HSR News from Netroots Nation
Sorry for the silence over the last few days – I’ve been here in Las Vegas at Netroots Nation, a national convention of us crazy progressive bloggers. You’ll be happy to know that it has been a very valuable and eventful conference, with some important HSR-related news emerging here.
Yesterday, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood was on a panel with Duncan Black (aka Atrios) and the founder of the Greater Greater Washington blog, to talk about transportation issues. In response to a question about high speed rail, he indicated that he has been in meetings with the Class I freight railroads – including Union Pacific – about hashing out the issues with high speed rail. He said these meetings, which have already produced an agreement between the Illinois Department of Transportation and UP, have included discussion about California. He wouldn’t go into detail about the meetings, but they are happening, with the intent of resolving disputes and addressing concerns so that HSR can move forward.
LaHood also indicated that the holdup on the Transportation Bill reauthorization is indeed the issue of how to fund it. This morning I had a chance to talk to Congressman John Garamendi, who represents CA-10 (including much of Contra Costa and Solano Counties), who shed more light on this. Garamendi indicated that there is little appetite in Congress to increase the gas tax – he said the surest way to clear a hallway on Capitol Hill was to whisper the words “increase the gas tax.”
So how then do you fund the Transportation Bill? Garamendi said that the House is investigating an interesting proposal to levy a fee on each barrel of oil, which he said would “fully fund” the Transportation Bill’s $500 billion price tag. Congress would then eliminate – in its entirety – the federal gas tax.
The thinking is this: it’s time to start reclaiming the subsidies given to oil companies by taxing them more directly. Of course, there would probably be some passthrough of that cost to the consumer, so you offset that by eliminating the gas tax. The difference is that with the fee, you ensure that some of that revenue comes from Saudi Arabia and the pockets of Big Oil, whereas under the gas tax it doesn’t at all.
This proposal exists in conceptual form, and the House is currently studying it more closely to nail down all the details. But Garamendi thinks this is likely to be one of the options on the table for funding the Transportation Bill.
In terms of timeline, he mentioned that the Republicans were trying to get Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to insist that they would not take up major legislation in the “lame duck” session between the November 2 election and the January 3 swearing in of the 112th Congress. Pelosi and Reid refused to agree, so the Transportation Bill is still on the table for the end of 2010. Whether or not it actually happens is still unclear, but they are working toward it.
We talked about a range of other issues related to HSR in California, but that was generally off the record. (Sorry to be a tease.) He did indicate that he supports the idea of sending some of the HSR stimulus to the Caltrain electrification project, but that the project needs to be coordinated with the HSR project. He also wants to make sure the Altamont corridor element of the Prop 1A/HSR project gets the attention it deserves (not just because it’s in his district). He was very pleased with BART’s decision to select the alignment that it did for the Livermore extension, going downtown and then out to the Livermore Lab, as it would be a boon to Livermore but also provide for intermodal stations with ACE and the other train services that might use the Altamont corridor.
Tomorrow I’ll have a chance to talk with Senator Harry Reid, and maybe Speaker Pelosi (that’s up in the air right now though). If you all have any HSR-related questions you want me to ask Senator Reid, let me know in the comments. One question I am definitely planning to ask is about the DesertXpress project, and whether its funding is actually going to come together, and what he plans to do (if anything) to help get that project built.
So, as suspected, UP’s posturing is in fact just that? That’s good news. It’s about time that someone talks some sense into them. The Secretary of Transportation seems to be a good candidate for that.
bleh Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 3:42 pm
I guess the way UP sees it:
The government spent most of the 20th century screwing them over. Robert always comes with the tidbit that they got some eminent domain rights but in reality they mostly ripped out tracks and catenaries because local governments were ripping them off with property taxes. They feel no moral obligation to help with the HSR plan.
That leaves the business case. Americans being the litigious bastards that they are UP doesn’t want passenger trains near their tracks if they can prevent it. Especially not 1000 passengers in a high speed train that might hit a derailed car. The tracks would also limit UP’s options to expand their tracks when it becomes necessary. Solve those issues and UP won’t be a problem.
Peter Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Well, yes, that’s their official position.
But if they are negotiating, that means they are simply looking to get the best deal possible.
jimsf Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:52 pm
First, why shouldn’t they pay property taxes just like every other business and family does in america. And second, it they ripped out the tracks cuz they didn’t want to pay taxes, why would they put them back in? Its not like american is going to start suddenly manufacturing goods for export, anytime soon…or ever.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Why should they pay property taxes? Airports don’t. Roads most certainly don’t. Ports don’t either. Lots of places the railroads have figured out a way to sell the real property to the government and if they work it right have the government maintain the tracks. Caltrain corridor comes to mind.
The US exports lots and lots and lots of stuff. lots of it manufactured. Unfortunately we import more than we export which in the long run doesn’t work out too well.
jimsf Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Airports and roads are not private businesses and they don’t own the property under them. They are public infrastructure on public land. Railroad row is private property. That’s why people who get hit by trains are referred to as “trespassers” They are trespassing on private property where they don’t have the right or permission to be.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Back east you are trespassing if you are a pedestrian or equestrian on a limited access highway. If you have commercial license plates and you pick the wrong highway you are trespassing and get a ticket. You can’t wander into the local school and eat your lunch in the cafeteria. The sidewalk in front of my house is mine but anyone and everyone who wants to walk on it can whenever they want to. If I park my car in my driveway and block the sidewalk the teeniest tiny bit I get a ticket.
I’m sure if you wander onto the tracks in Palo Alto or onto the BART tracks in Oakland, you are trespassing. What’s your point?
jimsf Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 7:39 pm
..That union pacific’s right of way is private land, owned by them, as a private business and should be subject to property tax just like any other private land owned by a private business is subject to property tax.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 7:59 pm
In California it’s assessed at it’s 1972 valuation, one day they will be able to pay the property tax bill out of petty cash. The government assessing the taxes can decide how to assess those taces in any manner they choose. If the entity decides that railroad provides many benefits they can decide that the assessed value is zero. Just like they do with other properties that provide public benefits usually churches. What’s your point?
Victor Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Actually If You are talking about Prop 13 from 1978, It’s the 1975 valuation, 1972 isn’t It. I’m old enough to remember back then as I’m 50 Years old, Most businesses are run under Corporations, People who own corporations sell those, Cause the Corporation owns the property and so no reassessment under Prop 13 almost never occurs, It’s a big tax shelter, For Business, Sure It gives something for Residential housing, But not the same loop hole Business enjoys and has enjoyed since 1978. Right now there’s talk of the split tax roll in Sacramento and I hope It becomes law, Our Government needs It to run properly, Instead of being starved to death like some idiots want to do.
jimsf Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 8:36 pm
my point was, and I’m not surprised you missed it as usual.
