Growing Awareness That the Cost of Doing Nothing is Not Zero
I really like the first half of this post at Christian Science Monitor by Andrew Holland explaining why California and the Northeast need high speed rail. He clearly understands that HSR’s costs have to be assessed in context:
When opponents talk about the high costs of high speed rail (and they are high), they are comparing it to the cost of doing nothing. But that’s not an option. Building new interstate highways has a cost per mile from $5 million up to beyond $20 million. In California, the state estimates that building the same amount of transportation capacity as the full high speed rail plan in highways and airport infrastructure would cost $114 billion, vs. the projected rail cost of $68 billion. On the East Coast, I suspect the numbers would be similar, or even more disparate, as the land for highway expansion is simply not available.
And that’s before you add in the costs of fueling those planes and automobiles – since they don’t run on renewable energy, the cost of burning fossil fuels is only going to keep rising.
But the latter part of the post doesn’t quite make sense to me:
Finally, a note about what I said in yesterday’s post about my skepticism about the funding model: government funding to government-sponsored companies. I take Amtrak between Washington and the New York area pretty often (my family lives in northern New Jersey) and the level of service and attention to detail drives me crazy. From the 1970s-era cars to the overpriced microwaved food, there is much that can be improved. Even on the few occasions when I travel by the Acela (only when someone else is paying), it’s a better experience, but still doesn’t meet levels I’ve seen when I’ve taken the train in Spain, Japan, or France. That said, it is better than domestic air travel these days, so I’m not sure that outright privatizing of the line would make it better. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Mica has proposed legislation that would privatize Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor, and there is some logic to that: this section (the only part of Amtrak that makes money) is used to cross-subsidize the other routes that lose money for every passenger.
He does realize that trains in Spain and France are owned and operated by the government, right? And there are quality services on Amtrak routes in the U.S. – the Coast Starlight, for example, has great amenities and food. An increasing number of those coaches and sleepers have been modernized. Amtrak California’s trains are modern, dating to the 1990s or newer, and while the food options aren’t ideal, they’re not any worse than what you get on an airplane.
Holland is falling into the trap of assuming that just because something is government run, the quality is less than you’d get in the private sector. In both cases the issue is raising the money in order to fund better service quality. The private sector can do so by going to investors or charging higher fares, but as the airlines have shown even that has limits. The public sector could go to their investors (i.e. taxpayers) as well as raise fares, and those have their limits too. But again, the models of Spanish and French HSR are obvious evidence that government can run train service and provide a good experience at the same time.
Holland continues:
William Lind, one of the only conservative activists in favor of rail (he writes for the American Conservative’s Center for Public Transportation) has made a coherent case that the big-government highway-building program of the ‘50s and ’60 undermined the free-market passenger rail companies. In a world where private actors paid the full cost of transportation, I think rail would still win — but until government gets out of the highway and airport business, there must be a role for government in the rail business too.
What free-market passenger rail companies are these? Many American railroads were built with huge capital subsidies from government. Further, why should private actors pay the full cost of transportation? Those costs can be very high, even prohibitive, if left to the private sector to fund alone. Government can bring the cost down through subsidies, which provide a significant economic boost to the country by making transportation affordable. Since there’s no good reason at all for the government to stop being involved in the funding and operation of highways and airports – a system that’s worked just fine for nearly 60 years – and since government operation of trains has often worked out well, it’s clear that it’s perfectly fine for government to operate bullet trains in America. Holland appears to be looking at this issue solely through an ideological lens, but in the real world, government operation is a pragmatic and affordable method that ought to be continued where possible.
I can’t believe you are defending Amtrak. It consumes both capital and operating subsidies that could go to actual useful transport options (including HSR)
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/transportation/amtrak/subsidies/
“Amtrak has lost money every year of its existence, and it has consumed almost $40 billion in federal operating and capital subsidies. During the 2000s, Amtrak averaged annual losses in excess of $1 billion. In 2010, Amtrak received $563 million in operating subsidies and $1 billion in capital and debt service grants. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 pumped an additional $1.3 billion in capital grants into Amtrak.”
StevieB Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 12:41 am
$1 billion is a pittance compared to what is lost on highways. The United States spends about $160 billion annually on highways, with about one-fourth of that total, or roughly $40 billion, coming from the federal government. The amount that is federally collected in current taxes on fuel and other
transportation activities is about $13 billion. The annual losses on highways is $27 billion.
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:04 am
Amazing
You are not even trying to say they are good, just that they don’t cost that much due to thier complete incompetence. WOW
StevieB Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 12:40 pm
I say passenger rail is less costly and onerous transportation than the alternatives.
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 1:15 pm
even when run by Amtrak?
Neil Shea Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 5:30 pm
OK John, I’ll bite: Which Airline’s service meets your standards?
(Anyone who flies can’t get excited about any of our airlines. Maybe Singapore or KLM is decent. But I know you are really excited about Virgin Trains, and hoping they will win the CA HSR operations contract…)
wu ming Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 7:34 pm
most of the asian carriers are pretty decent, but most of them are – surprise, surprise – government run as well.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:20 pm
From what I’ve heard, AirAsia makes Ryanair look good.
