Congress to President Obama: HSR Needs Dedicated Funding Source
As high speed rail advocates prepare to launch a nationwide campaign to advocate for more federal funding in the FY 2011 budget, nearly 100 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have signed a letter to President Barack Obama calling for the creation of a permanent and dedicated funding source for high speed rail, starting with $50 billion in the upcoming transportation bill reauthorization.
House $50 Billion for HSR letter
The key section:
We need to build on that momentum [recent HSR funding]; we stand ready to help move your vision of high speed rail closer to reality. But given budget constraints, we cannot continue to rely on general authorizations and appropriations to finance high speed rail. We need to identify a dedicated revenue source for high speed rail, and we need your help to do that.
One of the lead authors on the bill was Florida Democrat Corinne Brown. The list of signers includes the following Californians: Jane Harman, Bob Filner, Howard Berman, John Garamendi, Judy Chu, Jackie Speier, Sam Farr, Barbara Lee, Zoe Lofgren, Loretta Sanchez, George Miller, Joe Baca and probably others whose signatures I couldn’t easily make out.
A House subcommittee approved the funding last summer, but that work has languished as President Obama and Congressional leaders have stalled action on a transportation bill. Meanwhile, Amtrak is also seeking long-term funding, another worthy goal that should also be included in the reauthorization bill.
The stumbling point is how exactly this would be funded. The obvious answer is a higher gas tax. The federal gas tax of 18 cents a gallon hasn’t been raised since 1993, and fails to keep the highway trust fund full, not to mention leaving enough for HSR. During the first term of the George W. Bush administration, Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta proposed increasing the gas tax to stabilize the highway trust fund, only to be shot down by the president. As a result, the federal gas tax has failed to keep pace with inflation. (One might also note this means that highways are subsidized by tax dollars and do not pay for themselves, which nobody bats an eye about; yet when this happens with rail, it’s somehow a sign that we shouldn’t run passenger trains.)
An extra 10 or 20 cents a gallon wouldn’t be noticed by most drivers, especially if it were phased in over 2-3 years as was recently done in Washington State. More importantly, a higher gas tax would actually result in most Americans spending less money on gas, as the tax revenue would fund the development of more affordable mass transit options.
Of course, with Democrats facing a tough re-election battle in November 2010, their leaders have become very wary of going anywhere near a gas tax. Democratic leaders have a habit of becoming very scared and hesitant whenever the right-wing attacks them on taxes, and refuses to make the case as to why taxes actually benefit people and, for the overwhelming majority of the population, save them money.
As oil prices begin another upward trend, the need for mass transit and high speed rail alternatives is only growing. Now – 2010 – is the time for Congress to act to fix our crumbling infrastructure, put people back to work, and save Americans money by getting us off of oil dependence. HSR advocates are going to make this case beginning tomorrow, and we’re going to keep making it until we win the long-term federal funding we need.
America – and high speed rail – are worth paying for.
Do they give any reasons why they “cannot continue to rely on general authorizations and appropriations to finance high speed rail”?
If we can finance the Iraq and Afghan wars from general authorizations and appropriations, I fail to see why we need a dedicated source of funds for building railroads.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 25th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Because unfortunately, Middle East wars are still seen as vital to our national security, whereas sustainable transportation and energy independence aren’t. It’s absurd and self-defeating, but it’s also a reflection of the American government’s priorities.
The House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee held a hearing last week (Apr. 20) on high speed rail grants awarded under the stimulus. I haven’t had a chance to watch the hearing yet but presumably funding for high speed rail in the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization bill was discussed. The prepared testimony by the witnesses is available on the Committee’s website: http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/hearingDetail.aspx?NewsID=1154 .
This is really our number one concern…nimby are pest like flys.. Without a solid source of funds over the next 8 years we will have real trouble for a 2019-20 start up. We need 4.5 billion a year 2014-2017
Only a true dedicated funding stream will bring us the 12Billion in private funds to finsh the system. The money is there ..We need the heart..I hope the President comes thru and stops thinking about the loud mouths that did not vote for him nor ever will
I’d support a gas tax, but I don’t drive so its easy for me. The problem with a gas tax besides being difficult politically is that its not fair to burden working class people who are already barely making ends meet, most of whom must drive to work, to shoulder such a financial burden. Its not their fault they are stuck on an endless treadmill of paying bills, working at low paying jobs, and needing a car to maintain access to their meager livelihoods. Its easier for people who make 50, 60, 100k or more a year in professional jobs to wax philosophical about the environment and transportation policy, but the millions of americans who work for 7,10, 15 bucks an hour can’t afford the burden. And now days there’s a lot more americans making less than more.