“Bleh” wrote “The government spent most of the 20th century screwing them over. Robert always comes with the tidbit that they got some eminent domain rights but in reality they mostly ripped out tracks and catenaries because local governments were ripping them off with property taxes. They feel no moral obligation to help with the HSR plan”
and I responded, why shouldn’t they have to pay property tax like every other private business.
then you went on a about public schools and roads-(which are not private businesses) not paying taxes. So the question is, what’s your point?
Samsonian Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:07 pm
why shouldn’t they have to pay property tax like every other private business.
Because railroads are not just any other “private business.” Railways are critical transportation infrastructure, just like the other modes of transport aviation/airports, roads, seaports and waterways. None of these entities pay property taxes on their critical infrastructure, because they’re usually publicly owned (governments generally don’t pay taxes). The problem is railways are privately owned in the USA, despite most sane countries publicly owning and investing in their railways.
You, and many Americans, seem to have an uniquely American affliction that believes that because American railways are privately owned, they are somehow not a regular mode of transport (sub par in some way), and thus not worthy of public investment. When in fact, the overwhelming evidence shows that railways are a first class mode of transport, with unique strengths and superior in many ways to competing modes. Railways are just as worthy of public investment, if not more so, than competing modes.
This attitude and public policy leads to really dumb, preventable problems like private railroads exerting undue monopoly influence, and government over-regulating and over-taxing railroads into a death spiral.
It also gives private railroads perverse incentives to avoid investments in infrastructure. The saddest examples include railroads ripping out catenary, extra tracks (double track to single) which increased operating costs and reduced capacity. And even outright abandonment because it can’t be profitable under the onerous regulations and taxation regime. Who benefits from less rail service?
Is any of this in the public interest?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:23 pm
Railroads provide a valuable public service. There are private businesses that pay no property taxes. For instance in New Jersey the utilities don’t. They do pay gross receipts taxes that are not assessed on other businesses. Just because it’s private property doesn’t mean it has to pay real estate taxes. And just because the airport is publicly owned that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t pay property taxes. The airports the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey do remit money to the local governments, just like it does on things like the World Trade Center. And there are many private businesses that don’t pay real estate taxes directly since they don’t own any real property to assess taxes on.
You brought up trespassing. If you jump down onto the tracks on BART you are trespassing. BART last time I checked is publicly owned. Conversely most sidewalks are privately owned. You can walk on them anytime you want.
Just because something is privately owned doesn’t mean it should or should pay property taces. And just because it’s privately owned doesn’t mean you are trespassing when you use it. Just because something is publicly owned doesn’t mean it will not pay some sort of remittance local government. And just because it’s publicly owned doesn’t mean your using it cannot be trespassing.
why should railroads pay property taxes? their competition for the most part doesn’t, other private businesses don’t and some public entities do.
Peter Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 9:55 pm
“Trespasser” is simply a legal term that describes the level of duty of care that the property owner has towards you. It means that the property owner has a very limited duty to look out for your well-being.
Samsonian Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:09 pm
Railroad row is private property. That’s why people who get hit by trains are referred to as “trespassers” They are trespassing on private property where they don’t have the right or permission to be.
Not all publicly owned property is “public” like a sidewalk. You can’t just walk onto a military base and claim its public property, and that you have a right to be there. You’ll be arrested for trespassing just the same (if not more).
And of course with railways you can’t access their property except where you’re allowed (crossings, stations). It doesn’t matter if its publicly owned, like BART or CalTrain, or private like UP.
jimsf Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 1:16 am
none of that matter. Up owns the property and should be subject to paying property tax for it and conversely if they don’t want to pay the taxes they are within their rights to do whatever they feel they need to to do to avoid those taxes including ripping out infrastructure. I’m in now way saying I think this is a good thing, “You, and many Americans, seem to have an uniquely American affliction that believes that because American railways are privately owned, they are somehow not a regular mode of transport (sub par in some way), and thus not worthy of public investment. When in fact, the overwhelming evidence shows that railways are a first class mode of transport, with unique strengths and superior in many ways to competing modes. Railways are just as worthy of public investment, if not more so, than competing modes”… I mean excuse me I work for a freakin publicly funded railroad. One that has in the past had a very difficult time wit UP in particular so I’m hardly fond of them. but, things are the way they are like it or not and as big a pain as UP may be, they are a private business and in america, private businesses – get taxed- and – do what they can to avoid taxes. In a perfect world we would do things in a more socialist way, a more public benefit result – way – but we don’t not in america. we don’t now and americans’ are averse to it. just look around. Maybe you can change it. But my money is on things not changing – regardless of the fact that I wish they would. They won’t. Just watch. you’ll see. IN the next 2-4 years we are going to be right back were we were a few years ago. Count on it. Big business, from railroads to wall street, are going to get what they want and public infrastructure and certainly public transportation is going to continue to go begging. I’m making a judgement on it, I just know that beyond all this wishing hoping and blogging, that things are not going to change. Complaining that UP should or shouldnt be allowed to or have to do whatever, is a waste of time.
jimsf Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 1:18 am
*not * making a judgment on it…
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 9:08 pm
Roads and airports are not private business, but private businesses and people use them. The lack of property tax charges on them is in effect a huge price discount to air and highway users, and a price penalty on railroads, possibly up to a cumulative half-billion a year or so on our greatly reduced rail network. It’s also reduced tax revenue to local governments, and that can be significant today; in fact, many county and local governments in Virginia have been vigorously opposing a highway widening scheme in the Shenandoah Valley for just this reason.
As things currently stand, motor fuel taxes almost entirely go to roads, and road users have very little dilution in the direct benefits they receive from their taxes. Rail property taxes at best give an indirect benefit to railroads, and again, this is a price handicap for them.
All this is on top of the severe general underpricing of the highway system, in which currently your gas taxes only pay for 51% of highway expenditures on a cash basis, and even then there are a lot of uncovered costs, such as deferred maintenance. (I estimate the real cost of a gallon of gas to be between $7 and $8).
I have a post below on rail fuel taxes that developed into a little more; you may want to look at it.
A bit off topic, you may also want to look at an Economist article, also linked below.
Finally, though again off topic, here is a link to a rail alternative to that Shenandoah Valley highway project, which emphasises freight rail, by the way.
http://www.railsolution.org/
jimsf Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 1:26 am
you know as much as I don’t like sarah palin, she was pretty right on when she said “so hows that hope-y change-y thing workin out for ya”
we all pretty much got played now didn’t we. admit it. and any hope of a big progressive change happening in america is going to evaporate in about 100 days.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 4:13 am
The worst part is, the Republicans are worse, at least in my opinion and as an organized body (I’m one of those who votes for individuals, not parties, my ballots are always split in some way). There is a reason one writer has called them the “Generous to Oil Party.”
