Here in Florida the Republican governor has told Congress he doesn't want the 2 billion dollars to start building a high speed rail system and refused to accept their offer. The Democrats have challenged his decision in the courts saying he wasn't allowed to do that. I'd say that if a system, like the high speed train, wasn't economically viable, why then should it be MADE to be built? The Democrats want it built because they only see the short term of putting a few thousand people to work but the Governor sees the long term affects of having to maintain, staff and keep adding more and more onto the system which makes the future costs exceed 10 billion dollars! That money has to come from taxes which we really don't need more of here in Florida.

If high speed rail was a profitable way of making money then a PRIVATE company would have built it by now but alas the private companies don't see much profits only headaches for the costs to operate such a train are very very expensive and tickets would be very high, more than average citizens could afford. So private companies have passed on building this waste of money train system but the Democrats only want to make it happen because they want more people on the governments payroll to keep them getting more new voters.

This system, to me , isn't going to help very much since it will only be operating to and from two locations in the middle part of the state. The distance it covers would be about 100 miles or less. From Tampa to Orlando is the location then they want to add on another link, MORE MONEY of course from where? This isn't a very smart way to go and should be scrapped and just put on a regular rail system if they want to for that short of a distance is stupid to build a high speed rail with. :mad:

Passenger railways are not financially self-supporting in America. Judging from the analyses I've read, it's generally (although quietly) conceded that they probably never will be. Everyone loves riding the train to work instead of driving, and everyone else is delighted to have those people off the highways. But nobody wants to actually pay for it.

In my experience in the Washington region, it is more expensive to ride the Metro to work than to drive alone, even with the massive government subsidy. The exception is in the city center where parking fees are prohibitive.

My wife and I went to New York once and we took the Greyhound. It was about half the price of AmTrak, only about thirty minutes longer, and the bus company makes a profit!

It just sems such a waste of money to build any projects like this because once it is built it costs more and more to supply it with funds to keep it running. Every project that the government has built has always gone over budget to build and up keep after it was built never was covered by the revenues it was taking in and therefore cost the taxpayers more and more to keep working.

Good, this was a stupid idea. Who the hell needs to go from Tampa to Orlando? The whole high speed train idea isn't a good use of public money when it could go to rebuilding our passenger train system.

Good, this was a stupid idea. Who the hell needs to go from Tampa to Orlando? The whole high speed train idea isn't a good use of public money when it could go to rebuilding our passenger train system.

But the Democrats are trying to bring legal action to make the governor take the friking money! That's what the problem is now.

They are supposed to be buliding a high speed rail in California that spans from Los Angeles to San Francisco. Getting from LA to SF in only 2.5 hours sounds awesome, if the tickets were affordable. At first I thought they weren't going to build one in California either, but I've met the guy who is charge of purchasing the real estate for it and another who is in charge of the high speed rail's marketing research, so I guess that means that California does intend to go through with it. The woman in charge of marketing said that she forsees a lot of profit in it especialy for the cities that the train will stop in...as long as the ticket price is affordable. It can cost more than driving, but no where near as much as a plane ticket. But with gas being so high, it'll probably all around the same price as driving :D minus the stress of an 8 hour car ride.

They are supposed to be buliding a high speed rail in California that spans from Los Angeles to San Francisco. Getting from LA to SF in only 2.5 hours sounds awesome, if the tickets were affordable. At first I thought they weren't going to build one in California either, but I've met the guy who is charge of purchasing the real estate for it and another who is in charge of the high speed rail's marketing research, so I guess that means that California does intend to go through with it. The woman in charge of marketing said that she forsees a lot of profit in it especialy for the cities that the train will stop in...as long as the ticket price is affordable. It can cost more than driving, but no where near as much as a plane ticket. But with gas being so high, it'll probably all around the same price as driving :D minus the stress of an 8 hour car ride.

What do people do when they arrive at their destination? How do they get around without transportation of their own besides renting another car or taxi.

But the Democrats are trying to bring legal action to make the governor take the friking money! That's what the problem is now.

The governor objects to it too, but for the wrong reasons.

The governor objects to it too, but for the wrong reasons.

But it is up to him to veto the idea. The Democrats say he doesn't have that right. The Florida laws give him that right. No matter what the reasons are, he makes the decisions, he was voted in by the majority of people.

What do people do when they arrive at their destination? How do they get around without transportation of their own besides renting another car or taxi.

In Modesto ( I think it's Modesto, it's some city in the Central Valley that starts with an M) where the central stop will be, they can't at the moment because it is a little town in the middle of no where, but it will probably boom because of the train. In San Francisco or LA you can easily take the bus or train. I do it all of the time in LA. I can get pretty much anywhere, there is a bus stop on every street. It isn't fun or convenient, but it can be done.

But it is up to him to veto the idea. The Democrats say he doesn't have that right. The Florida laws give him that right. No matter what the reasons are, he makes the decisions, he was voted in by the majority of people.

Actually, I think he doesn't have the power to refuse money from the fed.

Actually, I think he doesn't have the power to refuse money from the fed.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) sought Wednesday to have a lawsuit filed against him over federal high-speed rail money dismissed because he said he is allowed to reject it by virtue of his election.

Scott was responding to a lawsuit filed by a bipartisan pair of Florida state senators on Tuesday. They want to force Scott to accept $2.4 billion in federal money to build a high-speed railway from Tampa to Orlando.

Scott said the law that allows the Department of Transportation to offer Florida the money also gives him the ability to decline it.

“Petitioners ignore that the federal government has declared it will only transmit these funds to Florida if the governor expresses unequivocal and unqualified support for high-speed rail,” Scott said in his petition to dismiss the lawsuit.

http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/railroads/147069-florida-governor-says-hes-allowed-to-reject-federal-high-speed-rail-money?page=2

Good, this was a stupid idea. Who the hell needs to go from Tampa to Orlando? The whole high speed train idea isn't a good use of public money when it could go to rebuilding our passenger train system.

Never going to happen.

The existing system is too expensive to operate, trains simply are not very convenient, offer no great advantage over cars for short distances and fail completely compared to planes on long distances.

Consider if I live in Atlanta and my wife and I want to go to Charlotte.
Well Charlotte's 220 miles away and so round trip on a car will use about 15 gallons of gas, at $4 gal = $60, plus $60 wear and tear = $120 and take 4 hours to drive, but when I arrive, I've got a car to get us to the hotel and the sites we want to see, and we can leave and return on our schedule.

If I take the train, then I've still got to drive to the train station and pay to park the car, the train only runs once a day and leaves Atl at 8:30 at night and doesn't get to Charlotte till 1:38 in the friggin morning, which considering the time to drive to the train station means the trip time is over 2 hours longer by train and there is no flexibility since there is only one return train, at an early departure time of 2:45 in the afternoon, so our day is cut short.
As to cost, for both of us it will be $208, or about $88 more then the car trip, but once I rent a car in Charlotte and pay for an extra night because of the trip times I'll actually be out another several hundred dollars.

What if I want to go to DC though?
This time just me, so I'll fly.
Same train, just once a day, but now the cost is $236, but the travel time is a whopping 14 hours (and this means sleeping overnight in a seat unless I want to pay an exorbitant amount for a bed).
So I check the airlines and find I can get there 12 hours earlier, have many more choices of flight times, and the cost is less than $70 more. Considering the time and all the extra meals, it's highly likely that I'll come out even but I won't be nearly as sore from sleeping in a seat for several days if I took the train.

And so on.

With a few exceptions, long distance intercity passenger trains in the US simply don't make much sense anymore.

Arthur

You say it's never going to happen, but that's just present economics. They will make more sense in the future, when gas is $10 per gallon or more (that affects aviation fuel too). And schedules could be increased in frequency to make up for the demand. Local trolleys could replace the rental cars. There is no reason why getting a bed on a train should be that much more, trains can haul far more weight than airplanes for less money.

