some time. Also, remember that the president, secretary of transportation, chairman of the Amtrak board and federal railroad administrator are all from Illinois, so the "fix is in" for the Chicago-based system as we say here in Illinois.

The other "110 mph" project would probably be the southeast line, since CSX has said it will cooperate and Virginia and North Carolina are active in the passenger train world.

This spreads the money across the country and will be a good test of support for high speed rail outside of the northeast corridor.

Why sell yourself short? Those are big populations that present relatively modest build costs. Disinterested yokels such as myself are much more comfortable with trains for you salt-of-the-earth midwesterners than systems in California or NY. Save the rail-straightening projects for the Schnectady to Albany route.

 

[volkris]

Raising the issue of HSR funding, this L.A. Times editorial advocates, as do I, jacking up gasoline taxes to help pay for the network(s), as opposed to funding it with debt.
"High-speed rail networks might very well be the "smart transportation system" of the 21st century, as President Obama declared Thursday. The trouble is, we're using a very 20th century method to pay for them."

Yeah, and we're spending dollars on this project too... but dollars have been around since the 18th century!

Anyway, we shouldn't raise the gas tax on auto commuters to pay for others' wants, and the "discourage driving" argument is a bit silly: they have plenty of reason to avoid the road as is. From crowded, dangerous streets and the cost of car maintenance, to the time it takes to commute, to the already significant cost of fuel... if despite all of that they'd still rather drive than take the train then how can we justify charging them for something they so thoroughly reject?

They WOULD take the trains if they invested now and rode when the service was expanded? Great! Treat it like any other investment selling bonds, futures, and government investments that cost all people. Expanded service benefits all society? Great! Let all of society pay for it.

But it's fundamentally wrong, in my mind, to charge this one particular group of people for something they do not use, have not demanded, and will not derive sole benefit from (if any).

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

But it's fundamentally wrong, in my mind, to charge this one particular group of people for something they do not use, have not demanded, and will not derive sole benefit from (if any).

One of the thought experiments I've seen proposed is: what if we got rid of the ``wasteful'' operating subsidy on the NEC (if there even is one), discontinued all the Acela and Northeast Regional service, and poured enough concrete that all those Amtrak passengers could take single occupancy vehicles instead. Turns out that construction is pretty expensive.

If we build mass transit on routes roughly parallel to existing highways, that benefits those who continue to use those highways because they encounter less congestion. Those drivers also probably benefit from lower gas prices because of the laws of supply and demand, and probably benefit from cleaner air.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Finally, its not unreasonable to expect the states to kick in 10% of the construction cost, allowing probably one whole extra system to be funded over the next ten years.

If you require the states to pay 10% of the construction costs, that means you're subjecting HSR construction to all the state budget difficulties that are going on right now. MA and CA are certainly in pretty bad shape, with MA threatening to discontinue weekend and evening MBTA Commuter Rail service.

 

[WICT106]

One should just see all of the comments going on at some places like SFGate, in San Francisco. The comments are enlightening, to say the least. There is a lot of resistance to the 110 incrementally higher speed rail, though. Some would say that these folks who live on the coasts have a sort of "end point" mentality, totally ignorant of how transportation networks generate traffic.

"States compete for high speed rail funds."

 

[sportbiker]

Anyway, we shouldn't raise the gas tax on auto commuters to pay for others' wants, and the "discourage driving" argument is a bit silly: they have plenty of reason to avoid the road as is. From crowded, dangerous streets and the cost of car maintenance, to the time it takes to commute, to the already significant cost of fuel... if despite all of that they'd still rather drive than take the train then how can we justify charging them for something they so thoroughly reject?
They WOULD take the trains if they invested now and rode when the service was expanded? Great! Treat it like any other investment selling bonds, futures, and government investments that cost all people. Expanded service benefits all society? Great! Let all of society pay for it.

But it's fundamentally wrong, in my mind, to charge this one particular group of people for something they do not use, have not demanded, and will not derive sole benefit from (if any).

Here's another way to look at it. I remember one of my econ profs in college telling us that charging for a student parking sticker wouldn't do much of anything to reduce parking demand, unless the sticker were ridiculously priced. Why is that? A sticker is a once-a-semester fee, so once it's paid, parking is "free." To reduce parking demand, require a payment every single time a space is used.

By the same principle, people don't seem to consider the true costs of driving. In my experience, people price a drive based on the gasoline it'll take. There's no consideration for all the other expenses (tires, oil, depreciation, maintenance, insurance, pollution, etc.), because those expenses don't have to be paid at the time of the drive. Therefore, driving seems artificially cheap.

Even beyond that, study after study has shown that drivers do, in fact, not bear the true cost of the drive, once externalities are taken into account. There are different ways to tally the figures, but it seems that a tax of between $2-4 per gallon would be required to recoup the hidden subsidies.

So, your argument falls apart because we are all paying every time a driver gets in a car, even though some of us drive very little. Raising taxes, provided the revenue goes to its intended purposes, isn't "discouraging" driving, it's simply making the driver internalize the true costs of that next mile. And that, conveniently, makes efficient forms of travel (such as trains) much more competitive.

 

[AlanB]

Anyway, we shouldn't raise the gas tax on auto commuters to pay for others' wants, and the "discourage driving" argument is a bit silly: they have plenty of reason to avoid the road as is. From crowded, dangerous streets and the cost of car maintenance, to the time it takes to commute, to the already significant cost of fuel... if despite all of that they'd still rather drive than take the train then how can we justify charging them for something they so thoroughly reject?
..... Snipped ............

But it's fundamentally wrong, in my mind, to charge this one particular group of people for something they do not use, have not demanded, and will not derive sole benefit from (if any).