I’ve posted this before, but this economist, one of few I happen to like, makes just this point on his own current blog.
http://midnight-populist.blogspot.com/
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 4:45 am
Jimsf, I looked back at some of your previous postings and noticed you said you work for a publicly funded railroad (I assume in some sort of passenger service); this gives me the curiosity to ask a couple of questions of you, provided you feel comfortable answering them.
The first is which railroad do you work for, and where in the country is it? (This one you may pass on if you feel it sendanger your employment.)
The second is, how would you do things differently? How would you expand rail passenger service, promote electrification, promote and expand public transit, promote and expand rail freight service, and generally make things better with all this by getting us off the oil diet?
I know it sounds like a blooming laundry list, but I also think all these things are intertwined.
Peter Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 10:09 am
Amtrak.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 10:22 am
..at the bus station in San Francisco which will always be a bus station in San Francisco because they’ll never be able to bring trains in from the East Bay….
jimsf Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 11:36 am
In Californian I’d electrify everything for one. Capitol Corridor, Surfliner, San Joaquin, as well as metrolink. But, don’t hold your breath. Here is the problem across the board…. these improvements, any improvements, have exorbitant costs and there isn’t any money to do them. My point in previous posts, and again I’m not saying its a good thing, just saying how it is, is that in america roads and oil and big business get what they want, and things like public transportation go begging and that just isn’t going to change because of the nature of the political system and media. Everyone here knows it.
The california state train services are a huge success on a shoestring budget. You would think that there would be a big political push and outcry from the public to take it further and make it first rate. But look what happens. Even with 1a passing, you see that it will take decades to get us where we should have been 30 years ago and that what we will get will be a gigantic compromise.
Further, there is still little coordination and cooperation between agencies and this is due to two things, one, the fact that everyone still has to go begging and thus, is forced to protect their own turf, and two, the local public does not want to give up local control over what services they get. Its a sort of “second cousin once removed” of the nimby thing. a sort of, “not in my back yard are you gonna take our locally controlled transit system away from us and replace it with some big thing we have no say in”
That’s why we have 40+ agencies serving 9 counties and 7 million people people when we could do it with 2 or 3 or gasp!, 1 even.
Recently I have been working to get the most basic local improvements to signage, maintenance, other things that have been neglected. Do you know that a regional transit information street sign from the MTC costs 7000 dollars? 7000 dollars for a freakin street sign. So if you have ever been in a facility and said to yourself “hey they should do X” or “why doesn’t this thing go “z”" or whatever, the answer will always be “because there’s no money”
“there’s no money”
Its not in the budget”
“there’s no money”
“its not in the budget”
I hear it in my sleep.
Look, america is not going to go in the direction that many of us here would like to see it go. The only dynamic change afoot now is going to move us further right, not left. This, just 18 months after a huge democratic victory. And as we have seen, even things that have gotten through such as health care and banking reform, have been watered down to the point you realize that business is still walking into the halls of congress and writing their own ticket.
That’s why I can’t get too bent out of shape over mediocre results, be it the caltrain/hsr cluster or the routing or the corruption or whatever because no one here is going to change any of that. Its gonna work out they way it does, and we’re gonna wind up with a system with flaws, and then we are going to get used to using that flawed system and make do, and get over it and move on the next thing. The only ay any one is going to get asian and european living, is if they move to asia or europe. America just isn’t into it and I for one am exhausted from getting my hopes up only to come to this realization time and time again. The truth is, you’d better be glad we are getting anything at all in the way of rail service of any kind. Where we are in 20 years will look far more like it does today than not.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 4:49 am
!@#$%%&**@@!!! No edit function!!! Can’t correct typing errors!!
You don’t have to say who you work for if you feel it would endanger your job. Sorry about the horrible typing above.
jimsf Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 11:37 am
lol, keeping my mouth shut is not one of my strong points no matter the issue.
synonymouse Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 11:53 am
The story in today’s SF Chronicle about Sen. Kerry berthing his yacht in another state to avoid taxes tells all. The problem with raising the taxes on the rich to pay for big, big budgets is that they know how to escape the levies. Ergo you have yawning deficits and guess who must pay?
There is a similar and reality associated with bloated highway spending. It is so popular with the general public that it would political suicide to do much more than divert some of it to transit, usually with the argument that it will help to reduce highway congestion. This is the best that can be hoped for at the moment. We will have to see about the “end of oil” phenomenon.
The hsr has to be a good revenue generator(especially in the first or business class category) in order to avoid the Amtrak stigma of a large per passenger subsidy. No boondoggling, gerrymandering, dumbing-down – this is the essence of Tolmach’s criticism.
The hsr has to be a good revenue generator(especially at the first or business class end)to avoid the Amtrak stigma of a large per passenger subsidy. To do that it has to de-boondoggled, the essence of Tolmach’s criticism.
synonymouse Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 11:55 am
This software is hard to work with.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Yet Senator Kerry himself hasn’t berth in another state. Rich people tend to live in high tax states because you can’t make money in low tax states like Alabama, not without a really long commute to a high tax state.
Amtrak breaks even or makes money on corridors vaguely like the one proposed in California. Operators all over the world make money on corridors like the one proposed in California.
bleh Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 2:48 am
First, why shouldn’t they pay property taxes just like every other business and family does in america.
So you’re in logistics. You can either buy some trucks and use public highways for a pittance, or you can build your own tracks and pay taxes on the land to do the same.
The fair solution would be for the government to build and maintain tracks like they do with other transport infrastructure and let the railroads run their trains on all the tracks. That would provide a level playing field and competition but that’s not what they’re doing. All the while the government is providing billions worth of subsidies to trucks and air freight.
And second, it they ripped out the tracks cuz they didn’t want to pay taxes, why would they put them back in?
Because development means tracks, that weren’t profitable anymore a few decades ago, now are? The last time I checked the US wasn’t in terminal decline even if both parties like to pretend that it is to put the blame on the other side.
Did Garamendi’s call for Caltrain-HSR coordination echo the issues raised by Clem and Richard about system compatibility, or was he thinking about other things?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 11:17 am
He was talking more generally about coordinating to ensure that HSR funds spent on the Peninsula benefit both Caltrain and HSR. We did discuss the specific compatibility issues, and got the CA4HSR letter to him on those issues.
I don’t want to bring the dismal science to rain on your parade, but basic economics shows that no matter where you tax a product — at production or consumption — the impact is split evenly on the consumer and the producer. So moving the gas tax from a consumer gas tax at the pump to either a tariff on imports or direct tax on domestic oil producers … is a bit of political snake oil, if the tax is at the same level. In both cases, the amount the consumer pays is the same, the amount the government takes is the same, and so the amount left over to go to the producer is also the same.