Getting from LA to SF in only 2.5 hours sounds awesome, if the tickets were affordable.

You can already do that, using these things called "airplanes." It's a 70 minute flight from one airport to the other, so leaving an hour and change to get through security and board your flight you end up with a travel time of around 2.5 hours.


It can cost more than driving, but no where near as much as a plane ticket.

Plane tickets between those two cities should only cost you about $75 each way, and take about the same amount of time. Going by car only works out to be cheaper if you only consider the cost of gas, don't place any value on your time, or carpool. I doubt very much that the proposed rail system will ever be cheaper than flights between those cities - the advantage will be boarding without having to go through annoying TSA security, novelty, etc. If you have multiple people travelling, it will almost certainly never come anywhere close to being competitive. And it won't be any faster than flying.

Mass transit/high speed rail are for relatively-compact areas with very high population densities. Once you get outside of a compact area, planes are way faster and cheaper. What they ought to do is build a high-speed rail connecting Santa Barbara to San Diego. If I could get from SD to LA in under 1 hour, that would be useful - planes and cars can't do that. Connecting SoCal to the Bay Area sounds great, but overlooks the hundreds of miles of uninhabited land between the two - better to just fly over that.

What do people do when they arrive at their destination? How do they get around without transportation of their own besides renting another car or taxi.

SF is a rather compact, dense city and so has pretty serviceable public transit. LA is improving in that regard (there is a subway, and bus service is extensive), but at the end of the day is a sprawl city that mostly requires a car to really get around conveniently.

You say it's never going to happen, but that's just present economics. They will make more sense in the future, when gas is $10 per gallon or more (that affects aviation fuel too). And schedules could be increased in frequency to make up for the demand. Local trolleys could replace the rental cars. There is no reason why getting a bed on a train should be that much more, trains can haul far more weight than airplanes for less money.

No it's not going to happen because tracks are so sparce that the frequency of travel in either direction is very limited, the time it takes is way too long and the accomodations are seriously behind the curve (I can email on the plane while there is no such thing available on the much longer train ride).

As far as your contention of getting a bed on a train not being expensive, guess again, to take that same trip from Atlanta to DC but reserve a "roomette" (very tiny), would make the cost go up to $806 and that would still take 14 hours, versus $302 by plane and just 2 hours. If I actually wanted a bedroom, then the cost would soar to $1,236.

http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak

So make gas $10 per gallon and up the plane fare double to account for that and the plane is still a bargain in cost, time, flexibility and comfort.

And if gas is $10 a gallon the cost of the train fare would go up as well, so like it or not the era of the train in the US is over.

Local trolleys will never replace a rental car as far as flexibility goes, they are stuck to just high density corridors, but by definition, cities are sprawling entities which is why Hertz, Avis, Budget, Enterprise, Dollar, National etc etc are all doing good business in every major city.

Arthur

That's why we need to lay more track. In most cases, the right-of-ways are still there.

You have hit on the problem which isn't cars per se, it is sprawl. It is a development model that doesn't have a future.

That's why we need to lay more track. In most cases, the right-of-ways are still there.

They can't actually afford to maintain the track that is already laid. Indeed Amtrack is granted rights to track that is not theirs, but to double the lines when there is no demand at all for the seats on the existing trains makes no sense at all.

They are TOO SLOW to work in the US. The distances we need to go, city to city, except in the NE, are just too far for our slow trains to be effective and the cost of upgrading the track and equipment for high speed trains is way too expensive (the Obama Admin is going to try, but their $8 Billion is just a teaser amount, the actual cost would be far far higher to implement)

Consider the quite short (84 miles and over flat land) Tampa to Orlando high speed rail line was projected to cost $2.7 Billion and the gov turned down $2.4 Billion form the feds to build it mainly because the state would be on the hook for any cost over-runs (and there are always cost over-runs) and worse, the annual cost to run this money sucking pig, since no rail system of it's kind has ever paid it's own way.


You have hit on the problem which isn't cars per se, it is sprawl. It is a development model that doesn't have a future.

Yeah, that's a problem when you have 48 contiguous states, but it's one we have to live with.

But there is no sense cussing out the fact that our county is HUGE and our big cities are generally a long way from each other and learn to deal with the issues it brings.

Arthur

They can't actually afford to maintain the track that is already laid. Indeed Amtrack is granted rights to track that is not theirs, but to double the lines when there is no demand at all for the seats on the existing trains makes no sense at all.

They are TOO SLOW to work in the US. The distances we need to go, city to city, except in the NE, are just too far for our slow trains to be effective and the cost of upgrading the track and equipment for high speed trains is way too expensive (the Obama Admin is going to try, but their $8 Billion is just a teaser amount, the actual cost would be far far higher to implement)

Consider the quite short (84 miles and over flat land) Tampa to Orlando high speed rail line was projected to cost $2.7 Billion and the gov turned down $2.4 Billion form the feds to build it mainly because the state would be on the hook for any cost over-runs (and there are always cost over-runs) and worse, the annual cost to run this money sucking pig, since no rail system of it's kind has ever paid it's own way.



Yeah, that's a problem when you have 48 contiguous states, but it's one we have to live with.

But there is no sense cussing out the fact that our county is HUGE and our big cities are generally a long way from each other and learn to deal with the issues it brings.

Arthur

Slow is still better than nothing, the efficiency is there, nothing can really beat it except for sailboats.

The size of our country is no excuse for sprawl. There was no sprawl when we lived in small towns which are spread out all across this country.

Slow is still better than nothing, the efficiency is there, nothing can really beat it except for sailboats.

But nothing is not ever going to be the situation.
Indeed, even with gas at $10 a gallon Air travel still beats Amtrack hands down because the cost of running a train system is far higher than the cost of the fuel.

The fact is all of Amtrak's long-distance routes lose money. According to the GAO these routes account for 15% of riders but 80% of the losses, what's worse is the service is horrible, for their long distance routes the on-time performance is just 42% (75% were more than an hour late,25% were more than three hours late)


The size of our country is no excuse for sprawl.

Too bad.
But we live where we live and houses have well over 100 year life expectancies so that's just something we have to deal with.

I'd think that a train that travels at over 100 MPH will do just fine. Why is it we need a high speed train to go under 100 miles? Just find out the cost of a normal train and try to develop that. The costs for normal trains would cut the projects cost at least in half and that way the extra billion dollars could be used to reduce the deficit that the state of Florida is running now. :shrug:

Passenger railways are not financially self-supporting in America Highways and cars aren't self supporting. Neither are airports, actually, if the cost of getting to them is included.

Any major transport system that is self supporting is far underbuilt - the externalized benefits are huge, so charging the full cost to the direct user distorts the market badly.

Passenger railways are not financially self-supporting in America. Judging from the analyses I've read, it's generally (although quietly) conceded that they probably never will be. Everyone loves riding the train to work instead of driving, and everyone else is delighted to have those people off the highways. But nobody wants to actually pay for it.

Same is true of highways. Everyone wants to use them - but everyone expects them to be free. At least they charge to use Amtrak.

Same is true of highways. Everyone wants to use them - but everyone expects them to be free. At least they charge to use Amtrak.

Not at all.

We are charged to use our roads


Users of the highway passenger transportation system paid significantly greater amounts of money to the federal government than their allocated costs in 1994-2000.

In other words we paid MORE for our roads then they cost us.

In 2007, motorists and truckers paid $39.3 billion in fuel tax revenues and excise taxes into the trust fund but received only about 60 percent of those revenues in the form of federal spending on general-purpose roads. 20% of our fuel tax money was diverted to subsidize Transit systems.