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:46 pm
Southwest all the way.
Fabulous service, cheap fares, you can sit wherever you like, no added fees, on time
Easy Choice
Alan Reply:
August 4th, 2012 at 10:20 am
Cheap fares courtesy of the generous subsidies provided to the airlines by the American taxpayer…
Paul Druce Reply:
August 4th, 2012 at 11:03 am
There aren’t generous subsidies provided for air travel, please try again.
jimsf Reply:
August 4th, 2012 at 11:28 am
airline subsidies and this from a conservative blog. Here are some numbers apologies for the long post but id like to hear the “air travel isnt subsidized crowd” explain this away….
_________
Here is the list of subsidies that have encouraged the airports to turn over their control to the federal government and the TSA. Is it any wonder airports didn’t opt out after two years?
Federal Subsidies for Aviation
Many claim that our aviation system is self-sustaining. That could not be further from the truth. There are, of course, also substantial subsidies for other levels of government, but this document refutes this specific argument.
FAA Operations get general funds as well as funding from the aviation trust fund. The general fund level was $3.01 billion in FY 2004. The FY 2007 enacted level is $2.703 billion, or 32.4% of the FAA Operations total of $8.331 billion. DOD and other government aircraft are often assumed to be responsible for just 15% of FAA Operations costs—that would be $1.25 billion in FY 2007, implying for this year a subsidy of $1.453 billion to private sector aviation (2.703 less 1.25). More than half of all control tower take offs and landings are general aviation (including business aircraft) and almost half of en route control center traffic is general aviation.
Airports benefit from tax-free financing. Robert J. Aaronson, then Director of Aviation at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, said “It is inconceivable that a modern airport, which under the existing tax code includes such public service accommodations as terminals and their related retail stores, runways, hangars, loading facilities, cargo buildings, parking areas and maintenance bases, as well as appropriately sized in-flight meal facilities, hotels and meeting facilities, could be provided on any adequate scale by taxable financing” (Aviation Week & Space Technology, Sept. 16, 1985).
The FAA’s Airport Improvement Program includes noise mitigation funds given directly to homeowners who live within certain footprints near airports where noise exceeds a designated decibel level. These funds are used to improve the sound-proofing of homes through window replacements and other noise mitigation procedures – basically a program to allow noisier jets and more frequent flights.
The Essential Air Services program, funded through the Office of the Secretary, provides about $110 million a year to subsidize scheduled air service to small communities that otherwise would go without.
As a consequence of 9/11, the FAA Aviation Insurance Program offers below-market rates for airlines’ war risk, hull loss and passenger, crew, and third-party liability insurance. The sunset date for this program has been postponed several times, most recently from August 31, 2007, to December 31, 2007.
The federal Air Transportation Stabilization Board was formed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks “to oversee $10 billion in assistance [loan guarantees] earmarked by Congress to help the struggling [airline] industry” (NYT, Mar. 2, 2004). The largest loan, $900 million, went to US Airways, Inc., in March 2003, enabling the airline to close on a $1 billion loan. ATSB’s last news release (May 31, 2006) states that it “still holds warrants in World Airways. The ATSB currently has no outstanding loan guarantees, but the Board has a direct loan of $86 million to ATA Airlines as a result of the airline’s bankruptcy.”
Federal airline security takes about $3 billion a year in general funds:
TSA spends about $5 billion (out of its $6.4 billion budget) on aviation, of which general funds cover about $2.3 billion, and passenger and airline fees the remaining $2.7 billion.
Federal Air Marshal Service’s budget is $722 million.
Federal subsidies for airline pensions have taken at least two forms—federal takeover of some airlines’ plans, and special breaks for most of the other airlines.
The federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation in recent years absorbed terminated pension plans from UAL Corp., parent of United Airlines, and US Airways Group Inc. (WSJ, July 31, 2006). The US Airways pension takeover involved PBGC taking over $2.3 billion in unfunded pension liabilities (WSJ, Nov. 3, 2005). As for UAL, “by the time the airline turned over its plan to the pension agency, the shortfall was $10.2 billion” (NYT, July 31, 2005). This was “the largest corporate pension default in history” (Washington Post, May 11, 2005). Even before these two takeovers, “claims by airlines accounted for 20% of [PBGC’s] total claims, according to the agency, and five of the 10 largest claims have come from struggling airlines” (San Francisco Chronicle, Dec. 31, 2004).
The 2006 pension reform law gave special breaks to airlines. “Northwest and Delta are getting an astonishing 17 years in which to fund their pension promises, and they are allowed to assume that the investment returns on their pension assets will be 8.85%—about a third higher than other companies are permitted to assume. American and Continental are being treated less generously, though they still get away with looser provisions than companies in other industries” (Washington Post editorial, August 2, 2006).
This year, “a pension measure tucked into last month’s Iraq war spending bill is causing some leading members of Congress to complain that American Airlines got a break worth almost $2 billion without proper scrutiny. The measure will allow American to greatly reduce its payments into its pension fund over next 10 years; at end of 2006, fund had assets of $8.5 billion and needed additional $2.5 billion to cover all obligations; new provision will allow American to recalculate those numbers, so that shortfall disappears and plan looks fully funded; Continental, along with small number of regional airlines, will also be able to take advantage of provision” (New York Times, June 21, 2007).