I would believe that shifting the tax around in this way could make some rabidly anti-oil people feel better in a political vindication sort of way, but it’s not like they or the oil companies would be paying more or less money. If the tariff on imports is well-marketed, they might even be able to bring on board some typically pro-business types who don’t like being dependent on foreign oil imports.
And, if all of that in turn makes it more politically feasible to effectively raise the taxes on gasoline and diesel consumption, then … hurrah for snake oil.
Tell Reid that he should fully support the California project because it is crucial for DesertXpress to work. With a successful line in Ca investors will gladly build a line to get all those Ca passengers into the casinos. Without CaHSR DesertXpress ends in Victorville and will be a miserable failure.
On that note, add that he should get his ass in gear and make sure that the Senate doesn’t always reduce the HSR funds.
As I see it: Of roughly 40 billion needed
a) 10 billion are covered by the Prop bonds
b) You can expect the operator to provide roughly 10 billion in equipment in exchange for the franchise
c) Leaves 20 billion. If the federal government would provide 4 billion a year for HSR (which the House would be ready to do if Reid can get his fellow clowns in line) and 2 billion go to Cali (would make too much sense for it to happen), we’re good.
Of course, the Chinese, French or whoever will be ready to cough up some of that money. But they won’t do it out of the goodness of their hearts. The less you pay the less of the manufacturing jobs are going to be in the USA.
Tell him he should think about his legacy because he’s probably not gonna be reelected anyway (although you might be more diplomatic about it =)
A per barrel “fee” will tax the railroads and every other downstream user of oil and oil products, and it will be passed through to the consumer to the extent that the market permits. A gas tax would lower demand and therefore price which reduces the revenue enjoyed by the producers. And it makes transit more competitive. A per barrel fee will increase costs for those transit and rail passenger operators that use diesel. Not a good idea in my opinion.
PD
Peter Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 3:53 pm
And a per barrel fee will not reduce demand for oil? It would also create big incentives on freight and rail transit operators to electrify their busiest routes, which would benefit everyone involved.
jimsf Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:54 pm
do railroads pay tax on the diesel they purchase now?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 7:46 pm
As far as I know, they currently don’t.
They did for a while, when there was a general “deficit reduction tax” on oil products. A problem that arose at the time was that this money was intended for the general fund. The good old highway lobby got their portion redirected into the highway system, thus getting their benefits undiluted. The railroads and possibly the airlines had their money go into the military and other places, receiving no direct benefit. Eventually this all went away.
It might be worth mentioning that the railroads also had to pay and charge a sales tax of about 10% on freight charges and a higher rate on passenger tickets from the early 1940s until the late 1950s. This was originally enacted in the WW II era to discourage rail travel so space could be kept available for troops (and gas was rationed in the same time period to conserve the available rubber supply, along with a national 35 mph speed limit).
However, the tax raised so much money for the federal government that it did not come off until more than a decade after the war ended. In the meantime, gas rationing went away, car construction prohibitions were lifted as assembly lines converted back from making trucks, tanks, and aircraft engines, and government money went into highways and airports like crazy (and at that time there was no dedicated highway fund on the federal level, road money came out of general revenues, of which gas taxes were a part). Railroads were also hit with excess profits taxes (this was because their earnings looked amazingly good when compared with a decade of depression), and of course paid all those property taxes.
During the war years, the railroads did handle a lot of government business in the form of troop movements and war materials, but even then there was a price. As many of you know, quite a bit of railroad mileage was originally built with the help of land grants. The land would be worthless without the railroad, so they got half of it (the Federal boys retained the other half, and like the railroads, profited from the land sales as the land was made valuable by transportation). The problem was, the federal boys also insisted on something like a 50% discount for government shipments over land grant railroad mileage. This was still in effect over 50 years later at the time of WW II. It made for an accounting nightmare as the rates would vary based on the land grant mileage involved, and it didn’t help matters that the traffic managers would specify routings that used the maximum amount of land grant mileage they could to reduce the federal freight bill. This lead to some weird routings, with freight shipments weaving back and forth from one rail route to another, sometimes from one railroad to another, in the effort to use the maximum amount of land grant mileage and get the maximum discount. This discount was in effect until after the war.
I have a host of difficulties with railroad management myself, mostly because they have become a business dominated by bean counters and lawyers (always a problem anymore in any business), but at the same time, can you entirely blame them for the attitudes they’ve developed?
All the above is from memory, so if you have better or more specific sources to correct or expand on this, you’ll get no complaints from me.
Victor Reply:
July 25th, 2010 at 11:56 am
Maybe California should tax the freight railroads diesel fuel and have a tax on their profits too.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Trains, planes, generators, and farm machinery have access to tax-free fuel. The diesel used by generators, machines, and trains is dyed red so that it’s easy to see if a car uses it, which is illegal.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Widely used in the Northeast and Midwest for residential heating too. No. 2 heating oil, same stuff they use in off road engines.
Samsonian Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:35 pm
a per barrel fee will not reduce demand for oil? It would also create big incentives on freight and rail transit operators to electrify their busiest routes, which would benefit everyone involved.
Where do all billions of dollar come from for this?
Freight operators are only marginally profitable and can’t afford to pay for electrification, PTC, etc. across the vast rail network. And public transit operators provide a public service which require operating subsidies, they sure as hell can’t afford that.
“Spend billions of dollars in capital upgrades. Or spend millions (maybe billions) in perpetually higher operating costs.”
Some incentives.
YesonHSR Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:38 pm
BS the Bitches have tons of money
Samsonian Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 12:58 am
BS the Bitches have tons of money
I assume the money loaded bitches you’re referring to are the private freight operators, rather than public passenger rail operators. You’re sadly misinformed about how the US Railroad industry works, and its state of finances. I’d recommend you read my post earlier above in the comments, particularly about the part afflictions and notions about railroads.
US Railroads can’t really compete with other modes of transport except cost. And government backed air and road competition is why.
To survive they focus on moving bulk goods and containers/trailers at the lowest cost per ton. That also includes avoiding infrastructure investment if at all possible to keep costs down. This is very low margin business, and given railroad’s high fixed costs, militant unions, high debt loads, government regulation, it’s very easy for their cost structure to get out of control and exceed revenue.
The history of US railroads shows that there’s less than half as many route miles of track as there was at peak (~140,000 today vs more than 300,000 at peak). There used to be thousands of railroads, with dozens of big ones. Now there’s only hundreds, and handful of big ones.