Between 1990 and 2002, transit received the largest amount of net federal subsidy, increasing from $5.09 billion to $7.31 billion (Figure 1), an increase of 3% per year. Next to passenger rail, transit received the next highest net federal subsidy per thousand passenger-miles for the period, averaging $118.26 in year 2000 chained dollars

And as far as Passenger rail goes, the subsidy is, like for transit, exhorbitant on a per passenger mile basis.


Passenger rail received the largest subsidy per thousand passenger-miles, averaging $186.35 per thousand passenger-miles during 1990-2002

http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/pdf/entire.pdf

Arthur

“
Users of the highway passenger transportation system paid significantly greater amounts of money to the federal government than their allocated costs in 1994-2000.
”
In other words we paid MORE for our roads then they cost us. You are overlooking the State and local costs, associated infrastructure, the original construction including eminent domain and land use etc, the police and emergency services, and most of all the cost of the cars etc.

You are also including all the fuel tax and so forth, much of which was not devoted to federal road travel.

I'm not overlooking anything Ice, I used the BTS report which is damn complete.

State roads are primarily paid for by state taxes, but they are paid for by the users of them, which is the point, they aren't free, we do pay for them and indeed our annual fuel fees more than cover the cost of our highways.

Too bad.
But we live where we live and houses have well over 100 year life expectancies so that's just something we have to deal with.

I think you are being rather optimistic about modern construction methods. We will have no choice about it, either find another way to live or rot in a suburban wasteland.

I think you are being rather optimistic about modern construction methods.

Nope.
Having lived in a 200 year old house, a 100 year old house and a 30 year old house, I know I'm not being optimisitic. The 30 year old house will last at least as long as either of the other two, and possibly longer for the simple reason that it was built on a better foundation, from longer lasting materials and is far more energy efficient. Indeed, go look at houses for sale and you will find there is no problem getting a 30 year mortgage on a 1950s era house (assuming you qualify).


We will have no choice about it, either find another way to live or rot in a suburban wasteland.

Based on what logic?

Arthur

Same is true of highways. Everyone wants to use them - but everyone expects them to be free. At least they charge to use Amtrak.

Right - I've been told (sorry, no link handy) that the percentage of operating costs paid directly by actual users is much higher for passenger rail than for freeways or planes. Apparently rail is the only one in which an actual majority of the costs are actually paid directly by the people using the system to travel. For highways, its only something like 40% (and shrinking).

Having lived in a 200 year old house, a 100 year old house and a 30 year old house, I know I'm not being optimisitic. The 30 year old house will last at least as long as either of the other two, and possibly longer for the simple reason that it was built on a better foundation, from longer lasting materials and is far more energy efficient.

The same cannot be said of houses from 10 and 20 years ago, though. The trend has gone in the other direction, in the intervening decades.

Same is true of highways. Everyone wants to use them - but everyone expects them to be free. At least they charge to use Amtrak.

Did you know that Amtrack has always been losing money since it was built? It needs allot to keep it going and they don't increase fares so that they don't lose those who use it for if they did increase those fares to keep up with operatting costs no one would be able to afford to ride it. :mad:

Right - I've been told (sorry, no link handy) that the percentage of operating costs paid directly by actual users is much higher for passenger rail than for freeways or planes. Apparently rail is the only one in which an actual majority of the costs are actually paid directly by the people using the system to travel. For highways, its only something like 40% (and shrinking).

Well whoever told you that was pulling your leg.


Users of the highway passenger transportation system paid significantly greater amounts of money to the federal government than their allocated costs in 1994-2000.

In other words we paid MORE for our roads then they cost us.


In 2007, motorists and truckers paid $39.3 billion in fuel tax revenues and excise taxes into the trust fund but received only about 60 percent of those revenues in the form of federal spending on general-purpose roads. 20% of our fuel tax money was diverted to subsidize Transit systems.

From the BTS (the keeper of these kind of statistics)

Between 1990 and 2002, transit received the largest amount of net federal subsidy, increasing from $5.09 billion to $7.31 billion, an increase of 3% per year and the net federal subsidy for Transit per thousand passenger-miles averaged $118.26

Passenger rail received the largest subsidy per thousand passenger-miles, averaging $186.35

http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/pdf/entire.pdf

The same cannot be said of houses from 10 and 20 years ago, though. The trend has gone in the other direction, in the intervening decades.

Says you.

Indeed, there is no reason to believe that a house, properly maintained, would EVER need to be replaced.

I mean what do you think deteriorates in a house that would cause it to NOT last 100+ years?

Arthur

Well whoever told you that was pulling your leg.

The data is from the Federal Highway Administration:

http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/highways/funding/

Note that the percentage of highway funding coming from user fees and taxes was at 50% 4 years ago, and has been declining rapidly.



In other words we paid MORE for our roads then they cost us.

In 2007, motorists and truckers paid $39.3 billion in fuel tax revenues and excise taxes into the trust fund but received only about 60 percent of those revenues in the form of federal spending on general-purpose roads. 20% of our fuel tax money was diverted to subsidize Transit systems.

From the BTS (the keeper of these kind of statistics)

You misread: that source says that user fees and taxes for highways exceed the federal subsidies for such. But federal subsidies don't account for the entire cost of the highways - they only pay a fraction of the cost, and that fraction has been steadily decreasing. The difference is covered by state and local government, which is much less reliant on road user fees for covering those costs. The result is that less than half of the costs of highways are paid for through user fees and taxes. That the taxes might well cover the subsidies is a red herring - the subsidies never accounted for anything like a majority of the costs, and have been in steep decline to boot.

Indeed, there is no reason to believe that a house, properly maintained, would EVER need to be replaced.

Ill-posed: to "properly maintain" a house is to systematically replace every component of it as they wear out. People likewise have very old cars that "live forever," but attain that by replacing every single component of the car repeatedly over the years.

The question, then, is how quickly the parts of the house wear out and require replacement. A castle hewn from stone can go a long time before needing serious replacements. A hastily-constructed McMansion made of cheap wallboards and cheap, stapled-on roofing is a different story. Housing construction - especially during the recent boom - resembled the latter more so than the former.



I mean what do you think deteriorates in a house that would cause it to NOT last 100+ years?

What component of a modern American house doesn't deteriorate at such a rate?

The data is from the Federal Highway Administration:

http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/highways/funding/

Note that the percentage of highway funding coming from user fees and taxes was at 50% 4 years ago, and has been declining rapidly.

You misread: that source says that user fees and taxes for highways exceed the federal subsidies for such. But federal subsidies don't account for the entire cost of the highways - they only pay a fraction of the cost, and that fraction has been steadily decreasing. The difference is covered by state and local government, which is much less reliant on road user fees for covering those costs. The result is that less than half of the costs of highways are paid for through user fees and taxes. That the taxes might well cover the subsidies is a red herring - the subsidies never accounted for anything like a majority of the costs, and have been in steep decline to boot.

Except as your report shows ~20% of our user fees for the roads are diverted to pay for Mass Transit (and some to lower the Deficit) and thus the actual value of fees to roads is 80%, the fact that they then have to be made up by the states doesn't meant the fees weren't collected, just not allocated. And Bonds, need to be added in because that's the way money is typically borrowed to finance road projects, and voters ok them knowing that a portion of their taxes will then pay off the bonds, so user fees and bonds are about 90% of the costs, the rest are from general funds.

In contrast Amtrack passengers are subsidized at $186.35 per thousand passenger miles, and it was your contention that they paid for most of the costs, but that of course is not true, which is why Amtrack is always losing bundles of money and moving just a tiny percent of the passengers.

See page 89 of the GAO report on the waste of money that goes by the name of Amtrack.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06145.pdf

Arthur

Ill-posed: to "properly maintain" a house is to systematically replace every component of it as they wear out. People likewise have very old cars that "live forever," but attain that by replacing every single component of the car repeatedly over the years.