Paul Druce Reply:
August 4th, 2012 at 11:46 am
That’s about six dollars per passenger, not a generous subsidy and one which can be fairly easily recouped simply by increasing taxes and fees per ticket by an appropriate amount.
jimsf Reply:
August 4th, 2012 at 11:51 am
its not about the per passenger subsidy, and notice that it isn’t being recouped. Its billions and billions and billions of dollars invested in the airtravel infrastructure and if that kind of public money had been invested in rail travel, then rail travel would be at least, if not, more, accesable and efficient. In fact it would be way more efficient than air travel.
joe Reply:
August 4th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
And this….http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/
…and the US Taxpayers gave the airlines billions in fall 2001 to stay solvent during the post 9/11 transportation bust.
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 4th, 2012 at 2:05 pm
It is about per passenger subsidy. No one here is arguing that all forms of transit get some subsidy, but Amtrak gets $450+ per passenger on long haul routes. It is 2 orders of magnitude more.
And if low fares were a result of subsidy, then all airlines would have low fares…they don’t. Southwest is just a superior airline.
9-11 was a (hopefully) 1 time event. They gave money to casinos in Vegas also but not because they needed long term subsidies.
But what if they gave all that money to Amtrak. Amtrak would still be unprofitable and they would still stink.
Planes a faster…planes cost the taxpayer less per passenger…planes just are winning..get past it
Travis Mason-Bushman Reply:
August 4th, 2012 at 5:58 pm
No, planes aren’t winning. Air fares are going up, hundreds of jets are being parked and many mid-sized cities are losing air service. The entire “regional jet” class of aircraft is functionally obsolete with current oil prices. Passenger traffic growth is virtually nil despite the complete lack of alternatives to air travel in many markets.
If “planes just are winning,” why has every major American airline except Southwest declared bankruptcy at least once in the last 10 years? Why is Southwest pulling out of dozens of AirTran markets?
Alan Reply:
August 6th, 2012 at 12:34 pm
@Paul Druce: Absolutely, demonstrably wrong. The airlines are vastly subsidized by the American taxpayer.
First, the “Essential Air Services” program. Direct, cash subsidies to airlines for providing services which some politician deems “essential”.
Second, last I recall only about 50% of the FAA’s budget came from user fees. The rest came from the general fund–which amounts to an indirect subsidy to the airlines, which don’t have to provide their own infrastructure.
Third, name one airport–just one–which was built and is operated and maintained by an airline. There aren’t any. Taxpayers build the airports, operate them, provide police protection, and the airlines receive these facilities and services for far less than if they had to invest their own capital.
But nice try. Thanks for playing.
Andy M Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 2:03 am
Maybe one of the reasons that Amtrak appears inefficient is that it is being micro-managed by people who would rather see it dead. Look for example at the requirement that it makes provison for the carrying of firearms. An expense of several million but the service has hardly been used by anybody. If a corporation is not guided by market or commercial drivers but by knee-jerk decisons from comissions of people who’d rather throw a spanner in the works than solve problems, what do you expect?
Amtrak operates in a climate of uncertainty. There has been little long-term commitment but lots of last minute decisons and dribs and drabs of money delivered in an unpredictable way that have made real long term investemnt nigh on impossible. Yet in spite of all the odds, Amtrak continues to provide a service that is actually pretty good in view of the circumstances.
swing hanger Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 6:51 am
Wasn’t Amtrak (or Railpax) basically a concession to the freight railroads who wanted to get out of the passenger business (except for few like Santa Fe, and the Southern) but had to do something about the pensions of all those railroad employees who were suddenly going to be redundant? I think it was never intended to be a permanent operation.
Andy M Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 7:23 am
I think they tried to sell it like that at first.
The problem with Amtrak is/was that they never had a clear charter. Was the objective a managed decline, or was it to turn things around and make them work? I don’t think anybody was ever entirely clear over that question and hence there was never a clear line of action either way.
In the meantime of course, facts have caught up with policies, and it is becomeing increasingly clear that a working passenger rail system is no luxury but a necessity.
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:09 am
Or maybe it is because it is being directly managed by people who are incapable of managing an un-subsidized buisness. They lose most of the money of long routes where the train should have a great advantage over cars due to speed/driver fatigue.
Again, if Amtrak is the future then i prefer the present
Andy M Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:16 am
Managed by people who have their hands tied behind their back by micro-managing congressmen who are doing everything to throw as amny spanners as they can into the works.
jimsf Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 11:24 am
Exactly!
and John, AMtrak may not be profitable, but that does not mean it isn’t useful.
I spent a lot of money on plants and furniture for my apartment. They don’t make me any kind of profit and they require constant upkeep. But they are useful.
Not everything in life has to make a profit. As a country we spend all kinds of money on all kinds of things that aren’t profitable. Its a decision we make as a democracy. You get some things you like, I get some things I like. End of story.
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Its a fair point, but the totality of my argument is not profit.
