



I've only flown from Raleigh to Charlotte and back, maybe 3 times, but it's never taken me 2:15. I also never paid $525.
The first and last time I tried the Amtrak route it was 45 minutes late getting me there, and the air conditioning in the car they told me to ride in was out the whole way. 8 hours of misery. Worst train ride of my life, including Berlin to Amsterdam overnight with no AC in the summer.
It's pretty easy to beat Amtrak.




Normally I'm not one to say never, but I'll say it on this one.
Americans in general are not patient people. I can get across the country in a plane faster than I can go a few hundred miles on a Train.
As a long distance mode it is not practical. For short distances people have cars. Not having a car at your destination often destroys the practicality of the train as a short distance mode.
It will never catch on in this country. If it somehow does, air transportation will cheapen and people will move away from trains again.
But what about when we don't have or cant afford the jet fuel? Isn't that coming in 50 years or less?The infrastructure of HSR will last far beyond peak oil.
Cant these trains be powered by windmills and solar panels? Surely the trains don't run on a resource that isn't renewable...





For conservatives, the main basis for their opposition to high-speed rail is their ideology. No matter how many facts they are presented with showing the benefits of high-speed rail, they are going to oppose it because it's against their ideology.




If we can't afford jet fuel we won't be able to afford car fuel. If we don't have an alternative by that point (something that can run cars, planes, whatever) then we're all dead.
You are utterly ridiculous. Plenty of liberal leaning people think trains and high speed rail are worthless and a waste of time and money. Anytime a person you consider "conservative" disagrees with you, you just start claiming they are ignoring facts and following the mythical ever shifting all encompassing ideology. I want some of what you're on.
Come on Eagle . You know better than that. Legitimate questions have been raised about the ACTUAL costs and REAL benefits of High Speed Rail.
You might call it "ideology" but I prefer to call it what it is : Knowledge of historical facts. Those FACTS include a well documented history of cost overruns and reality failing to live up to projections on many a government funded project.
You, and some others, have made some legitimate points about the energy efficiency of passenger rail. I and some others have questioned whether the actual ridership of HSR justifies A. its cost and B. diversion of funds from improving existing commuter rail lines.
For the most part, HSR caters to either the business traveler or the vacationer. It has a very low level of projected DAILY usage by commuters. Both business and vacation travelers have other options , namely cars and planes and maybe even buses. It just seems to make sense to get more daily commuters out of their cars and into mass transit to save fuel and be "greener".
I don't know how many times I have to say it: Afaic , HSR is a nice thing for us to have. But we live in a time of finite resources and crippling debt. Before pouring hundreds of billions into HSR projects we ought to make as sure as possible that it truly is money well spent. And if it comes down to a choice between commuter and HSR; if we cannot afford to do both, I think the facts weigh heavily in favor of spending the money on commuter lines. I fail to see what my "ideology" has to do with it.





If we started planning and building high speed rail lines right now, it will probably be another 20 years before high speed rail is widely available. Our air transportation system is close to capacity right now. If it continues to grow, it will eventually become unmanageable. We're going to have to spend billions of dollars upgrading our air transportation system just to keep up with growth. A significant number of domestic flights are just a few hundred miles long. If we built high speed rail lines, many of these air routes could be replaced by high speed rail.
Right now the cost of fuel isn't that bad, but 10 to 20 years from now, gasoline could go to $10 a gallon. If that does happen, high speed rail will become a far cheaper alternative to flying or driving. In addition, the cost of solar and wind power continues to fall dramatically every year. Twenty year from now they will probably be cheaper than any alternative. High speed rail would be in the best position to take advantage of these energy sources for transportation.
Thank you. Now THAT was a sensible, fact based and well reasoned argument in favor of HSR. I'm serious. There is genuine food for thought in what you posted.
The larger issue, which you also raise, is the dramatic underinvestment we've made in our overall transportation infrastructure. Which is why I think we ought to be cautious and careful about how much we spend on what.