The question, then, is how quickly the parts of the house wear out and require replacement. A castle hewn from stone can go a long time before needing serious replacements. A hastily-constructed McMansion made of cheap wallboards and cheap, stapled-on roofing is a different story. Housing construction - especially during the recent boom - resembled the latter more so than the former.
What component of a modern American house doesn't deteriorate at such a rate?

Total BS.
A house is not the same as a car, most parts don't move or wear out.

The FRAME of a house doesn't deteriorate.
The Electrical system in a house doesn't deteriorate.
Kept painted, the outside of a house doesn't deteriorate.
The Shingles on the ROOF of a house do deteriorate, but are simply replaced every 25 years or so.
The HVAC system is replaced every 20 years or so.
Wallboard is NOT structural.

Etc etc.

Instead of your assertions, back it up and show where house prices are fallling based on the AGE of the house.

Arthur

Except as your report shows ~20% of our user fees for the roads are diverted to pay for Mass Transit (and some to lower the Deficit) and thus the actual value of fees to roads is 80%, the fact that they then have to be made up by the states doesn't meant the fees weren't collected, just not allocated.

Not particularly relevant - even if 100% of user fees and taxes were allocated to highway subsidies, it still wouldn't cover the entire cost of the highways. Not even close - the federal subsidies have never paid for more than a fraction of the costs, and this fraction has been decreasing. This means that highways require additional subsidies from other sources (non-users, the general funds of states/localities) in order to operate.



so user fees and bonds are about 90% of the costs, the rest are from general funds.

Those bonds are subsidies from local and state governments, paid for by the general taxpayer. That they account for a big portion of the costs of highways is exactly my point - the money paid directly by actual users of the roads isn't anywhere close to covering the costs.



In contrast Amtrack passengers are subsidized at $186.35 per thousand passenger miles, and it was your contention that they paid for most of the costs, but that of course is not true, which is why Amtrack is always losing bundles of money and moving just a tiny percent of the passengers.

Nothing you've written there addresses the question of what percentage of Amtrak's costs are covered by fares. That the per-passenger-mile subsidy is higher than in the case of roads only implies that maintaining Amtrak is more expensive than maintaining highways - which is not a useful comparison, considering that the cost of maintaining Amtrak includes the cost of the trains, while the cost of maintaining highways does not include the cost of the cars themselves.

The assertion that Amtrak fares cover 62% of Amtrak costs comes directly from Amtrak's own accountants (along with the government's):

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1246041980246



See page 89 of the GAO report on the waste of money that goes by the name of Amtrack.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06145.pdf


That Amtrak operations could be improved is beside the point - even with all of those problems, they are less reliant on subsidy than highways are. Fix Amtrak up, and they'll be on a level of self-sufficiency that the highway system cannot hope to ever catch.

Total BS.
A house is not the same as a car, most parts don't move or wear out.

Maybe where you live. Where I live, house parts are designed to move, so that they do not collapse during earthquakes.

The structural parts, that is. You go on to list a variety of mechnical devices included in any house that do wear out like any comparable machine.



The FRAME of a house doesn't deteriorate.

Yes it does. Not as quickly as other parts (supposing you avoid problems like water rot or termites), but this is organic material you're talking about.



The Electrical system in a house doesn't deteriorate.

Yes it does. Copper wire corrodes, and the various bits of actual electrical machinery have even more finite lifetimes.



Kept painted, the outside of a house doesn't deteriorate.

Yes it does. There are all kinds of things that deteriorate house exteriors which paint does nothing to prevent.



The Shingles on the ROOF of a house do deteriorate, but are simply replaced every 25 years or so.

Like I said.



The HVAC system is replaced every 20 years or so.

Like I said.



Wallboard is NOT structural.

So what? The issue was not "structural elements of a house" but simply "a house." The point being, again, that "proper maintenance" includes the regular, wholesale removal and replacement of major components.



Instead of your assertions, back it up and show where house prices are fallling based on the AGE of the house.

There are well-publicized examples of recent housing developments losing huge chunks of value when it's revealed that the construction materials used were cheap and shoddy. And in every real-estate market I've encountered, the price of a very new home exceeds that of a comparable one that is a decade or two older. If house deterioration was not an issue, we'd expect to see little such dependence on the ages of houses.

Houses are (more-or-less) made to last a long time. That is not the same thing as "an indefinite time."

Maybe where you live. Where I live, house parts are designed to move, so that they do not collapse during earthquakes.

Not the same thing. The parts don't move UNLESS there is an earthquake.
Not to mention that is a quite unique building technique that is NOT done in most of the country, which is what we are talking about.


The structural parts, that is. You go on to list a variety of mechnical devices included in any house that do wear out like any comparable machine.

But their price is low compared to the house, so people fix the HVAC or reshingle the roof, they don't scrap the house.


Yes it does. Not as quickly as other parts (supposing you avoid problems like water rot or termites), but this is organic material you're talking about.

So, nothing eats it but termites and you can prevent those. Dried pine studs will last nearly indefinately if kept dry.


Yes it does. Copper wire corrodes, and the various bits of actual electrical machinery have even more finite lifetimes.

No it doesn't. Copper forms an oxide coating that precludes more corrosion. The wires in my house are 100 years old and will last another 100 years.


Yes it does. There are all kinds of things that deteriorate house exteriors which paint does nothing to prevent. Like what? You are of course wrong since there are plenty of houses well over 200 years old, protected by nothing but paint the entire time. I've lived in a 200 year old wood house protected by nothing but paint.



So what? The issue was not "structural elements of a house" but simply "a house." The point being, again, that "proper maintenance" includes the regular, wholesale removal and replacement of major components. again, the cost of these is small compared to the house cost, so they are replaced.




There are well-publicized examples of recent housing developments losing huge chunks of value when it's revealed that the construction materials used were cheap and shoddy.

Different issue, and limited in scope.


And in every real-estate market I've encountered, the price of a very new home exceeds that of a comparable one that is a decade or two older. If house deterioration was not an issue, we'd expect to see little such dependence on the ages of houses.

Of course a new house of comparable size and amenities and location would go for more than one 20 years old, all the systems are brand new and warrented, but still not by that much, and what's more is the 20 year old home and the 40 year old home, of comparable size and location, are likely to sell for the same. Houses are NOT discounted heavily because of age, in fact after a while age can start to make them appreciate, my 100 year old house is worth quite a bit more than any new house of the same size simply because of the style and craftsmanship and because all the key mechanical parts have been updated.


Houses are (more-or-less) made to last a long time. That is not the same thing as "an indefinite time."

Well I didn't say indefinite, I said that houses built now would be around for 100 years, and they will be.

Arthur

Here in Florida the Republican governor has told Congress he doesn't want the 2 billion dollars to start building a high speed rail system and refused to accept their offer. The Democrats have challenged his decision in the courts saying he wasn't allowed to do that. I'd say that if a system, like the high speed train, wasn't economically viable, why then should it be MADE to be built? The Democrats want it built because they only see the short term of putting a few thousand people to work but the Governor sees the long term affects of having to maintain, staff and keep adding more and more onto the system which makes the future costs exceed 10 billion dollars! That money has to come from taxes which we really don't need more of here in Florida.

If high speed rail was a profitable way of making money then a PRIVATE company would have built it by now but alas the private companies don't see much profits only headaches for the costs to operate such a train are very very expensive and tickets would be very high, more than average citizens could afford. So private companies have passed on building this waste of money train system but the Democrats only want to make it happen because they want more people on the governments payroll to keep them getting more new voters.