They aren’t profitable
They aren’t efficient
They aren’t particularly good at actually transporting people
What are they good for?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:58 pm
They are good for holding a place for real passenger service later. Otherwise, you would have to rebuild the service from scratch. Take my word for it, that is something you DON’T want to have to do. I should know; I tried it for a tourist rail service, and also for a trolley service.
Spokker Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:04 pm
To be fair, the freight keeps the tracks from being demolished and the future for Superliners isn’t very bright anyway. I do not think Amtrak, as it exists today, represents a good foundation on which to base future passenger rail service on.
It’s only the foundation because it’s the only thing we’ve got.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:24 pm
“t’s only the foundation because it’s the only thing we’ve got.”
Thanks for shortening my point!
Really, it’s harder to write short than write long. . .especially if you’re in a hurry. . .
Spokker Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:33 pm
Then we agree and can stay the best of friends.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Hey, I’m willing to disagree and still be a friend!
Just go a little easy on the profanity and perhaps the sex. . .this isn’t Hollyweird!!
Spokker Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:38 pm
D.P., you shovel the coal that powers the steam train to my heart.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:39 pm
Ho, ho, ho, ho!!!
(And watch Donk tell us we should be running the Polar Express!!)
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:54 pm
Perhaps you two need a room. LOL
So let me get this straight. I should like Amtak because they are better then nothing at all.
What a strong recommendation
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 10:22 pm
It’s not a strong recommendation, but it is true.
And like I said before, it still is a foundation from which to build more, poor as it may be. Again, take my word for it, restarting this from scratch would be orders of magnitude more difficult otherwise.
Jerry Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 3:43 pm
@jimsf. I agree.
I keep forgetting about the costs of the basic free? public and private transportation system we all use.
How much profit does an elevator make for its condo owners?
Or its apartment building owners?
Or its office building owners?
Maybe we need a new type of transportation budget and accounting system.
Or maybe we should eliminate all those subsidized socialistic elevators and make them pay for themselves. High Speed Escalators anyone?
Neil Shea Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 5:34 pm
The elevator vendors do segment their offerings, and my 4-floor office building let Dover leave the setting set to SLOW. It’s faster to walk. If you can’t order the fast elevator to begin with, at least slip the installer $100 to change it to full speed during installation. There is no way you would manufacturer a separate product line of elevators that are slower than walking.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 7:11 pm
How much profit does an elevator make for its condo owners?
More than the cost of the installation. New York is filled with “walk ups” apartments on the 4th, 5th and sometimes even the 7th floor of buildings that don’t have elevators. Before the elevator the stuff on the third floor was cheaper than the stuff on the second floor and the fourth floor was cheaper than the third or second.
… try to build a new apartment building with apartments on the 4th floor, in a building that doesn’t have elevators. The purchasers ( or renters ) pay for the elevators.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:26 pm
Two things.
1. Congress does micromanage Amtrak excessively. For example, the Acela was pressed into service prematurely, because of pressure from Congress, which believed it would make Amtrak profitable. This led to design problems: there wasn’t enough time to install PTC in the design phase, which is at least part of what led the FRA to demand high buff strength.
2. The long-distance routes’ problem isn’t that they can’t compete with driving. It’s that they can’t compete with flying. I’m a train nut and it never even occurred to me to try moving by train – why spend 4 days on a trip when I could spend 9 hours?
Winston Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:35 pm
“there wasn’t enough time to install PTC in the design phase, which is at least part of what led the FRA to demand high buff strength”
Wait, what? Do you have a link to more information on this. I wasn’t following the clusterfuck that is the Acela at that time.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:58 pm
There’s no link. In 1995 or so the signal companies promised they would magically produce something ERTMS/ACSES like in a twinkling of an eye. If they have this wonder signal system they don’t need buff strength. The goal of completing the signals fell farther and farther behind. Acela was redesigned to meet then current FRA standards.
Andy M Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 2:06 am
I also like the fact that your source above cites the UK as an example, while carefully ignoring the face that since privatization, rail subsidies from public funds have tripled. So much for the efficiency of state-run organisations versus private.
Miles Bader Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 6:41 am
Of course, if you want to privatize, you need to do a good job of it (which may take a very long time and much care), and the UK is a poster-boy for doing it badly (it was forced through for ideological reasons by a dying government).
I suppose since the people currently pushing for Amtrak privatization are nutters who care nothing about a good result (and would probably prefer a bad one), and who are almost certain to do everything wrong, that’s a pretty good argument for not privatizing… :]
Andy M Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 7:03 am
exactly
Ben Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 7:29 am
More federal money was spend on highways in 2010 than has been spent on Amtrak during its entire forty year history (through 2010). Amtrak has set ridership records every year for the past 6-7 years. It seems pretty successful to me considering what a low priority we’ve made passenger rail.
blankslate Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Transportation infrastructure is not supposed to be profitable. We pay for it as a society so that people can go places and the economy can function.
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 1:17 pm
When I made that argument a couple of blogs back about roads there seemed to be quite a disagreement about that.
BruceMcF Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 5:34 pm
You didn’t make the argument that its appropriate to subsidize transport, because of the benefits it provides … which sets up the question of which types of transport we should be subsidizing and to what degree …
… you made the argument that a subsidy is not a subsidy when the subsidy for one mode of transport is so big that it makes it the dominant mode of transport.