Still, isn’t it odd that we can spend so much on unfunded wars, but the basics needs of americans as they pertain to our quaility of life… the quality of life stuff for the poor working stiff, go unmet. When it comes to the basics here at home, its always cries of poorhouse from washington. i’ll bet if you go to washington dc, you’ll find that car dealerships, limo drivers, ball gown designers, and jewelers are all doing just fine.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 1:50 am
It all depends on what the government does to promote driving alternatives. If it funds and helps manage mass transit systems that can make it realistic for the working class to ditch the car, then it won’t be as bad.
Alternatively, think of it this way: the lack of a pollution tax is effectively a subsidy for drivers. I’d rather the government subsidized poor people directly, through work training or welfare or education, instead of just subsidizing their driving.
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 3:36 am
I don’t know for California, but in France financing public transit on gasoline tax would be very unfair. The less developped regions have the highest car ownership. Not because people love cars but because they have no other choice. No car, no job.
Parisians, on the other hand, can afford (like Jim) the luxury of not owning a car. So, an additional gasoline tax would amount to tranferring money from the poor to the rich.
Howard Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
It seems that a jet fuel tax would be a far more fair way to raise money for High Speed Rail that a gasoline tax. A far higher percentage of all airplane trips would be replaced by HSR than the far lower percentage of automobile trips replaced by HSR. Most auto trips are short and local, not served by HSR. Most airplane trips are long distance; therefore, are more likely to be replaced by HSR trips. A gas tax is appropriate for highway and local transit funding, but a jet fuel tax would be more approporiate for High Speed Rail funding.
HSRforCali Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
The problem is the that airlines would fight it to the death and would never allow this to pass. Don’t forget Southwest Airlines alone managed to help kill both the Texas and Florida HSR plans from the 1990s.
Peter Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Given how poorly the airlines are faring right now, that might kill a number of them off.
Joey Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Would they be missed?
tomh Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
When you need to fly from SF to NY, or SF to London, HSR won’t be much of an option. So, yes, the airlines might be missed.
Bianca Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Why not both? Burning dead carbon is burning dead carbon, whether you are in a jet or in a car.
ks Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 11:41 pm
It is said that CO2 emitted by jets at high attitude has a bigger impact on the environment. However, airlines are already doing their best to reduce fuel consumption. It is not fair to punish them with gas tax. In any case, they would simply transfer the cost to the travelers.
Bianca Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 10:35 am
It’s interesting that you frame it as “not fair to punish them with a tax”- the way I see it, a tax on burning dead carbon allocates more of the true costs to the party in the best position to avoid those costs. Our tax code is used to shape policy goals all the time; it’s not punishment.
Every tax on fuel gets passed on to consumers. I don’t see how “they would simply transfer the cost to consumers” is a meaningful argument against making the true cost of burning dead carbon reflected in in its price.
tomh Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Of course they would transfer the cost to the travelers. But that would make HSR even more competitive. But I agree that taxing jet fuel at this point might not be a good idea.
jimsf Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 11:58 pm
now I’m hungry for bar b que.
Jathnael Taylor Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 7:00 am
I drive, and I am a car nerd. I am also for a gas tax, and to make all highways toll ways.
Alex M. Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 10:08 am
Oh no, no, no. All highways being tolled would be absolutely horrible. There’s a reason it only exists on the east coast.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 11:02 am
It exists on the East Coast and Midwest partly because the East Coast and Midwest decided to make them self financing. The rest of the country decided to suck tax money from the East Coast and Midwest and build themselves some Interstates… for national defense…
Peter Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 11:04 am
Ironically, for national defense of moving goods, the railroads are much better. You just can’t land fighter jets on railroads.
jimsf Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
hehe yes, id love to see what landing a fighter jet on the 405 on a saturday afternoon would look like. Would they use the car pool lane?
tomh Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Yes, for national defense. But it’s hard to argue that the maze of freeways in the LA area are for national defense. :-)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Yes it was, the DEW line was going to detect the Russian bombers coming over the Arctic Ocean, we were all going to hop in the car and drive to someplace safe from the blast and upwind from the fallout. Then semi accurate ICBMs were perfected and both sides built enough of them that there wouldn’t be anyplace upwind. But by then the highways had been built.