Creating jobs alone is not justification for anything, it has to have a genuine benefit and purpose. To create jobs, it would be cheaper and less wasteful of resources if the government paid the same number of people to shovel a truckload of horseshit from one end of a stadium to the other.
As the OP indicated, HSR only benefits a minority of relatively wealthy or professional people.Moreover, it would help a lot of underprivileged folks who are very geographically limited as to where they can work because they can't afford a car and have no access to adequate public transportation.
When you refute all the claimed reasons, what's left? The only real difference between government transport (trains, buses, ferries) and private transport (automobiles) is that autos allow free, convenient personal travel and greater mobility and government mass transit is controlled by the government and allows less mobility.LMAO @ your comment Eric that liberals want to get people into trains to "control" them. Are you serious?
Whether or not the government is influencing more people to use government mass transit with the AIM of controlling them, the fact remains that those people's travel WILL be under far greater government control, simply because government mass transit IS controlled by the government.
But the government of course knows this and of course does want to have more control over people, so it is not at all silly to speculate that the government is influencing more people to use it's mass transit with that aim. The natural tendency of any government is to expand it's power.
No, that's just typical elite patronization. Like when Barry told us we could reduce oil imports by keeping our tyres inflated and keeping out engines tuned. Or when Alan Greenspan, during the Ford administration as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, campaigned against inflation by telling people to finish the food on their plates and housewives to spend as little as possible on groceries. Perhaps elites, who don't need to do any of this for themselves, don't realize that this is what the common man routinely does out of necessity. But I forgot - Michelle is "one of us", because she's pals with Oprah.You probably are serious, I'm sure you think Michelle Obama reminding us to eat our vegetables is an example of LIBERAL SOCIALIST FOOD CONTROL.




Highways are not subsidized, they are paid for from "user fees" exacted for the purpose. Much of the subsidization of rail is redirected highway user fees. Also, the cost per passenger mile is less for highways than for rail. You are merely comparing the total cost amounts of each, ignoring the difference in amount of use or benefit. You are comparing the costs of building a house and an office block to claim that the house is more economical.




The oil peak was between 1965 and 1070 (as predicted in 1956), before it was moved to 50 or 100 years from the present, another 55 years on.
The replacement cycle of rail infrastructure is about 30 years, i.e. every 30 years infrastructure is effectively paid for all over again in maintenance, renovation and refurbishment costs. Peak oil is farther away than that. (Far, far away.) No HSR cannot be economically powered by renewables.





Thank you for pointing out this seldom publicized fact. While HSR is a 'special case' of mass rail transit, there's not much reason to assume that the subsidy policies are likely to also be a 'special case'. The famous example of such subsidy policies is New York's subway, where the gov't sets the 'ticket price' at $2.25 / $2.50 but the actual 'all in' cost of paying NYC transit personnel, maintaining track and rolling stock etc. is closer to a $6.00 'ticket price'. Part of this 'shortfall' in self-funding is made up for by taxes imposed on US federal / NY / NYC residents that eventually find their way to the NY Transit Authority. Another part of this 'shortfall' is made up for by dedicated NY motor fuel tax on gasoline and diesel fuel ( the vast majority of which must be paid for by suburban and rural NY residents who don't have access to the NY Subway or any gov't mass transit system).Much of the subsidization of rail is redirected highway user fees.
HSR faces a similar public policy dilemma. If HSR were to be operated on a break even self-funding basis, the ticket prices would have to be so high that they could not successfully compete with commercial air or private vehicle costs - meaning that America would have a shiny new high speed train that virtually nobody can 'afford' to ride. If HRS were to be operated in typical subsidized fashion, fares would be reduced to economically competitive levels ( in fact the Acela just lowered fares due to declining passengers ) but the shortfall in ticket revenues versus actual operating costs and payroll costs would have to be made up for by US taxpayer subsidies on a permanent basis.




^ Correctamundo. Generally fares pay for something like a quarter of the cost of government transit. If it were funded by fares alone, they would be unjustifiable to most people and the "underprivileged" would be driving, cycling or walking. As it is though, the general population do pay for it all. Transit users, a small percentage of the population, have the remainder of the real, full cost of their rides paid for by all taxpayers. If everyone were to use transit, however, everyone would be paying the full cost or their rides in fares plus tax. The more people who use transit, the closer we approach this situation.
BTW Randal O'Toole, the Cato Institute researcher mentioned in the OP, has a website and a blog and has published some good books on the subject of autos and transit.
http://ti.org/
http://ti.org/antiplanner/
http://www.cato.org/people/randal-otoole
NYC Subways and commuter rail lines like Metro - North and the L.I.R.R. are heavily subsidized by bridge and tunnel tolls. Cars and trucks using the VN and other TBTA bridges and tunnels subsidize rail riders. There are also direct Federal , State and City subsidies for rail systems.
While I still like trains (and Eagle has raised some legit points in favor of HSR) on balance I am very leery of spending hundreds of billions on such a system. To date, nobody has been able to show that such a system could possibly show a profit. Except for the existing Acela served corridor.
Now a subsidized system, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. If , and ONLY if , there are demonstrable and tangible corollary benefits. What are they ?
Job creation ? Questionable and once the system is in place, then what ?
Energy efficiency ? Maybe and ONLY if enough people actually USE the system. They will do so ONLY if the costs are competitive with other modes of travel.
Less pollution ? Yes. Trains are greener than cars , buses and planes. But again that is dependent on enough people forgoing plane and auto travel in favor of switching to HSR.
Now when these nebulous and questionable benefits are stacked against the enormous cost, the wisdom of such an investment becomes highly questionable at best. COMMUTER rail still gives a much better bang for the buck. Reducing traffic in and to major cities has a demonstrable impact on both fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. As I see it, it just makes much more sense to put our limited resources into improving existing commuter rail.