This system, to me , isn't going to help very much since it will only be operating to and from two locations in the middle part of the state. The distance it covers would be about 100 miles or less. From Tampa to Orlando is the location then they want to add on another link, MORE MONEY of course from where? This isn't a very smart way to go and should be scrapped and just put on a regular rail system if they want to for that short of a distance is stupid to build a high speed rail with. :mad:

:bawl:Aww man, I really wanted to see a 2 mile train in a 1 mile tunnel. :bawl:

Not particularly relevant - even if 100% of user fees and taxes were allocated to highway subsidies, it still wouldn't cover the entire cost of the highways. Not even close - the federal subsidies have never paid for more than a fraction of the costs, and this fraction has been decreasing. This means that highways require additional subsidies from other sources (non-users, the general funds of states/localities) in order to operate.

True, but since virtually EVERYBODY uses the roads so Bonds are in effect user fees.
In contrast, ONLY 78,000 people ride Amtrack each day. A relatively tiny percent of the population are being heavily subsidized by the rest of us.


Those bonds are subsidies from local and state governments, paid for by the general taxpayer. That they account for a big portion of the costs of highways is exactly my point - the money paid directly by actual users of the roads isn't anywhere close to covering the costs.

Except your point makes no sense since virtually everybody uses the roads every day. Indeed, Trucks carried 8,336 Billion dollars worth of goods, weighing 8.779 Billion tons around the country in 2007, so the net is that everyone makes use of the roads in the US every day, and only a very small percent have ever used Amtrak.



Nothing you've written there addresses the question of what percentage of Amtrak's costs are covered by fares. That the per-passenger-mile subsidy is higher than in the case of roads only implies that maintaining Amtrak is more expensive than maintaining highways - which is not a useful comparison, considering that the cost of maintaining Amtrak includes the cost of the trains, while the cost of maintaining highways does not include the cost of the cars themselves.

The fact that users provide their own cars just adds to the fact that the cost of the highway transportation system is funded primarily by users. We fund about 85% of the road costs via fees (yes I know that 20% of our fees don't make it to the roads, but that's just an accounting trick), and the cost of the cars and trucks on the highway is totally borne by the users.


That Amtrak operations could be improved is beside the point - even with all of those problems, they are less reliant on subsidy than highways are. Fix Amtrak up, and they'll be on a level of self-sufficiency that the highway system cannot hope to ever catch.

LOL, in your dreams.
Trains are slow, inconvenient and only go to limited locations, so no they are never going to replace our highway system.

After spending a small fortune on Amtrack it handles a piddly 78,000 riders per day and we have to subsidize that at over $180 per 1,000 passenger miles.

To put the Amtrak's piddly ridership in perspective, just ONE airline (Delta) flew nearly twice as many passengers per day (132,000) out of just ONE airport (Atlanta) than all of Amtrak.

Arthur

Not the same thing. The parts don't move UNLESS there is an earthquake.

And since we have earthquakes with considerable frequency, this adds up to them moving around with some regularity.



Not to mention that is a quite unique building technique that is NOT done in most of the country, which is what we are talking about.

It's used in considerable portions of the country (CA accounts for 10% of the country's population, after all), and in particular is overrepresented in recently-built housing (which is the issue - the new home construction has been disproportionately in the southwestern part of the country, and not back in the earthquake-free east coast or whatever).



But their price is low compared to the house, so people fix the HVAC or reshingle the roof, they don't scrap the house.

You mean that the price is low compared to the price of replacing the house. That isn't the same thing as being low compared to the value of the house - rather, it's because it's low compared to the value of the property. A house is a steadily-depreciating asset - after some decades, it typically contributes negatively to the value of the property (because potential buyers would demolish the house after buying the property). That an HVAC system is cheaper than an entire new house, does not mean that the existing house (independent of the property it sits on) is particularly valuable.


Like what? You are of course wrong since there are plenty of houses well over 200 years old, protected by nothing but paint the entire time. I've lived in a 200 year old wood house protected by nothing but paint.

That some unspecified (but small) percentage of houses from 200 years ago have survived intact, does not imply that the average house built today will last 200 years. It doesn't even imply that the houses from 200 years ago could be expected to last that long - most did not.



again, the cost of these is small compared to the house cost, so they are replaced.

Again, that's compared to the cost of replacing the entire house, not compared to the value of the house. After a while, the value of the house itself becomes about equal to the sum of such replacements.



Different issue, and limited in scope.

You say that, but without any data. Entire subdivisions were constructed with substandard Chinese drywall - the thing about a real estate bubble is that you build a ton of nearly-identical housing all at once. Any flaw in the system then gets repeated systematically, on a wide scale, before it can even be detected.



Of course a new house of comparable size and amenities and location would go for more than one 20 years old, all the systems are brand new and warrented, but still not by that much,

Which illustrates exactly that houses depreciate.



and what's more is the 20 year old home and the 40 year old home, of comparable size and location, are likely to sell for the same.

Support that statement with some actual data.



Houses are NOT discounted heavily because of age, in fact after a while age can start to make them appreciate, my 100 year old house is worth quite a bit more than any new house of the same size simply because of the style and craftsmanship and because all the key mechanical parts have been updated.

On the contrary, houses (as opposed to the property they sit on) depreciate steadily. It only takes about 50 years, on average, for a house to contribute negatively to the value of a property (because it's a tear-down). I.e., you would get a better price for your property if you were to first demolish and remove the house that sits on it.

The historical houses that eventually gain value are the exception that proves the rule, there - and as you note, such value has as much to do with the use of superior construction that current houses lack, and the replacement of all of the stuff that depreciated and wore out.



Well I didn't say indefinite,

You said exactly this:



Indeed, there is no reason to believe that a house, properly maintained, would EVER need to be replaced.

To which I replied that such "proper maintenance" involves essentially replacing the entire house piecemeal. A point is reached at which the entire value of the house consists of the sum of the values of the various repairs and upgrades one has done - the original investment in building the house has dissipated.

True, but since virtually EVERYBODY uses the roads so Bonds are in effect user fees.

If you're going to pursue that sort of loony accounting, there's nothing at issue here. I.e., since everyone uses (either directly or indirectly) both the highway and rail systems, then any source of funding is "in effect user fees." In which case what is the relevance of comparing levels of subsidy - you're insisting that there is no such thing as subsidy.



In contrast, ONLY 78,000 people ride Amtrack each day. A relatively tiny percent of the population are being heavily subsidized by the rest of us.

Amtrak receives about $40 in federal funding per passenger. The highway system receives about $600 in federal subsidy per automobile. Federal expenditures on cruiseship safety and security outstrip the subsidies of Amtrak by a factor of 8.

But if you're bothered by the low ridership numbers, I'd remind you that my point is exactly that such service should be expanded.



Except your point makes no sense since virtually everybody uses the roads every day.

Nowhere close to "everybody" uses the roads in question (federally-subsidized highways) every day. Where I grew up, it required an hour of driving to even reach such a highway.



Indeed, Trucks carried 8,336 Billion dollars worth of goods, weighing 8.779 Billion tons around the country in 2007, so the net is that everyone makes use of the roads in the US every day, and only a very small percent have ever used Amtrak.

The appropriate comparison there would include rail freight, which, again, everyone depends on - it's the single largest component of our freight transport system. More freight is moved around the US on rail, than on trucks.



The fact that users provide their own cars just adds to the fact that the cost of the highway transportation system is funded primarily by users.

Not "adds to." You might be able to make the case that the users paying for the cars changes the accounting sufficiently to make user contributions more than half of the total. Without such a contribution, user fees account for less than half.



We fund about 85% of the road costs via fees

No, we don't. I've made this very clear already. It's only by pretending that bond issuances are a "user fee" that you can get such a misrepresentation.



LOL, in your dreams.
Trains are slow, inconvenient and only go to limited locations, so no they are never going to replace our highway system.

The issue was reliance on subsidy, you may recall.