Peter Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Is that like duck and cover?
Me, I’d rather go out on the rooftop and party at ground zero than have to live through the hell that would be post-WW III.
tomh Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
LOL. If we think LA traffic is bad now, imagine everyone getting in their cars to escape the nuclear blast.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Fortunately, the Governor can escape with John Connor on a motorcycle at night.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 11:29 am
Totally disagreed. We need to start tolling highways. I wrote about this at Calitics last August.
Alex M. Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
But it would be such an inconvenience and cause tons of traffic jams for something which could just be added to our taxes. We’d have to build toll booths everywhere, which would cost billions. I guess I’m ok with paying for highway use, but just not AT the highway.
Ben Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
The gas tax, although good at generating revenue, is almost entirely ineffective in managing congestion on our highways. The amount of the gas tax is the same whether it is 5 PM on the 405 or 4 AM with no congestion. Most of the trips on highways are discretionary and pricing these trips to reflect scarce capacity will encourage marginal users (driving to the supermarket or the beach) to make trips in offpeak hours (non rush-hour). The amount of the tolls can vary depending on the level of congestion, with the toll rising during more congested periods and falling when there is plenty of capacity on the highways. The key for this to work, however, is that at least some of the revenue from tolls/congestion pricing has to be reinvested back in transit, so people have reasonable options to commuting in private vehicles during congested periods.
Tolls don’t have to cause traffic jams. Many highways have entirely automated toll collection systems that don’t require motorists to stop and don’t require a toll collection bureaucracy.
jimsf Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
FAstRAk works very well in cali to my knowledge. You barely have to slow down.
tomh Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
With open road tolling, there are no toll booths, no traffic jams, and doesn’t cost billions to implement. In fact, it makes money. This is already being done all over the world.
tomh Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Agreed. Something like this open toll road outside Chicago would be ideal. The Benicia bridge has similar open toll lanes. No need for drivers to stop or even slow down.
tomh Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Yes, yes, yes. All highways should be “open toll” roads. Highways should pay for themselves and people need to realize the true costs of driving up front.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 8:05 am
Here’s the thing: gas prices are going up no matter what. I would be amazed if we ever saw prices under $2/gal for a sustained period ever again. So why not have some of that increase go toward funding the construction and operation of more affordable means of transportation? Otherwise all the increase does is go into oil company executives’ pockets.
Missiondweller Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 9:21 am
“we can spend so much on unfunded wars”
True, but we can also spend nearly $1 Trillion on a “stimulus” with virtually nothing to show for it.
One party refuses tax increases while the other spends freely on things that add nothing to our national infra structure or makes us any more energy independent. There’s plenty of blame to go around.
tomh Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 10:06 am
A) It’s $792 billion to be more precise. B) Not even half of the money has been spent yet. C) Nothing to show for it? The economy is improving.
That said, I’m disappointed that a larger chunk of that money hasn’t been spent on infrastructure projects like HSR. That would certainly be something to show for it that’s more tangible.
jimsf Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
The stimulus money was agood thing and we do have stuff to show for it. Much of it went to update stuff that had fallen behind, and kept people employed who would have been laid off, Ive noticed all around san francisco, that roads are being paved for instance ( even while the icty is broke) its little stuff, long overdue, but it needed to be done. Sure there’s no big signature project, but work is work and improvements are improvements. If a guy who works for michigans highway department gets to keep his job and feed his family, then to that guy, the stimulus was worth it. These are small stories and they get no press coverage, but the stimulus is working. and by the way everyday it seems the economic indicators point to a recovery, nothing spectacular but a recovery none the less. And its important to remember that those go go boom years that we all got so used to- that was an anomaly not the norm and not healthy. It should not be like that to begin with. We are best off with a stable, predictable economy, than a spectacular one that leads people to take leave of their senses.
Bobierto Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 10:04 am
Any time a tax is created but not indexed for inflation, they are just deferring problems. The gas tax should be raised and then indexed for inflation. But to the extent that gas taxes are meant to support roads specifically, more taxes need to be imposed on trucks and other commercial transport, as they place a greater strain on the road system.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 1:22 am
Gas taxes need to be indexed to whatever problem they’re trying to solve. Specifically:
- Pollution taxes should be indexed to the amount of pollution cars generate. For example, if an innovation produces the same pollution reduction as catalytic converters, then cars that install it should be allowed to access gas at a lower tax; if this innovation spreads quickly, then the tax should just be reduced.