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:50 pm
I believe I made both arguments. If you look carefully I said that transportation was a basic service like police or fire (exactly the argument blankslate just made).
You will recall because you asserted that the police were a subsidy (under the strict definition of the word).
But my point is I agree, no form of transit can exist without government support…rail, cars, walking, biking, airlines, etc.
The question is…Where is the money best spent?
jimsf Reply:
August 4th, 2012 at 11:43 am
The answer to the question of where the money is best spent depends on who you ask. and since all american get a vote and an opinion, what you get is different things in different places. San Francisco will vote to tear down existing freeways while orange county will vote to build more. thats how it works. There are more and more people in california who are younger, or new here from other countries, and who are not wedded to the fading ways of the middle of the last century. And they will be the ones who shape the future of california to THEIR liking. Those of us who are 40, 50 or older are not going to stop that. The only reason there are people still clinging to the last century is because there were so damn many baby boomers hanging on. But their days are numbered and as they inch along towards dentures and depends, they become less relevant. Thats just a fact of life. They are relevant now because they still have the gumption to yell at congress and they still have enough money in their retirement accounts to keep madison avenues attention. But rest assured their power is on the wane. The younger generation is is like none Ive ever seen. They are completely detached from the last century. They have their own ideas, and have no intention of being told they can’t have their way. The 20th centruy has truly come to a close. I see that now. Now I feel sad.
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 4th, 2012 at 2:11 pm
I direct you to the youth of the 60s who where “like no other young generation”. Or perhaps the youth of the 40s who became the gayest generation.
Every young group thinks they’re different, but then they grow up and get real jobs and families. They do have their own ideas and that is a good thing, we need new blood for society to advance, but you can’t extrapolate the dreams of today into the reality of tomorrow. If that was the case then we would be living on communes right now making love not war. Those youth of the 60s are the leaders currently running wars in Iraq and Afganistan.
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 4th, 2012 at 2:11 pm
That should read greatest…not gayest generation. Bad spellchecker….bad
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:19 pm
The disagreement revolves around two points:
1: The definition of subsidy. You say roads aren’t subsidized because everyone pays for them, just not directly–but that is the very definition of subsidy. You can justify it by saying everybody is a road user, even if indirectly, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is still a subsidy.
2. Many people insist–including you–that a railroad should not operate with a subsidy. That gives cars a huge price advantage. It’s also the definition of a double standard. Have the auto driver pay for his roads–and pay for them visibly–and see what a difference you’ll have.
In short, treat everyone (in this case, every mode) the same, and let the chips fall where they may.
I would be quite confident of the outcome–even if I have to acknowledge you’ll hear wailing and gnashing of teeth clear to heaven. . .
Alon Levy Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:28 pm
This is because not everyone here agrees on everything. For example, I tend to be fairly hawkish on transportation subsidies, especially for intercity transportation. Bruce is the exact opposite – he’ll tell you that it is wrong to not subsidize transportation because it has great benefits to non-users.
Speaking of Amtrak, and in California, too:
http://stopandmove.blogspot.com/2012/08/amtrak-california-ridership-continues.html
If “inefficient” Amtrak can do this, what will we get for a new railroad that will perform better than any other land option, and perhaps better than an air option?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 4:10 am
Another piece on the same subject.
http://transportationnation.org/2011/06/15/amtrak-california-ridership-up-after-marketing-blitz/
One has to laugh at this pair of comments (there are only three showing):
EVFan
06/20/2011 at 5:58 pm
“Ridership may be up, but Amtrak is still losing money on every rider. Time to raise fares to cover costs.
“HSR will lose even more money that California cannot afford.”
Draderik
07/08/2011 at 10:09 am
“The state also loses money on every mile driven by fuel efficient and hybrid cars as they don’t pay enough gas taxes to cover the construction cost and maintenance of the roads. Certainly, we need to eliminate these leeches and force everyone to drive 10 mpg bricks.
“Every transportation mode is partially subsidized by the government. Airports aren’t free, roads aren’t free, rails aren’t free.”
Hmmm, if his user name, “EVFan” is any indication, the writer is a big backer of electric vehicles; his profile photo, which of course may or may not really be him, shows white hair. Could this be our generational factor at work again?
francis Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 5:52 pm
“Ridership may be up, but Amtrak is still losing money on every rider. ” shows a lack of understanding of basic business sense. Running trains has high fixed costs. The added variable cost of one more person riding is pretty small as long as there is still space on board. We’re talking maybe a few cents more of cost from fuel from the added weight, ticket printing, and on-board toilet paper usage. The rest of the fare goes directly towards reducing losses.
Regarding food on Amtrak, the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee held a hearing about the food and beverage service on Amtrak:
http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=1691
Amtrak recently announced its plans for a $151B investment in the Northeast corridor to have 94 minute service between DC -NY. Amtrak also announced plans for a beautiful, ambitious, $7B modernization of DC’s Union Station and the House Transporation & Infrastructure Committee holds a hearing on Amtrak’s food service? Worst Congress ever. Be sure to vote out these Republicans this November.