After spending a small fortune on Amtrack it handles a piddly 78,000 riders per day and we have to subsidize that at over $180 per 1,000 passenger miles.

And yet, that amounts to a smaller percentage of their operating costs than is the case for highways.

But, to both that and the last one: expansion of Amtrak to offer greater services would address both ridership and economy of scale.



To put the Amtrak's piddly ridership in perspective, just ONE airline (Delta) flew nearly twice as many passengers per day (132,000) out of just ONE airport (Atlanta) than all of Amtrak.

So?

Have you ever taken a look at how heavily air transit is subsidized? Just the building of airports alone slurps up sums of public money that make the billion or so we give to Amtrak look like an afterthought.

Amtrak receives about $40 in federal funding per passenger. The highway system receives about $600 in federal subsidy per automobile.The study I've seen had a far differnt result, it compared the subsidy per passenger on Amtrak with the subsidy per driver on public roads:

Randal O'Toole, a Cato Institute fellow who studies transportation and is constantly cited by rail skeptics, likes to compare the total federal subsidies-per-passenger of rail to subsidies-per-passenger on highways. Amtrak got $2.2 billion in pure subsidies in 2010 and carried 28.7 million people, for around 13 cents per passenger, although some researchers estimate the annual cost at closer to 30 cents. Highways got $42 billion in funds in fiscal year 2010 but far more people use them; the estimate puts cost at between 1cent and 4 cents per driver.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-do-conservatives-hate-trains-2011-3#ixzz1GFFpywE4

The study I've seen had a far differnt result, it compared the subsidy per passenger on Amtrak with the subsidy per driver on public roads:

Anything from "Randal O'Toole, a Cato Institute fellow who studies transportation and is constantly cited by rail skeptics" is not the sort of thing that is credible to general audiences (or, informed ones, anyway).

Statistics using subsidy-per-passenger or per-passenger-mile confuse, in this context. I.e., both systems exhibit costs that include a substantial fixed-cost component as well as a use-proportional one. Which is to say that they are circular when it comes to addressing the question of how subsidy-reliant different transit modes would be if traffic were shifted from highway to rail. The per-user rail subsidies come out higher exactly because rail is under-utilized, and so the large fixed costs of maintaining the rails are only distributed over a small number of rail users. Conversely, the large fixed costs of the highway system are averaged over a large number of users. If the traffic shifts from one system to the other, that will affect the per-user subsidy rates - it won't cost twice as much to put twice as many passengers on trains, nor will it cost twice as little to put half as many drivers on highways.

So, I maintain that the total percentage of costs born by users is the relevant statistic here. Rail passengers already bear a larger percentage of the costs than do highway users, and this difference would only be magnified by increased passenger rail usage and decreased passenger highway usage. If the ridership was to switch (most everyone using passenger rail, few using highways), you'd find that the per-passenger rail subsidy would be lower than the current per-driver highway subsidy (and the total subsidy to rail would be smaller than the current total subsidy to highways, with the total subsidy to highways being likewise larger than the current total subsidy to rail).

If you want a reduced reliance on subsidy, you should be pushing rail over highways. The only reason that you can cook up misleading statistics to make rail look more subsidy-dependent than highways is exactly because rail is underutilized in favor of highways. The reason that CATO cooks up stats to mislead in this way - they're effectively in favor of more subsidies, despite being "libertarian" - is that they're funded by oil interests who have a vested interest in automobiles, and a disinterest in rail due to its vastly higher fuel efficiency.

And since we have earthquakes with considerable frequency, this adds up to them moving around with some regularity.

Oh BS, I used to live in LA, they don't happen with "considerable frequency"


It's used in considerable portions of the country (CA accounts for 10% of the country's population, after all), and in particular is overrepresented in recently-built housing (which is the issue - the new home construction has been disproportionately in the southwestern part of the country, and not back in the earthquake-free east coast or whatever).

NO
Nearly TWICE as much Single family housing was built in the South as were built in the West over the last 30 years.
While 15.468 million single family homes were built in the South, only 8.065 million were built in the West and not that many were built with earthquakes in mind. In total, the rest of the country built 3 times as many as the West.

http://www.census.gov/const/compann.pdf


That some unspecified (but small) percentage of houses from 200 years ago have survived intact, does not imply that the average house built today will last 200 years. It doesn't even imply that the houses from 200 years ago could be expected to last that long - most did not.

You have got to get around more, in most of the country we don't tear down old houses. I've lived most of my life on the East Coast and in towns from Boston, to Norfolk, to Atlanta to Miami, old houses are common, not the exception. Sure there are more newer houses, but that's because the population has grown so much, not because we tore down lots of old houses.


Again, that's compared to the cost of replacing the entire house, not compared to the value of the house. After a while, the value of the house itself becomes about equal to the sum of such replacements.

NEVER seen that happen.
I've seen where the value of the LAND becomes so high that relatively inexpensive houses on large lots are torn down to put much more expensive houses up on much smaller lots, but for the most part land doesn't become expensive enough that this is that common of an occurance.

Arthur

Oh BS, I used to live in LA, they don't happen with "considerable frequency"

Sure they do - they're outright routine. The huge earthquakes that cause freeways to collapse are relatively rare, but smaller ones that shake buildings happen weekly (sometimes daily).


only 8.065 million were built in the West and not that many were built with earthquakes in mind.

Essentially all houses in the west are built "with earthquakes in mind." This is because earthquakes are so common there as to make such a necessity - such is written right into the relevant building codes.


NEVER seen that happen.

Then I doubt very much that whatever time you spent living in Los Angeles resulted in any meaningful experience of the housing market there. Tear-downs are routine in LA.

Amtrak receives about $40 in federal funding per passenger. The highway system receives about $600 in federal subsidy per automobile.

Quit changing between passengers and vehicles. One car carrys far more passengers further than that average Amtrak passenger.

Indeed, when looked at by the VALID comparison of subsidy per thousand passenger miles, Amtrak is at $180 and for road vehicles its a small fraction of that.

Indeed, the non-user fee portion of roads was 94 Billion in 07, but when divided by vehicle miles on the roads that comes to $31 per thousand miles, but vehicles average more than one passenger, so highways have far more utility for the same cost. (take vastly more people, more places whenever they need to go)



Nowhere close to "everybody" uses the roads in question (federally-subsidized highways) every day. Where I grew up, it required an hour of driving to even reach such a highway.

Yes they do, because they use the products that are shipped on them.
As I pointed out, the value of the freight on the highways dwarfs the railroads. If you eat, you depend on our highways to get your food to you.



The appropriate comparison there would include rail freight, which, again, everyone depends on - it's the single largest component of our freight transport system. More freight is moved around the US on rail, than on trucks.

As I pointed out, by far the value of goods shipped on the highways dwarfs that of rail ($8,336 Billion to $436 Billion by rail), but we are talking about Amtrak and they hardly ship anything.
The only thing freight rail competes with is Tons per mile (because of all the coal shipments), but even then Road tons per mile is almost exactly the same as Rail Tons per mile (~1,340 Billion ton miles for both in 2007)

In any case, rant all you want, but Amtrak is going nowhere and won't be any more important to our transportation needs in a decade as it is today.

Indeed, if it stopped tomorrow by a wide margin, most people in the US would not notice it at all.

Arthur

Sure they do - they're outright routine. The huge earthquakes that cause freeways to collapse are relatively rare, but smaller ones that shake buildings happen weekly (sometimes daily).

BS, I lived in LA for quite a few years and only felt one small earthquake the entire time, and my house, built in the 50s, had no moving parts.


Essentially all houses in the west are built "with earthquakes in mind." This is because earthquakes are so common there as to make such a necessity - such is written right into the relevant building codes.