- Carbon taxes should be indexed to the best available estimates for the level necessary to achieve the required emissions reductions. Currently, the consensus is about $1/gallon. If this is implemented and in ten years the consensus is revised in either direction, taxes should be modified in accordance.
- Military protection taxes should be indexed to the cost of military protection of oil sources. Because military spending is effectively a race between countries for the bigger military, this means it should be indexed to GDP.
- Road repair taxes should come from a VMT tax, where each vehicle’s tax is proportional to its number of axles times the fourth power of the load per axle. In practice, this means cars should pay cents per year, and trucks and buses should pay a lot more than they’re paying now. (The real reason buses sometimes appear cheaper than light rail is that they don’t pay the full maintenance cost of their infrastructure.)
jimsf Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 10:37 am
Another problem would be how to implement the gas tax because as people switch to more economical cars as prices go up, and / or cut down on their driving, revenue from the gas tax goes down. ( this happens with taxes on cigarettes as people quit smoking after the increased cost)
you base it on miles instead of gallons, it can still drop as people drive less. I really like the idea of toll roads and here’s why.
Currently transit is in part subsidized by tax money, and in part, by passengers paying a fare. Make driving the same way. At least the interstate system to start with. Fund with taxes, but also make drivers pay a token amount into a fare box ( toll gate) at least then its more equitable.
Nathanael Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Eh, a gas tax is a fine idea: in four years everyone will be buying electric cars.
Of course that means we’ll need some other way to fund transportation, so I suggest *capital gains tax*.
If you go to the National Train Day web site Amtrak talks about the past, present and future of train travel.
http://www.nationaltrainday.com/trains/future/
“People have long speculated about the next phase of train travel. Whether futuristic visions or those grounded in reality, like high-speed travel, the discussion is clear: train travel will continue to increase in the U.S, led both by Amtrak and others. And now with trains becoming more publicly recognized as a more energy-efficient way to travel, both civilian and government support is likely to grow. In fact, President Obama recently announced his support for projects that focus on high-speed rail development. Whether this means the building of new rail lines or the upgrade of existing routes, train travel in the U.S. is poised for a significant change – a new era that combines transportation, new rail technologies and energy efficiency to make train travel a 21st-century experience. Look forward to the journey into the future.”
At least they’re confident.
Scribd is all very well, but can we have a OPDF version as well so we can zoom in wihout needing to scroll sideways.
(This isn’t because my screen is small, it’s because the layout has a fixed width)
Dan Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 7:42 am
Agreed … but if you just view in full-screen, then zooming isn’t a problem.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 8:06 am
We could, if you’d tell me a little bit about what OPDF is and how one can be created easily.
Nathanael Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
So many of those names are really hard to read. Who’s that guy on page seven whose signature looks like a large oval, with no letters at all? Or the one on page six which looks like a squiggle?
Keep in mind that the 2009 Business Plan indicates a $1B operating surplus (on paper), and that number is shrinking. That number also does not include capital costs. While not including capital costs is allowed (ignored) under AB 3034, it is not good business practice. As the cost of the project increases and the operating surplus shrinks to $0, it is highly unlikely that private investors will front building capital if they cannot recoup it. This means the Feds will not only need to cover their portion, but the private portion as well. I do realize that some minor private investment can be had from such things such as vendor fees (TOD’s) and naming rights, but this is likely to be small compared to what is needed. China is unlikely to invest in “opportunity costs” for free. A lot hinges on this letter and the controversial “revenue guarantee”.
PS. Robert, thanks for continuing the discussion on Caltrain.
Joey Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 11:10 am
Given the track record of HSR, I cannot see the operating surplus reaching zero. And there’s no point in including capital costs (a one time investment) in year-to-year costs unless they have to be repaid, as in the case of private investment (though this will play a small but significant role in CAHSR). Whatever portion of the capital costs are paid for by taxpayers will not factor in to year-to-year operations (and may I remind you that this is the way that most infrastructure projects, including roads and airports, are funded).