Andy M Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 4:39 am
Yes, the lunatics are running the asylum and doing everything possible to make sure they don’t get re-elected.
VBobier Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:19 am
Then lets give them a little push…
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 7:37 am
Did you read the Amtrak President testimony? They loose money on food service…lots of money. For everyone else in the world (movie theaters, airlines, amusement parks, etc.) it is a profit driver and to quote him
“Our goal is to recover 70% of food costs by 2015″
Any you wonder why people don’t support trains. If I had to pick between Amtrak and a lifetime of cars I would pick cars
Andy M Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:10 am
Food is a profit driver for everybody?
If that is so, why don’t airlines give you more food choices? Or more choice of beverages for that matter? Airlines make colossal losses on catering. or why don’t they offer the food they have in Business class to Economy Passengers (if need be, charge extra for it)? Quite simply, because they can’t afford to. The only reason they don’t pull out of food entirely is that they know passengers expect it.
Same with Amtrak.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:33 pm
Does Amtrak offer free food on the long-distance trains?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:54 pm
They do to sleeping car – the first class – passengers. Traveling in a sleeping car is American Plan – meals included. It’s free in first class on Acela too.
Andy M Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:13 am
and anyway, this whole debate on food seems to em to be yet another attempt by Amtrak haters to meddle and micro-manage.
Peter Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:49 am
To add on what Andy M. wrote, food isn’t a profit driver for pretty much anyone in the transportation industry, but a loss leader. Ever wonder why airlines charge now for food? Because it used to be “free” for the passengers (and very expensive for the airline), and everyone bought it (because it was already included in the ticket or the airline saw it simply as part of the cost of doing business and chalked it up as a loss).
Nowadays hardly anyone buys food, and we’re lucky if the freakin peanuts are free (they aren’t on American, iirc, not even on a four-hour flight). I’m waiting for trans-atlantic flights to start charging for food, that’s going to be the next step.
Andrew Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:19 am
It’s always better to have a choice than not to have a choice. As it turned out, most people had the latent preference of eating better or cheaper food on the ground.
Max Wyss Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 2:50 pm
From second-level hearsay, the USAn airlines charge for alcoholic beverages on transatlatic flights. I read something aboout USD 7 for a measly can of donkey piss … ehh beer. And of course only payable with a credit card…
No wonder it is a quite a long time I last flew on an USAn ariline to the US…
joe Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 5:13 pm
Virgin America
Beer $6 or $7 per can.
21st Amendment – Back in Black IPA
Black Star Beer
Blue Moon Beer
Heineken
Bud Light
Pringles $3 per short canister.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 5:19 pm
yet another reason the airlines love the TSA banning liquids in things other than itty bitty containers.
Peter Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 6:01 pm
You can take drinks on the plane that you buy after the security checkpoint, though. Expensive, but cheaper than buying stuff on the plane itself.
joe Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 6:16 pm
Peter
I was just flying back to back this and last week.
You can’t take beer on board. It’s sold in glasses in the terminal. Expensive. Beer and Burger cost me $22 sit down. $6-$7 on the plane. $7 for scotch.
Soda and water are free on the plane. Virgin America – Philz coffee, water (small 6 or 8 oz bottle and soda are free).
Soda is expensive in the terminal and in unsecured areas.
I think SFO was 3.00 for a plastic soda bottle in vending systems in the parking lot and baggage areas.
Andy M Reply:
August 6th, 2012 at 3:19 am
Whereas on a train you can pretty much take whatever food or drink you like, at least if you’re travelling in sleeper.
So Amtrak isn’t as scared of competition as airlines are.
Neil Shea Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:04 am
Hey John, we’re just trying to get people off Your Roads, so you can enjoy your lifetime of cars. We’ll also advocate ending those pesky subsidies that causes other people to crowd Your Roads, wasting your time, and driving up the price of Your Gas. A diverse set of tasty (self-catered) Drive-In Food choices will still be available to you. Heaven.
Neil Shea Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:08 am
P.S. Don’t worry about the Chinese, Indians and rest of the world emulating Your Values and Your Preferences, and ruining the planet for Your Kids and Your Grandkids. Your lifetime of driving will be well earned and enjoyed, and that will be Someone Else’s Problem (e.g. people who were not smart enough to be Born when You Were). We can even bury you with a toy 1965 Mustang or your choice of motor vehicle for a happy afterlife.
Neil Shea Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 11:55 am
And John, you and I will have a name for all those folks who are like us, not smart enough to be born in the developed world before the year 2000, those later generations who hear stories about affordable fuel, a beautiful climate, manageable sea levels, polar ice caps and the lack of frequent floods and fires. We call them SUCKERS! (Say it with me: SUCKERS!) We got to drive our cars. Na-na-na-na-na!
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Neil, you are hurting my feelings, I may start to cry. Just kidding, I have people for that, I would not want to risk tears staining my bespoke shirts.
If you think Amtrak is going to save you I would not hold my breath in the meantime.
Neil Shea Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 2:51 pm
At least you – and your people – will keep your stiff upper lip and keep the band playing as you (we) go down with the ship. Do you have any Grey Poupon?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Dagny Taggart as one of her last public acts will make sure hes on the train to go join John Galt.