The Economist article linked by D. P. Lubic below, mentions “The railroads retort that despite record traffic and profits, their return on investment since 2000 has been only 8%, which according to the Surface Transportation Board, another federal regulator, barely covers the cost of capital. They also say that freight rates are usually governed by what their competitors—ie, truckers—charge.”
That’s why unfunded mandates that cost them billions (e.g. PTC), or reduce their capacity (e.g. more passenger trains) scare the hell out of them. It increases costs, breaks their business model, and really can kill them.
Less rail service is not the public’s interest.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 4:57 am
I’m not certain if this still applies, but back in the 1920s and 1930s, the Pennsylvania and other railroads found that to electrify an exixting railroad cost almost as much as a whole new railroad.
I suspect much of this came from having to build a distribution system on top of the catenary, in effect a private high-tension power grid, complete with power stations. This was because the general utility grid was not as extensive as it is today, and is the reason for my weasle statement about how the basic statement may not still apply.
Can anybody here offer an answer on this?
Alon Levy Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 11:35 am
It’s no longer true, not by a longshot. Recent electrification projects in high-cost countries, including a line in Scotland and the New Haven-Boston electrification, cost about $2 million per route-km. Because electricity is more widespread today than it was in the 1920s, it’s possible for newly electrified railroads to tap into the local power grid, reducing costs.
In contrast, constructing a new line requires a new ROW, which involves land grading, land acquisition, and environmental mitigations, all of which cost much more than they used to. At-grade greenfield high-speed rail costs around $15 million per route-km in Continental Europe; in the US, SNCF estimates around $25 million per route-km even on those lines that parallel existing railroads and freeways.
However, reactivating an abandoned railroad, or even restoring tracks where they’ve been removed, is cheap. As long as the ROW is intact, the cost is just laying tracks, which isn’t expensive. NJT’s Lackawanna Cutoff proposal is slated to cost about $3 million per route-km (but includes a section with existing track), and NJT is one of the world’s least cost-efficient railroads. In Germany, recent reactivation projects have come in under $1 million per route-km.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
The cutoff has been out of service for 30 years, they are effectively building greenfield track. At least the state owns the ROW. Publicly owned all the way to Scranton.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
This is the issue: it’s not greenfield track. The ROW is already publicly owned. All the easements, earthworks, and viaducts are already present. This means all that’s required is tracks and signals, which are much less expensive. Compare the cost of infrastructure and system in SNCF’s proposals for American HSR corridors.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Some movie footage (from YouTube) on this very segment, and from the steam age to boot!
Check out the massive concrete bridges, huge fills, etc.; this was a super railroad for its time in 1910, and would be a pretty decent candidate today as a high speed line, being very straight and with no grade crossings, at least as originally built.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiN_qFWo70
Other Lackawanna footage, the first part is from the cutoff, later sections appear to be further west.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrOHCwodHu4&feature=related
Not high speed, but included for fun, the iconic California train, inaugurated in 1949–the beautiful California Zephyr, as seen in a PR film from the 1950s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWV7c1hfVk0
Enjoy.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Another clip on the Lackawanna, not on the cutoff but further west in Pennsylvania, with a steam excursion going over Nicholson viaduct, perhaps the iconic structure of the Lackawanna, over 2,000 feet long and nearly 300 feet high–perhaps the crowning achievement of the DL&W’s civil engineering corps, and still in use.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVlkrBvjbRA&feature=related
How come modern engineering achievements lack the grace and beauty of this old stuff?
Andy Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 6:10 pm
I’m not sure I follow that logic. One major point made by advocates of transit is that when loaded, transit is more fuel-efficient than cars. So if the cost of fuel goes up for everyone, the relative advantage of transit is increased.
When gas was >$4/gallon in 2008 and Amtrak was adding fuel surcharges to the Surfliner service, I don’t recall anyone worrying about the competitiveness of the Surfliner service. Quite the opposite, in fact, people were finding new ways to use trains to get to their destination (and a similar trend was occurring in freight). The economic mechanics of a per-barrel fee are identical to the oil price run-up of 2008.
Paul is correct to point out that a consumer gas/diesel tax is more selective, in that it only taxes those who fill up at a gas station to pay for the roads. But if the end result is stable funding for states wanting to invest in rails rather than roads, that may not be as important a distinction as it seems.
Samsonian Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:28 pm
A per barrel “fee” will tax the railroads and every other downstream user of oil and oil products
This is truer than many realize.
Railroads are the single, largest private purchasers of diesel fuel, and the most efficient form of transport, taking trucks off the road. Increasing their costs is bad public policy. Road fuels are the worst, and most inefficient use of oil, and should be taxed as such. Current on-road motor vehicle fuel taxes are very low (less than $0.50 per gallon), and are the lowest in the industrialized world by far.
Other uses of oil include various necessary chemicals and plastics. Useful products which often can’t be made without oil somewhere in the process.
Why should a minority of oil users, which provide irreplaceable products and services, be punished for the sins of road users (outside of a general pollution/carbon tax). Big fuel fees/taxes work better than big fees/taxes on every barrel of oil, that’s where the gluttony is.
That said, if a per barrel tax is the only way to fund a decent transportation bill focused on transit, and increase the structural floor cost of driving, then I’m for it.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 11:29 am
A general pollution/carbon tax would be higher than $3/gallon.
While overall, increasing oil costs would increase the cost of freight rail, it would increase the cost of trucking even more. Therefore, it would provide an incentive for shippers to switch to rail, offsetting freight rail’s cost increase with higher revenues.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
and increase the incentive to switch to electric traction, the electricity for the train can come from any source. If it’s coming from renewable or nuclear it doesn’t pay a carbon tax.
Samsonian Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
I realize the advantages of rail, still make it come out far ahead of road uses. I’d rather use a scalpel to target the problem area, than a sledgehammer. It just sounds like shiftless politicians being shiftless. But again, if it’s the only way to get it done, I’ll take it.
I’m all for electrification, like the fact that it can be generated from many different sources, including emission free ones. But I really don’t see the freight rail industry doing it without big government incentives.
Those incentives aren’t on the horizon. A simple carbon tax was never on the table. Only various forms of cap-and-trade were, but no Republicans supported any of them. And now Sen. Reid is abandoning the climate/cap-and-trade portion of energy legislation, again due to no Republican support.
Andre Peretti Reply:
July 25th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
An unexpected consequence of cheap gasoline has been the decline of American car and tire industries. All the research on fuel-efficient engines took place in Europe, and later in Japan. Long-lasting fuel-efficient radial tires were scorned by American tiremakers, which led to the dominance of Michelin and Bridgestone.
So, cheap gasoline indirectly harmed the very industries it was supposed to help.