Ted Crocker Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
The track record for HSR is not good with regards to operating surplus, so I’m not sure what you mean there. Only two sections worldwide, maybe three if you count Spain, operate without subsidy. You’re assuming one of two things will pay for the build; 1.) either the free money beyond the bond obligation materializes, or 2.) subsidy. I agree, normally this is how most infrastructure projects are structured, but they have one or both of the above. As of right now, item (1) doesn’t look too promising and item (2) is illegal. Don’t look at me. I didn’t write the law. Personally, I think it was unrealistic, but the legislators knew they needed to promise the voters “no subsidy” in order to get the buy-in. As I said, a lot hinges on Congress’s letter and the controversial “revenue guarantee”.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 1:06 am
Um, 80% of the TGV lines are profitable. That’s considered alarmingly low in France. In Japan, both HSR and commuter rail are profitable after depreciation. Korail is profitable on the whole, including its KTX line. That’s already about 10 profitable HSR lines. Even the clusterfuck that’s Taiwan HSR makes an operating profit; the private company crashed because it had to pay subprime interest rates on its debt.
I’m not sure where you’re getting the “only two sections worldwide” part, but it’s not true. The closest truth is that only two HSR lines – the Tokaido Shinkansen and the LGV Sud-Est – were funded out of international bonds, which were paid off. For the other lines, the government fronted the money, but the lines are now profitable after depreciation and (in most cases) interest, i.e. if they’d been funded out of bonds they’d have been able to pay them off.
Ted Crocker Reply:
April 29th, 2010 at 1:21 am
Our definitions are different, I think. For legal reasons, because of the way the bond measure was written, you have to look at this project like a bean counter and not a policy maker. You will be hard pressed to find “profitable” HSR systems whose financial statements are prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards. TGV (Sud-Est/Paris-Lyon) and Japan (Tokyo-Osaka) are about it if you consider those that generate enough profit to cover both capital costs and operating costs, because the rest were acquired by private operators at a fraction of their capital costs, the government absorbed much of the system’s debt, and/or the government still owns the tracks (and track maintenance). I’m not saying it’s wrong for a system to be subsidized (except in CA where the bond measure does not allow subsidy by the state), especially if the indirect economic/social benefits it creates can offset the subsidy amount, but subsidy IS a very likely reality for HSR, especially in the short term, especially in a country that is just starting out, and in a state that doesn’t have a good track record operating passenger rail systems at a profit, and in a state where HSR is going to be very expensive to build relative to other countries (off the top of my head, I think I read the AA has LA-Anaheim at about $187M per mile so far). I am saying let’s not fool ourselves about being profitable by rationalizing with funny accounting. For the legislators to continue funding CA’s HSR project, there needs to be a solid argument (i.e. investment grade business plan) for why there will be no subsidy required from the CA taxpayers beyond the bond obligation, and not the other way around. Ignoring capital costs is not how you get around it. So, back to that letter…
Alon Levy Reply:
April 29th, 2010 at 4:16 am
You’re still wrong. The track maintenance is done separately in Europe, by profitable government-owned companies. In fact RFF, the company maintaining the tracks in France, is more profitable than SNCF, which just slipped into the red. In Japan, there’s no difference between maintenance and operation: companies report both costs, as well as depreciation on capital costs. They think very much like bean counters – they have to, to stay in business.
The part about “The rest were acquired at a fraction of their capital cost” is wrong as well. This happened only in Japan, and while the Shinkansen was part of what sank JNR into debt, all Shinkansen lines have generated enough profits to have been able to pay off their debt (in fact, the Sanyo Shinkansen had already paid off its debt, according to Anthony Perl; it’s only the Tohoku and Joetsu Shinkansen that had any debt to be wiped). What crushed JNR was the construction of many regional lines, often through sparsely populated rural territory; the mainland JR companies have abandoned those lines to keep afloat.
The wording of 1A forbids operating subsidies. Those will never be necessary if the system opens; even Taiwan HSR is operationally profitable. It’s also nearly certain that California HSR will be profitable after depreciation. Interest on the debt is another issue, but there’s nothing in 1A forbidding the use of state money for capital construction.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 11:56 am
Hoe much profit does the interstate highway system turn?