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:53 pm
Did you really read Atlas Shrugged…or just the cliff notes? Fountainhead was my favorite.
joe Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:57 pm
Which one had Orcs?
Winston Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:00 pm
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.” -John Rogers.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:12 pm
I read voraciously in my adolescence. Those and Anthem. I like Anthem better, more laughs and much shorter.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
Spokker Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:14 pm
Unoriginality unfolding before our very eyes.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:19 pm
I think John Rogers was very original in his thoughts. Which is why he gets quoted.
Winston Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:20 pm
Or at least not bothering to read existing comments. In my defense, I would have been the first note of the hive mind were I not determined to check the source of my quote. Honestly Libertarians are the silliest of the political movements.
Winston Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:21 pm
note=node
Spokker Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 10:15 pm
http://i.imgur.com/7j5Ic.jpg
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:01 pm
I have to know Neil, do you really like Amtrak and think they are doing a good job or do you just hate me (or both I suppose)?
Amtrak has done more to set back rail in this country then any opponent. They serve as a living reminder of how not to run a railroad.
Spokker Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:12 pm
Maybe you should be scared that the ship is going down and no one really knows why.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:29 pm
Spokker, depending on what you mean by “ship” (Amtrak? United States? The world?), I think plenty of people can come up with answers (most of which would involve multiple causes or inputs–very little happens from single causes)–but some people can’t handle those explanations. That makes the vote-seeking politician frightened; speak the truth, and he gets kicked out of office, even if he is sincere, clear, and logical in what he has to say. I should know, I’ve faced this–and lost.
Spokker Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:37 pm
D.P., everything.
Even if both sides feel they have the answer, and sincerely believe that, why do they push so hard on their opinions? Because the only thing worse than the other side being right is nobody being right.
In all honesty, my true opinion on everything is that I don’t know and have no idea how to truly know. So pick something and hold on tight.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:55 pm
John, you should read a little history. I’m thinking in particular of a neat little book, “Passenger Terminals and Trains,” by John Droege, originally published in 1916 and reprinted some years later; it should be fairly easy to find, and not too expensive.
Despite it’s relatively small size, it’s almost a pocket encyclopedia of descriptions of the most notable passenger stations in America at the time, with commentary about how stations should be set up and passenger trains run, and written by the general passenger service manager of the New Haven–a railroad with up to 44% of its gross revenues from passenger service, a ratio far higher than average, other than for something like a trolley line.
He noted that dining car service lost a lot of money even then, but was considered important to have because if you didn’t have dining cars, people wouldn’t ride. They would go on the line that offered diners.
You likely don’t know this, but at least in the traditional days of a full-service dining car, you had what was a “non-revenue” car (you didn’t sell tickets for it) that was a mobile restaurant, with complete facilities for cooking anything from some biscuits to a full steak dinner in a kitchen that measured perhaps 6 feet by 15. The car itself only seated 32 to 40, 32 being more typical. This mobile restaurant was very often the most expensive car in a passenger train, and usually the heaviest one, too. The location of the kitchen and all the heavy gear in it at one end and on one side (with a passageway for passengers opposite it) often required a car to have three different spring rates on account of the weird weight distribution. Specialized equipment that you wouldn’t have in a normal restaurant included all the stuff a railroad car needs, like wheels, couplers, air brakes, air signal and communication lines, a self-contained electrical system (we’re talking about the traditional era, with axle-driven generators and a big battery system), and a self-contained pressurized water system (the water being pressurized by air from the brake system).
Have your restaurant set up for that and with excellent service, too (which means you have to hire enough people to run the thing), and tell me if your restaurant makes money.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Passenger_terminals_and_trains.html?id=hunGiOux5EUC
William Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 11:45 am
What would most people prefer for food/drink service?
European/American: Cafe cars selling food and drinks, as on Amtrak California routes
Japanese/Taiwan: Stands on platform for solid food and drinks, vending machine on trains for drinks, food cart on trains
thatbruce Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 12:27 pm
@William:
I’ve seen a handful of European regional trains with a food cart and/or on-board vending machine in lieu of a cafe car. Most regional/long-distance trains do go for cafe-style cars when there is food for sale on the train.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:36 pm
Personally I prefer the Japanese option, not because the food is better, but because I’d rather have extra space for seating.
72Million /3.2 miles=22.5 M per mile.
Winston Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:49 am
That’s for an auxiliary lane project. That is, one with no modification to bridges. Adding a real lane is much more expensive.
Peter Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:53 am
Does this actually entail widening the freeway, or does this simply utilize the existing ROW?
Winston Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:02 am
All the project is is building lanes between exit ramps on existing ROW.
joe Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 5:04 pm
More than that – see above.
They are tearing up the side of the road – shoulders on either side – taking down some garbage trees and shrub and widening the road to add two lanes on each shoulder.
One added lane will shift the traffic right and create a 2nd car pool lane. The other “lane” is a persistent merging lane.
2nd car pool lane allows car pool traffic to flow past cars that enter and exit the lanes without stopping car pool traffic – which currently happens.