Somewhat related to the topic at hand. How ironic is this?
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/03/19...train-station/
"never trust a big butt and a smile"-- Bell Biv DeVoe
If you're in your twenties and aren't a liberal, you have no heart. If you're in you're forties and aren't a conservative, you have no brain - Winston Churchill





^^^ yup, a mere 5.7 million ( = 14%, which is less than similar gov't projects ) over budget, and with 20 million in US federal taxpayer money already in hand the state of Delaware taxpayers now being on the hook for both the 4.7 mill cost overrun plus the states original 20 mill match to the federal funds. The construction contractors have already received their 'prevailing wage' payment, and the gov't employee Amtrak and TSA workers will continue to receive their $100,000 a year pay + benefit packages forever.
As to Acela, the ONLY profitable semi-high speed rail line in the USA, for a fact it is no longer profitable. The reason for this is that Amtrak has chosen to reduce Acela fares from ~$160 to ~$100 in an effort to counteract declining passengers.





Highways are subsidized.
http://subsidyscope.org/transportati...hways/funding/
Using Federal Highway Administration statistics, Subsidyscope has calculated that in 2007, 51 percent of the nation's $193 billion set aside for highway construction and maintenance was generated through user fees—down from 10 years earlier when user fees made up 61 percent of total spending on roads. The rest came from other sources, including revenue generated by income, sales and property taxes, as well as bond issues.





Last edited by eagle2; 03-20-2011 at 10:27 PM.









(snip)Amtrak is temporarily cutting fares on the Acela Express in response to the sagging economy, which has driven ridership down as people travel less on the service that connects Boston and Washington, D.C.
The company is offering a 25-percent reduction on its lowest one-way fares for travel starting March 3. Travelers will now be able to book business-class tickets on the Acela Express between Boston and New York for as low as $79 and between Washington and New York for $99. The tickets must be booked 14 days in advance. They are nonrefundable, though they can be exchanged.
Amtrak also cut the price of a one-way business-class ticket on the Acela Express from Providence to New York to $74.
Amtrak’s nationwide ticket sales haven’t dropped significantly during the economic downturn. They were down only 0.4 percent this past January compared with January 2008.
But sales of tickets on the Acela Express, the company’s high-end service on the Northeast Corridor that includes Rhode Island, have been substantially affected. In the four-month period since the end of Amtrak’s last fiscal year, from October to January, the number of travelers dropped 10.3 percent.
And the decline may be accelerating. Ridership this past January was 13.8 percent lower than it was in January 2008.
Amtrak spokesman Clifford Cole attributed the drop to the economic recession. Companies are slashing their travel budgets and reducing payroll.
“We’re seeing companies either cutting that out of their operating budgets or having people laid off,” Cole said.
The Acela Express was hit so hard because it relies heavily on business travelers moving between Boston, New York and Washington. (snip)
from
- point one unless Acela was previously operating with a 25%+ profit margin it is now losing money under the reduced fare structure
- point two the vast majority of Acela's actual ticket buyers were / are inter-city business travellers ... where shorter travel times versus higher ticket prices is a 'cost of doing business' ( and thus deductible as a legitimate business expense tax deduction i.e. a quasi-subsidy ).
Excellent article in today's N.Y. Times about Congressman Mica from Florida securing billions in Federal funds for a rail line that directly benefits CSX and will serve about 2,000 rail passengers per day. This is AFTER Governor Scott turned down Federal funds for a highly questionable HSR project that duplicates an existing Interstate. What the article doesn't say ( preferring to focus on Mica, a Republican and the crony capitalism benefitting CSX ) is WHY Obama's Transportation Dept. and a DEMOCRAT Senate is going along with this spendthrift lunacy ?





Then you did not pass through security and you didn't pay the walk up fare. Unfortunately, security eats up time and the walk up fare is the fare. If you travel on short notice, as I did, that's what you'd have to pay. The Amtrak fare is also the walk up fare.
My last Amtrak trip was on time and the air conditioning worked well. Further, the lounge had a very nice latte and a cute waiter. We won't discuss the flying grandma's that USAirways calls flight attendants.The first and last time I tried the Amtrak route it was 45 minutes late getting me there, and the air conditioning in the car they told me to ride in was out the whole way.
Z
Bookmarks