YesonHSR Reply:
July 25th, 2010 at 10:47 am
Raise the gas tax has somehow become a untouchable thing..like gas is water or food and is to be provided at a low cost by the goverment ..this is the midset the idea of raising it say 75cents for all these improvents is up against…raising money thru the barrel tax may just be the answer and Railroads and other good users of oil might be able to get some write offs
The big news here is the new ideas for funding. If this switch happens, where will the libertarians be able to say that roads pay for themselves from the gas tax?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Heh. They’ll surely find some way to manipulate the truth to attack mass transit and continue the massive subsidies to roads.
Did Garamendi mention when they plan to formally present a new Transportation Bill to the House and Senate? (hopefully before January 2011)
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 11:18 am
No. Those discussions are ongoing.
Are we ever going to see the electrification of the Pacific Surfliner? It would also benefit trains that share the same rails (e.g. San Diego Coaster).
Joey Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 7:16 pm
I wish. It would be a great idea – you could electrify the Coaster (like you said), many Metrolink lines, and even maybe run HSR trains down the coast to SD before Phase 2 is built. I don’t think it’s on anyone’s radar right now though.
Possibly a bit off-topic, but here is what I consider a good article on HSR and freight road concerns, and the following comments are interesting, too.
http://www.economist.com/node/16636101?story_id=16636101&fsrc=nlw%7Chig%7C07-22-2010%7Ceditors_highlights
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 9:14 am
Some additional commentary on the freight/passenger mix, with a little bit of technical stuff.
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/07/24/the-u-s-emphasis-on-passenger-rail-and-the-future-of-freight/
In the lighter side department:
Was fiddling around with YouTube, and came across these clips of the Acela trains in New England. Most of these shots are in winter, with plenty of snow; part of the reason I like them is because they help take my mind off the heat we are having in the East right now!
It’s also interesting to see these trains race at 150 mph past passengers standing on the platform waiting for another train. Looks like HSR should be pretty safe to me!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwAJCuOafXs&NR=1
Just a graceful shot here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFEhD2nQxjE
From the comments on the clip: “Avalanche approaching, please stand behind the yellow line.” There is also another track between the photographer and the train, you just can’t see it here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0BBAHzar3M&feature=related
Freight service, why worry about snow?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn7Yvy4Vibk&feature=related
Union Pacific deals with snow, too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frBh5vO_2g0&feature=fvw
As a steam fan, I had to include this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha59KFvCQUY&feature=related
Keep cool.
I’m still a little flabbergasted that the US DOT Secretary goes to Netroots Nation. You could have never imagined that during the Bush II years.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 11:19 am
It was pretty cool. He was the only member of the Obama Administration who showed up, though Obama did record a message that was played here this morning.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 11:27 am
I don’t think it’s so surprising. At the 2007 Yearly Kos, all the serious Democratic Presidential hopefuls showed up, plus a few unserious ones. At the 2008 YK/NN, Pelosi showed up.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Either way, it’s a refreshing change of pace, a change of air. How many of us would have liked to have seen even this level of involvement 30 years ago? And you have to ask, would even a current Republican administration send their DOT man if that was what we would have elected in November of 2008?
Alon Levy Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
The GOP wouldn’t send people to a Democratic convention. It would send people to a Tea Party convention, though; one of the internal rifts in the TP movement is the extraordinary amounts of money the convention spent to get Palin and Bachmann to show up.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
When your Party says you can’t make a pit stop at the strip club between the convention hall and the hotel ya gotta get your eye candy somewhere.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
This is wrong on so many levels.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
They behave like 1950s teenagers. The Starr report was a novel length version of a “True Detective Stories” magazine soft core porn. All of them fascinated about other people’s sex lives, especially if the other people are Democrats. Their leading columnists write about how they see starbursts when Ms Palin appears on their TV screen. They can’t get conventional porn because that wouldn’t be what a “real” ‘Murcan does. So they drool over other things. Put Ms. Palin in a Bella Abzug body and no one would be listening to her. Ms Abzug on the other hand got attention for her ideas not her bodacious rack. …and Ms. Abzug was able to string complete sentences together into whole paragraphs…..
wu ming Reply:
July 25th, 2010 at 6:50 am
especially ironic given that obama’s DOT sec is a republican, and bush’s was a democrat.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 25th, 2010 at 9:31 am
I don’t know what Mary Peters’ politics is, but Ray LaHood is a very moderate Republican. He’s pro-life, but he’s a Main Street community-oriented conservative, like the various pro-transit Republicans (e.g. Weyrich, Lind) but without the cultural radicalism. He doesn’t think much of libertarianism, and is not an industry shill. Brad DeLong quotes him as trying to explain the Wall Street Journal’s editorial stance as a case of pro-market propaganda.
The sad truth is that if you exclude industry-funded people, a large proportion of US conservatives are actually pro-transit. Lind and Weyrich form one class of examples. The Manhattan Institute’s people are another. Glaeser is a third. Conservative pro-transit activism is different from liberal activism – for example, all the pro-transit conservatives I’ve heard of oppose high-speed rail, and prefer concentrating on either local rail or on standard-speed intercity rail – but it’s there.
Californians for High Speed Rail CA4HSR, of which Robert is the Chairman, presented a Power Point show to the Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC), detailing why CalTrain’s electrification plans have plenty of problems. Krause and Stanke did the presentation and did an excellent job.
I could really make a very long story, affirming what was said in this regard. It is just plain crazy to electrify as CalTrain now plans, with an eye for just a short time later expecting it to be useful for HSR. But Caltrain has a serious problem, because their EIR, which they have yet to certify, never takes into account HSR, yet they want HSR funds to be used to construct it.
I copy below the coverage of the meeting. This appeared today in the Daily Post, which does not connect to the internet, so their coverage is not available outside of the Bay Area. Robert may want to delete, since in general articles are not usually copies here, only links, which in this case is not available.
Although the presentation was fine, they got into trouble with the board, when they strayed from just talking about electrification and ventured into complaing about the positions the Consortium has taken vs. the CHSRA and how the project overall is being planned etc. That is what this article emphasizes.
Mayors Cline and Burt didn’t take this lying down as the article points out. Public comments were aplenty and I myself was not nearly as generous to them on their objections to the PCC positions as were Cline and Burt.
———-
(copy of Post Article)
Rail ciritism worries advocates:
Daily post July 24,2010 page 4
Diana Diamond
They say cities too hard on agency…
High-speed rail advocates yesterday
told Peninsula city leaders they were being too adversarial toward the state agency charged with developing the proposed $43 billion state system, and urged them to tone down the “rhetoric.”
The rail advocates, Daniel Krause and Brian Stanke of the group Californians for High-Speed Rail, made their comments yesterday at a meeting of the Peninsula Cities Consortium — five cities trying to assure that if high-speed rail comes through their towns, it should cause the least disruption possible.