Yeah, but they don't say what you claim they do:

Wood Frame Buildings
A frame building is made of wood and is the optimum type of construction to resist damage in earthquake prone areas. Planks are secured to the floor with anchor bolts and the framework of the home is built upwards with wooden planks. Wood and siding panels are attached to the framework with nails and screws, followed by the roof joists and the roof. When an earthquake occurs, the entire structure moves from side to side. Steel framing anchors should be installed throughout the framing to reinforce every joint.

So NO, there are NO MOVING PIECES, the entire structure moves SIDE TO SIDE.

http://www.ehow.com/info_8028552_basic-designs-earthquake-prone-areas.html


Then I doubt very much that whatever time you spent living in Los Angeles resulted in any meaningful experience of the housing market there. Tear-downs are routine in LA.

So? As I pointed out, more than 3 times as many houses were built in the rest of the country then the West and LA is just one part of the West.

The fact is, as I've stated MOST of the houses built in the last 30 years will be around 100 years from now, and nothing you've shown indicates otherwise.

Arthur

Here in Florida we are fortunate to not have any earthquakes but hurricanes are our main problem.

Having grown up in Southern California, I can agree with adoucette, that earth quakes seemed realtively rare.

I experienced one large one when I was very young, but not any I can remember since. "Daily small earthquakes" is definitely an over exaggeration. Maybe you mean you can measure it with a seismometer, but the average person definitely does not feel it.

I lived in Calif. for awhile and felt little tremors a few times, not full earhquakes that would cause much damage but shakes that would make you take notice.

Having grown up in Southern California, I can agree with adoucette, that earth quakes seemed realtively rare.

I experienced one large one when I was very young, but not any I can remember since. "Daily small earthquakes" is definitely an over exaggeration. Maybe you mean you can measure it with a seismometer, but the average person definitely does not feel it.

Agree.

Here's the intensity map that is commonly used:

http://quake.abag.ca.gov/shaking/mmi/

They don't even map below V on this scale because as they point out at the high end of IV the impact to structures is the same as a heavy truck going by.

Then here's the archive of earthquakes MMI V or greater

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/dyfi/archives.php?query=mmi+v&search=Search+Archives

Arthur

One car carrys far more passengers further than that average Amtrak passenger.

Farther, maybe, but more passengers? It could, but most of the cars I see on the road have only a single occupant.



Indeed, when looked at by the VALID comparison of subsidy per thousand passenger miles, Amtrak is at $180 and for road vehicles its a small fraction of that.

Asked and answered, in the first place. But I'll remind that the issue was supposed to be subsidy reliance - what percentage of costs is born by subsidy - and not the size of subsidies as such.



(take vastly more people, more places whenever they need to go)

Putting the cart before the horse, when it comes to the question of transportation policy. The question is whether to expand rail to handle lots more passengers and locations - that rail needs expension is an obtuse response in that context.



Yes they do, because they use the products that are shipped on them.
As I pointed out, the value of the freight on the highways dwarfs the railroads. If you eat, you depend on our highways to get your food to you.

Who cares about the value of the freight?

And doesn't rail's dominance in low-value freight imply exactly that it's the cheaper, more efficient way to get freight around?



The only thing freight rail competes with is Tons per mile (because of all the coal shipments), but even then Road tons per mile is almost exactly the same as Rail Tons per mile (~1,340 Billion ton miles for both in 2007)

So you agree that we are all at least dependent on rail freight as road freight? If you use electricity, you depend on rail to get the coal to your power plants.



In any case, rant all you want, but Amtrak is going nowhere and won't be any more important to our transportation needs in a decade as it is today.

Amtrak's ridership has been growing at like >12% year-on-year for several years running now.



Indeed, if it stopped tomorrow by a wide margin, most people in the US would not notice it at all.

That being exactly the observation that prompts the question of whether we could do with more rail service.

Farther, maybe, but more passengers? It could, but most of the cars I see on the road have only a single occupant. LOL, you do know though that the average number of occupants is >1 though.


Asked and answered, in the first place. But I'll remind that the issue was supposed to be subsidy reliance - what percentage of costs is born by subsidy - and not the size of subsidies as such.

And the amount of subsidy per passenger mile is HIGHEST for rail.



Who cares about the value of the freight?

And doesn't rail's dominance in low-value freight imply exactly that it's the cheaper, more efficient way to get freight around?

Because our economy works on VALUE.
Not saying we don't need Freight lines, but they aren't AmTrak either.
Indeed, Amtrack uses the Freight lines for almost all their track outside the Northeast corridor.



So you agree that we are all at least dependent on rail freight as road freight? If you use electricity, you depend on rail to get the coal to your power plants. Freight Rail works for high weight, low cost, low priority shipment of raw materials, never said it didn't, but that's NOT Amtrak. Indeed, the Postal service stopped using the Rails in the early 60s, and for good reason, they were too slow.

AmTrak however tried to run a "Mail and Express" package service, but discontinued that in 2005 (in the final year the service lost $13 million (see 2006 Annual Report)).


Amtrak's ridership has been growing at like >12% year-on-year for several years running now.

Untrue.
According to their 2009 Annual report, traffic in 09 was DOWN 1.5 million passengers from 2008
Worse, a more important metric, Passenger miles shows anemic growth. It wa 5.56 Billion miles in 01, and just 5.90 Billion miles in 09, which is a growth rate of less than 1 percent per year, just about the same as the US population growth. Or in otherwords, no relative growth at all.
Also problematic, as far as costs to maintian a nationwide system goes, is that over 50% of their passenger load is only on 3 of their routes.


Outside the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak is a niche player in passenger transportation. In 2003, Amtrak accounted for just 0.1% of U.S. intercity passenger miles (5,680,000,000 out of 5,280,860,000,000 total, of which private-automobile travel makes up the vast majority). In fiscal year 2004, Amtrak routes served over 25 million passengers, while, in calendar year 2004, commercial airlines served over 712 million passengers.

So a 10% increase in Amtrak ridership represents but a 3/10ths of a percent of Airline riders, which is why talking in percent for Amtrak is silly. But Amtrak did not post 12% year on year ridership increases as suggested, indeed, from 2002, to 09, the average increase has been small both from an absoulute value (< 800k more passengers per year) and from a percent value ~3%.


That being exactly the observation that prompts the question of whether we could do with more rail service.

Passenger rail has a few natural corridors, where city to city traffic is high and the distances aren't that far, which we could possibly justify improvements with higher speeds on dedicated tracks, but outside of those limited corridors, in general passenger rail is too slow, too unreliable, too inconvenient and not less expensive than alternate means.

Arthur

Annual reports http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241245669222

IMO, a high speed rail system in most part of the United States would not make sense. There are some parts of the country where density may be high enough to warrant such a system, but there is no way to conclusively prove it either way.

Take for example, a recent HSR project: The Taiwan Highspeed Rail (THSRC).

From an article on the California High Speed Rail Blog:

In a major development with plenty of importance for the California High Speed Rail project, Taiwan’s high speed rail project generated an operating profit in 2009. Of course, HSR lines across the world routinely generate operating profits, so Taiwan isn’t breaking any new ground here.


Taiwan’s HSR system has been faced with financial problems since it opened in 2007, requiring a costly government bailout of the private investors who fronted the system’s operating costs. These problems, an artifact of a flawed overreliance on private funding, were frequently cited by HSR critics as proof the California system isn’t financially viable.


But if Taiwan can turn an operating profit even with these bigger financial problems, it validates the basic concept that HSR does indeed attract significant levels of ridership that can cover the trains’ operating costs – as is mandated here in California by Prop 1A

In short, the article is saying that a HSR in California could succeed, because it did in Taiwan despite a mountain of issues. Note, the THSRC FINALLY turned a profit in 2009 (slower then anticipated)

However, I think a huge point missed by the article is: California (and the US) is not Taiwan!