Gee, I wish someone had thought like you back when it was decided years ago to put a fuel tax on the diesel fuel that freight and commuter RR's buy. A tax that, for close to 30 years I believe, went directly into the Highway Trust Fund. That effectively forced the freight RR's to help build their main competition's highways.

That said, it is important to note that the Federal gas tax does help to fund light rail and heavy rail projects at present. It doesn't help fund high-speed rail, but a few years back Congress did raise the gas tax and allocated about 2.8 cents per gallon to the Mass Transit Account.

 

[AlanB]

By the same principle, people don't seem to consider the true costs of driving. In my experience, people price a drive based on the gasoline it'll take. There's no consideration for all the other expenses (tires, oil, depreciation, maintenance, insurance, pollution, etc.), because those expenses don't have to be paid at the time of the drive. Therefore, driving seems artificially cheap.

Very true, I agree 100% that most people don't appreciate the full costs of their taking a drive.

Even beyond that, study after study has shown that drivers do, in fact, not bear the true cost of the drive, once externalities are taken into account. There are different ways to tally the figures, but it seems that a tax of between $2-4 per gallon would be required to recoup the hidden subsidies.

Well considering that the Highway Trust Fund required an cash infusion from the general budget of $8 Billion last year in order to stay solvent, it's quite apparent that we aren't paying enough for our roads via the gas taxes. It's estimated that the HTF will need a bailout of $9 Billion this year and next, jumping to $12B in 2011 & 2012, unless Congress increases the amount of the Federal gas tax and soon.

 

[volkris]

So, your argument falls apart because we are all paying every time a driver gets in a car, even though some of us drive very little. Raising taxes, provided the revenue goes to its intended purposes, isn't "discouraging" driving, it's simply making the driver internalize the true costs of that next mile. And that, conveniently, makes efficient forms of travel (such as trains) much more competitive.

Some people on this board want to raise gas taxes explicitly to discourage driving. Not, it seems, because they want drivers to pay the true cost of driving, or because they want to make sure roads are funded, or anything like that; they simply want to make it harder for people to drive because driving is bad. I have a problem with using the tax system that way.

But anyway, it would be great to present the true costs of driving to people in ways they can better wrap their heads around, but I believe there are better ways to accomplish that than taxation. How can a tax really show someone the dollar figure of the wear they put on their car? The government receiving the funds isn't going to pay for the oil change or transmission rebuild, is it? And the connection between operational costs and fuel use, while there, isn't THAT precise. Other ways, including maintenance plans and GPS-based taxation, would probably be more effective.

Gee, I wish someone had thought like you back when it was decided years ago to put a fuel tax on the diesel fuel that freight and commuter RR's buy. A tax that, for close to 30 years I believe, went directly into the Highway Trust Fund. That effectively forced the freight RR's to help build their main competition's highways.

So let's fix that. The past is gone and can't be undone, but we can work toward ending that practice today. Don't tax rail to pay for roads, and don't tax drivers to pay for trains. Each hides the true costs from the other group, and each requires people to pay for the choices they have rejected.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

GPS-based taxation,

What's wrong with odometer-based taxation? GPS-based taxation opens up a bunch of new privacy issues.

One of the long term challenges we have if battery powered cars (the kind that plug into the electric grid, not the kind that use a gasoline engine and regenerative braking exclusively to charge their batteries) become popular is that we can no longer pay for wear and tear on the roads by simply collecting petroleum taxes, if we do want to charge drivers directly for that wear and tear.

 

[AlanB]

Gee, I wish someone had thought like you back when it was decided years ago to put a fuel tax on the diesel fuel that freight and commuter RR's buy. A tax that, for close to 30 years I believe, went directly into the Highway Trust Fund. That effectively forced the freight RR's to help build their main competition's highways.

So let's fix that. The past is gone and can't be undone, but we can work toward ending that practice today. Don't tax rail to pay for roads, and don't tax drivers to pay for trains. Each hides the true costs from the other group, and each requires people to pay for the choices they have rejected.

I agree it can't be undone, but it can be mitigated by reversing the policies until we've restored the balance that we disturbed in the first place. Once that's done, then I would agree that we probably shouldn't be taxing one mode to the benefit of the other.

 

[sportbiker]

it would be great to present the true costs of driving to people in ways they can better wrap their heads around, but I believe there are better ways to accomplish that than taxation ... Other ways, including maintenance plans and GPS-based taxation, would probably be more effective.

Which side are you arguing? Let's not use taxation, or let's use taxation? And need I point out that a fuel tax and a GPS-tax are both mileage-based? There ain't much daylight between them!

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The Interstate Highways are an un-needed, dehumanizing social and economic drain on our country. I suggest we bulldoze, detonate, and otherwise remove these poorly conceived monstrosities from the era where accomplishment and progress were considered one and the same. People driving from place to place can do so on back roads. There is no need for a car to be a quick method of transportation.

If there is volume to warrant the presence of a highway, there is volume to warrant replacing that highway with more economical rail transport. If there isn't volume for rail, there isn't volume to justify the presence of the highway in the first place. Either way, it should be demolished.

We have spent the past hundred years investing in the fallacy of sustained personal mobility. It will take us twice that long to correct this mistake. Its not like this was even what people wanted in the first place. Do any of you remember National City Lines, where rubber tire manufacturers and automakers got together and bought up city transit so they could replace steel-wheeled trollies with rubber-tired busses?

Eisenhower got his inspiration from a certain Austrian named Adolf's grand plan for moving people and things through Germany during the war. Indeed, the highways were marketed as a defense spending measure! The highway as we know it is the work of the ****s. It should be destroyed.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Hmm, Godwin's Law seems to be about **** metaphores and not actually blaming the ****s, if Wikipedia is to be believed.