Krause and Stanke urged the consortium to communicate better with the California High-Speed Rail. Authority and consider a four-track system through the Peninsula. They also questioned whether Caltrain’s plans to electrify its trains would be able to accommodate high-speed rail, and urged the consortium to slow down those plans and sublimate them to those of the authority.
Menlo Park Mayor Rich Cline, who is chair of the consortium, took issue with Stanke, saying the cities were urging the authority to make sure its numbers are correct and “it’s done right.”
Available space
Cline also said a four-track system is difficult if not impossible on parts of the Peninsula, especially those areas that only have a 75-foot right of way for a track system, rather than a 110- foot to 150-foot right of way for four parallel tracks.
“Our right of way approach and our other challenges have nothing to do with the wealth within our communities but with the available space in our cities,” Cline added, referring to the authority’s criticism that the affluent Peninsula cities have adopted a “not in my backyard” approach toward the high-speed rail system.
Stanke shot back, saying, “I am worried about Cline’s rhetoric about the high-speed rail system destroying Peninsula communities.”
Palo Alto Mayor Pat Burt said Palo Alto officials were given in 2008 one set of plans for the tracks but then after Prop lA passed, authorizing a $9.85 billion bond for high-speed rail, High- Speed Rail Authority board member Rod Diridon told the local cities that their only plan was to build an elevated berm through the entire length of the Peninsula, 110 feet wide. Krause admitted that the Peninsula track configu
- ration for high-speed rail was one of the most complicated and expensive stretch of tracks in the entire planned 800-mile high-speed rail system.
Ridership
Burt ratcheted up the discussion, saying the consortium’s initial questions were over issues inaccurately addressed by the authority, such as ridership projections and underestimated costs.
A recent analysis by a Berkeley ridership consulting firm, as well as the state’s legislative analyst office and the state auditor agreed that the consortium’s concerns were legitimate, also questioning the authority’s numbers.
“But I have not heard your organization (Californians for High-Speed Rail) acknowledge any of these analyses as being correct,” Burt said
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Great article on the meeting. I wish I could have attended it.
Regarding Burt’s last question, CA4HSR is not convinced the Berkeley ITS study is correct, and I’ve written before about the reasons why. We took issue with some elements of the LAO and State Auditor report, and agreed with others.
Nadia Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
CARRD asked CA4HSR to come present as we felt there is common ground between CA4HSR and PCC that might surprise some readers of this blog who don’t normally attend PCC meetings. Brian and Daniel did a great job with their presentation.
Both groups have concerns about Electrification and both groups feel that the situation in general on the Peninsula could and should be improved. It was refreshing to hear CA4HSR admit that there have been mistakes made and that a “reset” button needs to be set. Both groups are also interested in interoperability across all 4 tracks, level platform heights and how CBOSS would work with ERTMS.
Unfortunately, as Morris described, there was more focus on issues outside of electrification. I thought Daniel, however, did a great job of bringing the conversation back to focusing on the crux of the preso.
Almost all of the people who commented on the preso (if not all) agreed with the technical issues presented.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Thanks so much for that invitation, Nadia. Brian and Daniel – who I’ve asked to submit a post on the meeting – both said they thought the meeting was very productive and that their presentation did seem to have been well-received.
The presentation was based on the CA4HSR letter we submitted to Caltrain a few weeks back – it was posted on the blog at the time.
There was discussion of other issues as well, but that was probably necessary and definitely welcome.
We’ll have more on a peninsula “reset” soon.
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
There should be a reset but what I heard the PCC’s position is what Republicans wanted to do and that would be to start from scratch which doesn’t need to be done. What really is needed is one plan to improve both services so that they both complement each other in improvements make the taxpayer dollars stretch.
You know, back when Netroots Nation issued a call for ideas for panels, I thought of proposing one for good transit (then I realized I’d have to actually go to the convention for it, and dropped the idea). But my ideas for who to put on the panel were more along the lines of actual experts, or at least amateurs with extensive knowledge of the subject. Atrios doesn’t fit the bill.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
We should consider doing one next year. It could be experts, it could be transportation bloggers, it could be a mix of both.
What if all true, full costs of all modes, air, rail, auto, trucking, including infrastructure, maintenance, defending resources, health costs, you know, the whole true and complete costs for each mode, where charged in full up front at the consumer point of purchase with no shell games ( public war money for oil or public subsidy for transit, or whatever) and then the consumer could choose based on true cost.
Pay the full cost of a train ticket, but also put toll booths on every road. etc.
OF course this will never work or happen. If it did a lot more people would suddenly rediscover the value of their reeboks and would be a lot more efficient in planning their day.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
I actually suggested something like this to some of my political misrepresentatives. Reactions ranged from responses I can’t repeat on what I presume is a family-friendly forum to “You’re right, Dave, but we can’t do that,” and a variation that went, quite strongly, and angrily, “You can’t do that!”
By the way, the amount of strong negativity in the responses followed the generational pattern again.
One of the fun details I worked in was that the toll booths on a segment of I-81 in West Virginia (where I live), as well as in other sections, should be staggered. Mainly, this involved people driving into the state, but not paying until they left. Surprise!
This was to answer to people who didn’t like the idea of charging people to come into the state. I said I wasn’t going to charge them to get in, I would only charge them to get out!
Another detail was that the toll booths would simply be identified as the “State Tollway Authority.” Notice that this does not say which state. That way, as soon as the drivers got over their sticker shock, the first thing they would see would be a sign saying, “Welcome to Ohio,” or Virginia, or Maryland, or Pennsylvania. . .
Don’t think I’d really fool too many people, and the idea wouldn’t go anywhere anyway, but I’ve learned that sometimes the next best thing to accomplishing something is to annoy your oponents. . .
jimsf Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
That’s pretty funny. Although for me I’d change it a bit. Free come n go for stays under 14 days exorbitant fees for moving in, and bonus cash for moving out. That way we’d get all the tourist money, but still have the state to ourselves when they weren’t here.
I really do like toll roads though and I think each of the biggies in ca should be toll.
5,99,280,101,10,8,405,60,51,605,105,110,210, etc. and the money raised on each road should be earmarked for only that road. So if the 405 gets heavy use (duh) it gets the most wear and tear, but also raises the most money to maintain itself and so forth. Each freeway becomes self sustaining.
There’s also another way to encourage transit use that I don’t hear mentioned to often. Rather than trying to raise the cost of gas/driving to push people onto transit, instead you can also just stop doing road work and expansion. The best thing do is nothing. Once the traffic grinds to a complete halt people will look for alternatives. Plus you save a fortune in trust fund spending.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 25th, 2010 at 4:49 am
Great theme–”Keep West Virginia green, leave your money here!”