Has anyone noticed that the TARP program, you know the one that bailed out Wall Street, is turning a profit on some investments. These profits could be an excellent source of initial funding to establish an “investment fund” for the federal government’s involvement in financially backing HSR projects. For example, the U.S. government is expected to make over $7 billion in profit once it sells a massive amount of Citigroup stock. There are many other companies the U.S. government invested in to stem the tide of the downturn which are now doing much better financially and more importantly, the U.S. government is a major shareholder and it wants to sell it’s shares. I don’t know why this idea has yet to gain traction…
Peter Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 10:56 am
Well, I think that that money is simply going to end up paying for the deficit, instead.
HSRComingSoon Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 11:04 am
As far as what I’ve seen online, the profits unless programmed for specific programs are going straight back into the federal budget. This would be a great opportunity to make use of these funds in a manner that not only brings back jobs and income, but increases overall tax revenue from individuals and companies, which is even better for the government.
jimsf Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 11:56 am
Republicans feel that the money being returned to washington should go back to the “people” in the form of more tax breaks, which people? rich people of course.
Dan Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Actually, I believe any savings / profits from TARP automatically & retroactively reduces the net federal spending for 2009 (year of enactment), and thereby the federal defecit for that year. Any talk of “spending” the “savings” is actually a new spending bill and hyperbole from both sides.
OT – Remember that comments are due today for the Bay Area to Central Valley Revised EIR.
For those who want last minute tips:
http://www.calhsr.com/environmental-review/how-to-write-an-eir-comment/
for those who want a guide to issues we’ve spotted:
http://www.calhsr.com/environmental-review/carrds-eir-reviews/
Peter Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 10:55 am
Man, I do not envy those poor suckers who have to sort through and respond to all those comments, many of which are probably going to be clones of each other.
Nathanael Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Monterey Highway is underused; it contains wasteful median and shoulder space, and cars are an inefficient use of space.
But not being from CA, I don’t feel I should submit a comment.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
I stopped reading after the comment about identifying which grade crossings would be altered and which would be left alone. What part of “all” is hard to understand?
Iw anted to shre this but of news which I think is significant. I got the memo this weekend. Now, there is suppose to be a link to this at the amtrakcalifornia.com website but it does not appear to be ready yet.
But this is a very good idea in my opinion and I thought it should have been done a long time ago Ill try to condense it for you here: ( and pardon typos – the wireless keyboard seems to be lagging)
AMTRAK CALIFORNIA OPEN HOUSE
The purpose of the open house gatherings is to educate and inform the public about the future intercity railcar development. ( This does NOT include high speed rail. ) Each open house will include a 10 minute video about California’s passenger railcars, informational packets , plus photos and poster sized displays of railcars envisioned for future rail service.
Currently there is no funding available for new railcars. Voters approved PROP 1B in 2006 for new railcars but the State’s current budget situation has put the bond sales “on hold” for now. California is sharpening its pencil, hoping to apply for future federal stimulus funds for rail projects. In the meantime, rather than wait for funds to materialize, [and there's the good part] CALTRANS is forging ahead, working with Amtrak, other states and rail agencies, railcar manufacturers and YOU to create *a baseline design for a National Standardized Railcar.*
If successful, a Nationalized Design, will allow any State or rail operating agency to purchase new railcars at a lower cost, and obtain new cars more quickly. So, when funds are available, all agencies can benefit. States will have a basic car deign ready to send out for bids, and each agency can make minor modifications to suit their operating needs and clientele.
CALTRANS is a lead agency in the National Effort and we welcome our input.
Unable to attend an Open House? We invite you to visit our on-line Open House at http://www.AmtrakCalifornia.com/OPENHOUSE between April 30 and May 28, 2010 ( oh duh no wonder the site isn’t up yet I hadn’t read that far…) You can review the railcar information, complete the survey and provide comments.
Ok here’s a list of open house dates and locations…
monday april 26 4-8pm SAC amtrak station
tuesday april 27 4-8pm FNO amtrak station
thrusday april 29 4-8pm SNA amtrak station
Okay if you ask me this idea of a national standard design, where in you lower the cost and speed up the process of railcar development is a fantastic idea! If standardizing rail cars makes sense then maybe agencies will also realize that standardizing PTC and platform heights, and standardizing everything else, nationwide, also makes sense. And that means that emerging hsr routes will also have a standardized environment in which to operate.
I love that is california who is taking the lead in this. See, we’ve still got it.
jimsf Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 11:57 am
hello? no one cares? well fine. I think its a good idea.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
ya mean like it was back in the 40s and 50s?
jimsf Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
like these used nationwide – still up and running like beauties here in sf..