For one, the population density of Taipei, Taiwan ranks among the worlds highest! Taipei is at number 7 in the world per "citymayors.com" statistics. There are a huge number of residents working in the Taipei area who frequently need to return home in the southern part of the island.

Even with this, it still took THSRC longer than expected to reach ridership goals. At this point, most people I know STILL prefer to drive rather than take the THSRC because:
1. Factoring in the ticket prices vs. Fuel, the cost are about the same. (Probably slightly in favor of THSRC now).
2. Once you get to your destination, you still have a car to drive! That makes a huge difference.

Summary: IMO, Most of the US is not suitable for HSR systems due to it population distribution.

On a Personal Note: I have taken the THSRC a few times and it is quite fast. The ride is very quiet and quite comfortable. However, the only reason I took it was to save time. The ticket prices are very high compared to normal rail. Given enough time, I would rather take the normal rail system or drive.

However, I think a huge point missed by the article is: California (and the US) is not Taiwan!

For one, the population density of Taipei, Taiwan ranks among the worlds highest! Taipei is at number 7 in the world per "citymayors.com" statistics. There are a huge number of residents working in the Taipei area who frequently need to return home in the southern part of the island.

It's not just the population density itself, but also the small size of the island. Using the high-speed rail, it's perfectly feasible to commute from one end of the island to the other - the entire island is only about 200 miles long, so a high-speed train does it in just over an hour (including several stops).

SF and LA are twice that far apart. Even if we doubled the population (to match Taiwan's density), it's still going to be prohibitive to use the rail for a business day trip from one city to the other.



Even with this, it still took THSRC longer than expected to reach ridership goals. At this point, most people I know STILL prefer to drive rather than take the THSRC because:
1. Factoring in the ticket prices vs. Fuel, the cost are about the same. (Probably slightly in favor of THSRC now).
2. Once you get to your destination, you still have a car to drive! That makes a huge difference.

That second one does make sense to me - everywhere I've been in Taiwan had excellent, pervasive public transport. Cars were only required to get to/from the airport, or home from bars at wee hours. And driving there is an absolute nightmare - don't know why anyone would drive in Taiwan if they could avoid it.



On a Personal Note: I have taken the THSRC a few times and it is quite fast. The ride is very quiet and quite comfortable. However, the only reason I took it was to save time. The ticket prices are very high compared to normal rail. Given enough time, I would rather take the normal rail system or drive.

Yeah, I mostly took it for the novelty. Nothing like eating a nice strong pot cookie and then slumping into a window seat with a Pocari Sweat and fried pork lunch box, followed by a nice afternoon along the riverside in Kaohsiung :]

But with gas being so high, it'll probably all around the same price as driving minus the stress of an 8 hour car ride.We've spent almost our entire lives in California, minus my current stint in the Washington region, which is the only place there's work in America. LA to SF was always a six-hour drive, as long as you didn't time it to hit rush hour in either place. What's wrong with your car, dude? Or are you taking the slow scenic route up US-101 instead of Interstate-5?

If agreeing with most of you here,isn't it ironic how high speed rail is to costly,wasteful and maybe even very ignorant for use in the US.All the while the existing US rail freight and later the electrified rail freight is most likely the most cost effective,least wasteful and even the smartest form of moving freight/cargo? Both rail but both different like night and day.

According to the University Of Wisconsin:

Construction of an Electrified Steel Interstate in the United States is an essential step towards building an affordable, reliable, sustainable transportation system in an oil-constrained future. The national security, economic, and engineering reasons to do so are compelling:

1) If/when the United States is confronted by oil shortages again, such a system would play a vital role in moving food and other essential goods and services.

2) Costs of constructing, maintaining, and repairing highways for interstate trucking are approximately four times greater than the same kinds of costs for railways.

3) Fuel taxes and fees from freight trucking cover less than one-half the costs of highway wear and tear caused by these vehicles.

4) Railways can accommodate much heavier loads and operate at higher speeds than highways.

5) Semi-trucks on highways use more than four times as much energy per ton-mile of cargo as diesel-powered freight trains; and with double-stacked containers on rail, the energy use differential increases to nine times as much energy per ton-mile of cargo using trucks.

6) Electrification of freight railway service can provide a 60-67% reduction in energy use from diesel power pulling the same load, and use domestic electricity instead of imported oil.

The vision Drake and his colleagues offer leverages the synergies between electrified rail service with creation of the Smart Grid, distributed generation, greater usage of renewable electricity, and proven energy storage strategies. A comprehensive, modernized freight rail system – in conjunction with electrification and followed by expansion of higher-speed passenger rail service where appropriate – would employ currently-available technologies and be justified by quick pay-backs on investment.

In order for the Electrified Steel Interstate to become a reality, the electric utility industry will need to work closely with government and the rail industry to achieve a progressive electrification of the railways, synergistic use of common rights of way, provision of advanced signaling and control mechanisms, and mobilization of currently stranded renewable wind power.

As interesting as I find trucker culture...yeah, we need to be moving the vast bulk of our stuff by rail.

And high-speed rail, while it would be nice...we just need cross-country rail, period. When the planes go away, that's what we'll be using.

In my city, we desperately need above-the-grade ordinarily-fast commuter rail (think 60-65 mph, with limited stops) and more ways to get around the sprawl we have without using our cars...

But the politicians seem bent on giving us either buses-which take forever to get you anywhere...or one on-grade train that was outrageously expensive and has done nothing to get people in from the 'burbs more efficiently than the freeways.
When I lived in town, I basically beat the bus downtown to my college in terms of travel time...on a seven-speed bicycle...:mad:

Meanwhile, the new toll road is finally done...:soapbox:

As interesting as I find trucker culture...yeah, we need to be moving the vast bulk of our stuff by rail.


Not really.

Rail is great over flat land for HEAVY products like Ore, raw chemicals and Coal but sucks going over mountains and for relatively light weight consumer goods and is next to useless for perishable goods.

Which is why we use if for what it's good for and don't for what it's not.

If you think that rail is more efficient, remember rail can't go up steep inclines and so routes are longer than a truck route and rail lines can only carry but so many trains so you don't dispatch short trains for long distances, thus they aren't timely (the USPS stopped putting mail on trains nearly 50 years ago) and finally, most trains make the RETURN trip empty.

A coal train takes coal down from the mountains to the communities that burn it but the communities don't have anything for the coal train to take back to the mountains. Same with chemical tankers, car carriers etc etc.

Trucks on the other hand, being much smaller are more suitable to moving so much of our products that aren't produced in train sized lots and being smaller they can be dispatched much more often and deadhead much less frequently.

We need both Trains and Trucks, and each fills its own unique niche.

Arthur

While I agree that trains are needed for freight and passengers, flying is much easier and quicker than trying to bring high speed trains on line any time soon. The costs are really through the roof when building high speed trains and maintaining them is also very expensive as well. That's why regular trains or monorails could be used for inter state travel and intra state should go with planes for the speed and cost. Monorails should be considered only if their costs are in line with regular trains but perhaps a little higher because of the elevated system it would require. But the elevated system should have less maintenance than normal train tracks and wouldn't interfere with ground bases cars and trucks that much. A regular train today can exceed 120 MPH without trouble so they should be considered as primary movers within the states.:)

Trains aren't beating out automobiles/trucks in Europe which has a substantially better existing rail system then we do, so why do you think it would work in the US since we would have to build so much more infrastructure since with rare exceptions we are so much less densely populated than Europe?

Here's the figures on Frieght (in Billons of tons per kilometer) in EU-27

Mode 1995 2007 growth
Road 1288 1914 49%
Sea 1146 1532 34%
Rail 386 453 17%

So the net is just the GROWTH in Road cargo in this short period exceeded the total amount of rail cargo.

Arthur