Emma Reply:
July 25th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Totally agree with you!
while i’d often heard robert’s CA=spain comparison on this blog, i’ll admit i never thought much beyond it. but from this post by the always-great DoDo over at european tribune, i got this bookmarkable if not entirely news to most of you rebuttal to the rail denialist line that american density isn’t as high as europe’s (and so HSR and rail in general is a lost cause):
list of US states by population density
list if countries by population density
new jersey is just below south korea and well above any european country
rhode island, massachusetts, connecticut are analogous to the low countries, europe’s densest
maryland is a bit below germany
new york and florida are above the czechs and danes
ohio and pennsylvania are france
california and illinois are spain
and if one thinks, as DoDo points out, in 1D lines connecting population centers instead of 2D areas, then a lot of those lower density american states below the spain threshold are going to look pretty good as well.
YesonHSR Reply:
July 25th, 2010 at 10:49 am
And most of California’s population lives very near the planned HSR sytem
Alon Levy Reply:
July 25th, 2010 at 11:25 am
People like Krugman have been pushing the Jersey = South Korea meme for years now. It requires complete ignorance of either Jersey or Korea. The issue is that the population density in Jersey (and Connecticut) is fairly uniform. There are higher-density areas like Newark and lower-density ones like the Pine Barrens, but overall the state is mostly suburban. Korea is not like that: it has a few very dense metro areas, separated by low-density rural and mountainous terrain. The Low Countries are similar, minus the mountains.
The only states in the US whose population density is as concentrated in a few regions as in entire European and Asian countries are the major urban ones, especially New York but also some low-density places like Texas and Georgia.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 25th, 2010 at 11:53 am
…which is why nobody uses Amtrak services in Metropark or Trenton….. might as well just zoom through, too suburban…
Alon Levy Reply:
July 25th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
By the standards of Busan and Daegu, nobody uses Amtrak services in Trenton. Even the Acelas sometimes skip the station.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 25th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
And as you pointed out New Jersey isn’t Korea. Suburbanites in New Jersey, even the service would embarrass the PRR, use the train. Put the same level of service in Trenton and Metropark people would use it.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 25th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Right…
Well the most important question is when are we finally getting proper high speed rail funding?? Obama supports it, the Governor supports it. Why are we so far behind in railway funding than other industrialized and newly-industrialized nations?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 25th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
As I see it, our lack of railway progress is a combination of several things. One is a generational attitude that has been discussed here before, and the fact that most of the leadership of the country until relatively recently (and perhaps still is), is of this generation that came of age when the future was supposed to look like “The Jetsons” and thought that meant trains should go away like the stagecoach. Another, feeding in on the first and reinforcing it, is the influence of the oil, road construction, and auto industries. A third factor is the country’s lousy economic conditon, both public and private, due to excessive debt. There is also the long momentum factor; a lot of this should have been started after the first oil crunch of 1973.
Finally, most politicians are the biggest cowards you ever saw. They are afraid of losing a dozen votes. Besides the insults I got being told I was a Communist (a load of hooey!) for suggesting a rapid transit line in an area with the traffic to justify a 4-lane road, I was told I was trying to take people’s cars away and bring back the horse and buggy, and Americans just wouldn’t stand for it! Cars are FREEDOM!!! “You’re absolutely right, Dave, but we can’t do that” (Note that this ties in with the idea that trains are from the 19th century, and wouldn’t fit into the world of “The Jetsons,” er, modern America.)
That “You’re right but we can’t do that” quote is from a relatively young State Senator who also commented that if he pushed this idea of transit, and also of properly pricing roads with the toll proposal mentioned above, he would be voted out of office, and he couldn’t do anything else because he would no longer be in the Senate.
I’ve mentioned it before, but there is a supposed quote from Winston Churchill, I believe it may have been from the postwar era, in which he commented that a pandering French politician “was trying to find out where his people were going so he could lead them there.”
More recently, an American journalist–I’m sorry I don’t recall who it was–commented in an editorial that most politicians were “as useful as coach dogs.” This was a reference to the dogs an innkeeper kept as pets in the stagecoach days, and the dogs, being dogs, would run out at the commotion of the approaching stagecoach and bark at the horses, apparently in a canine attempt to guide the horses to the inn.
What an apt description of most of the pols I know!
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 25th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Oh, I shouldn’t have to mention this, but so many people do forget. Presidents and Governors do not make laws, and in many ways are relatively weak officials. Remember that Congress and other legislative bodies are the ones that hold the pursestrings and also are the bodies that actually pass legislation.
A chief executive who has trouble with his legislature can be effectively hamstrung.
YesonHSR Reply:
July 25th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
What needs to stop and NOW is this silly 18cents a gallon Federal gas tax..its not even covering the upkeep..enough of this somebody else will pay for it mindset
Alon Levy Reply:
July 25th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
A better quote from Churchill, back from the 1920s, responds to the proposal that all gas tax money be dedicated to roads. He said something to the effect that Britain taxes bathhouses and theaters, and to put a road lockbox goes against the authority of Parliament and common sense. Thus, even then, Britain had much higher gas taxes than the US.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 26th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Alon and all, I would bet you would have liked Al Kalmbach’s comments on the matter (he was the founder and first editor of Trains magazine). Writing about those WW II federal railroad sales taxes that were still in effect at the time of the September 1947 issue, he argued that if road taxes were to be used for more roads, then railroad taxes should be used for railroads, income taxes to create more income, property taxes for more real estate, and whisky taxes for more whisky!
Alon Levy Reply:
July 26th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Yep, pretty much. (I’m trying to think what taxes could be levied for the military under such an arrangement. Probably none, requiring funding the military out of looting.)
Another link, maybe off-topic, but it does mention electric rail:
http://getenergysmartnow.com/2010/07/25/jobs-jobs-jobs/
Somewhat off topic, but I wanted to share a recent article published in the Economist that is unfortunately titled:
America’s system of rail freight is the world’s best. High-speed passenger trains could ruin it
This article sounds like it was written by the freight railroad industry and actually has minimal criticism for high speed rail itself, but is more concerned about government regulation that is being spurred by the development of high speed rail.
Opps, here is the link: http://www.economist.com/node/16636101?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/ar/americanrailways
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 26th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Interesting little tidbit in the article
“A special rail expressway for freight, the Alameda Corridor, was opened in 2002 to link the ports to the big national rail routes, bypassing the 200 level crossings (grade crossings, in America) on the original branch lines that used to cause huge traffic jams on the roads as mile-long freight trains rumbled across. The corridor, one of the biggest infrastructure projects in modern America, was completed on time and on budget for $2.4 billion”