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Amfleets can go anywhere. Comets and Horizon cars are more or less the same and can go anywhere. Like that?
jimsf Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
yes. well, that makes sense. It sounds to me like what they want to do is make a standard based on part by input from the traveling public… and then everyone from metrolink to metra to mbta to amtrak to whomever could buy in bulk for less.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 1:15 am
Or they could make it legal to run FLIRTs or standard-gauge versions of the JR East DMUs, which would both cut the cost per car by about 40% and cut the fuel consumption per car by a factor of about 3, to say nothing of the reduced track wear.
There comes a point where you have to decide whether rail is a program to improve transportation in the US or corporate welfare for US Railcar.
jimsf Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 9:59 am
Its highly unlikely that the FRA is going to switch gears when it comes to its approach to safety. I don’t see it happening. As long as there are still huge swaths of the country without PTC/ATC fully implemented.. or implemented at all for that matter, and as long as passenger rail shares tracks with freight rail. Heavy duty rail cars will remain. I mean just watch the video above again and see why. People who in the industry aren’t going to jeopardize safety.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Jim, the compliant cars aren’t actually safer in crashes than noncompliant cars. At very low speeds, they crumple slightly less. Above 20 mph crashes will lead to disaster in either case. Compliant cars’ high axle load in fact makes them less safe, by making it easier for them to derail and topple.
In recent years, JR East has had a lower number of train accident fatalities than the American railroad system. Its last crash, in 2005, killed 5 people, less than Metrolink’s Chatsworth accident. This is while carrying about 400 times as many passengers per year as Metrolink.
jimsf Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 11:16 am
well the problem with metro link is the push pull. that really needs to end in my opinion. I would not want to be an engineer in a cab at 79mph in a train being pushed by a loco in the rear.
But in any event. while Im sure there are better ways to go about safety in the long term, my point is that don’t expect the FRA and the industry and the workers in the industry, to embrace things quickly. and as long as passenger trains are running on the same track as freight, for the time being, the passenger cars need to be as strong as the freight cars.
Peter Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 11:59 am
Automobile manufacturers learned in the 1930s that the best way to improve survivability was to implement crash energy management and make sure that the passenger compartment wasn’t crushed. Seems to me that the FRA missed the first part of the memo.
Nathanael Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
JR runs push pull. Push-pull is perfectly safe.
What’s not so safe are the blunt-end cabs with the engineer out in front.
Ever noticed how modern European and Japanese rail designs, at least the ones which go faster than streetcars, have semi-pointed noses, even the non-high-speed ones? That’s the crumple zone.
And that is the concept which FRA has somehow never managed to figure out.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Jim, Japanese trains sometimes run on the same tracks as freight. The Japanese response to the dangers was to mandate automatic train control on all lines, back in the 1960s.
The push-pull issue is irrelevant. Modern equipment is almost all multiple units anyway. You’d be an engineer in a leading DMU, not in a cab car.
And Nathanael, the commuter trains on Japanese tracks do not have semi-pointed noses. They look like your average subway cars, but are capable of slightly higher speeds. It’s only the limited express trains that are streamlined.
jimsf Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 10:01 am
and transportation doesn’t have to do with who or where the rail cars are manufactured anyway. Providing transportation has to do with policies pertaining to where to send trains, what routes, frequency , funding. They type of rail care doesn’t matter so long as its one people are comfortable in and which has the amenities they want – thus the public input portion of the program.
Nathanael Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Well, perhaps the greatest idea would be something for rail equivalent to the PCC program for streetcars.
Although it is a local revenue source, charging market-rate prices can both generate significant revenue and affect passenger behavior, encouraging both more car-pooling and greater transit-ridership (which is essential if high speed rail is going to succeed). Earlier this year DC raised the meter rates from $1 to $2 per hour in certain high-demand areas. Even conservative Newport Beach is considering raising parking rates in that city from $1 per hour to $1.75 per hour (http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2010/03/10/politics/dpt-parking020510.txt). There has been much less political opposition to these increases than there would be with a doubling of the gas tax.
Peter Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Hmmm, maybe impose a state-wide tax on parking fees? Both for public and private parking? That would enable the state to push more people onto public transit while reducing congestion on city streets…
jimsf Reply:
April 26th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Or better, we could cut funding in other areas.