This improvement will feed cars into Palo Alto quicker in the AM. Instead of backing up traffic, the added lanes allow traffic arrive and get off the HW quicker.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 5:17 pm
well doesn’t every highway project promise congestion free Nirvana? I give it a year or two before it’s congested again. Time after time the highway designers build something to relieve congestion and that induces demand.
or feeding traffic into Palo Alto will just move the congestion from the nicely sound barriered highway to local streets.
Or both.
Neil Shea Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 5:58 pm
I kinda like enhancements that tee up user pricing like HOT/Lexus lanes. Just like appropriately pricing parking, with appropriate tolls you can keep congestion at bay theoretically indefinitely (Markets — they’re not just for Galt anymore).
Trains have user fees, roads should too — gas taxes are obviously an efficient and consistent way to collect them but politically it’s easier to keep installing Lexus lanes.
Derek Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 7:02 pm
Gas taxes are less efficient than variable tolls in that they cannot keep a freeway moving at optimal throughput at all times.
What gas taxes are good for is recovering the cost of air pollution and carbon emissions.
Spokker Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 7:17 pm
Time is currency. Traffic can be considered efficient if drivers wish to sit in it. In fact, when you advocate tolls, and I do, you will be met with resistance from those with little money and a surplus of time (i.e. my time is not very valuable).
Transit service is a right these days, so I guess freeway travel might as well be too.
Spokker Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Efficient might be the wrong word to use. Let’s call it the utility maximizing amount of traffic.
Winston Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 7:26 pm
The odd thing is that people with lower incomes (less valuable time) choose to use HOT lanes lightly more than wealthier people. It’s likely because they have less flexible schedules. Regardless of what they might say they want, lower income folks actually want toll lanes because when they exist they are more than willing to shell out to use them.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 7:39 pm
If the time was so much less valuable to them they wouldn’t be sitting in traffic wasting expensive gasoline in a expensive to buy, maintain and insure car. They’d be at a street corner waiting fothe bus to arrive.
Derek Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 7:46 pm
False. “Support [for HOT lanes] is high across all income groups, with the lowest income group expressing stronger support than the highest income group (80% vs. 70%).”
Spokker Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:55 pm
I am not surprised at the support for converting HOV lanes to HOT lanes. What is there to oppose unless you are the minority of drivers who carpool?
I would be surprised if support for complete tolling of the highway system were that high. I haven’t seen any official polls but those who support it seem to talk of an uphill battle.
joe Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:22 pm
Implant a chip in our cars – better still, in our ass so we can accurately charge fees and tolls.
Winston Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 6:53 pm
No, they’re not. Look at the typical sections here: http://www.vta.org/projects/101_aux_lanes_proj/101_aux_full.jpg All they’re doing is taking the left shoulder in either direction and repaving and restriping it into an HOV lane. They will also an auxiliary lane for a portion of the distance. This is a pretty good capacity increase for the cost, but in most places where the freeways are built-out (most of the rest of 101, for example) adding additional capacity is much more expensive.
joe Reply:
August 4th, 2012 at 8:21 pm
Winston – I drive that segment many times a week.
The construction is on the right side of the road. Massive digging and widening. Not much on the left shoulder to take.
http://goo.gl/maps/8RTR8
Winston Reply:
August 6th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
My best guess is that they’re planning to shift traffic right then dig up the shoulder. That’s how they did the shoulder lane conversion + auxiliary lanes on I680 near Walnut Creek. Of course, it’s possible that VTA’s drawings are out of date.
Neil Shea Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 5:21 pm
It will no doubt be all ready to convert to HOT Toll lane like the carpool ramps on the 880-238 interchange.
Reality Check Reply:
August 4th, 2012 at 7:47 pm
They’ve already announced that the second HOV lane will help facilitate/support the planned introduction of Hwy 101 HOT lanes. Unclear (to me, at least) whether just one or both HOV lanes will be HOT.
Reality Check Reply:
August 4th, 2012 at 7:49 pm
By the way, Neil, the ‘T’ in “HOT lane” is “toll” … so “HOT Toll” is redundant.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 6th, 2012 at 1:18 pm
I need to get more cash out of the automatic ATM machine, but it’s hard for me to remember my personal PIN number.
I don’t want to start another War of the Modes debate but here are the estimated costs of highway capacity projects in Southern California for comparison to high speed rail
Project Low High
I-5 widening (San Diego County) $3.3B $4.5B
405 widening (Orange County) $1.4B $1.7B
710 expanision/improvements (LA County) $7B $7B
605 freeway (OC/LA) $277M $277M
TOTAL $11.97B $13.47B
flowmotion Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:34 am
I-710 is all about truck traffic to the port from the rest of the state. (There’s also another $15 bill for the Pasadena tunnel, although that’s probably going to be a toll facility.)
Derek Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 1:44 pm
These widening projects aren’t needed. Congestion relief can be achieved much more cheaply and permanently by converting existing lanes into express lanes.
And because the I-5 will compete with CAHSR for users, we all should especially oppose the I-5 widening project.
joe Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 5:06 pm
I can relieve congestion by outlawing cars.
Having a nonsensical objective function and optimizing that function is simple.
Actually accepting the fundamental issues underlying the problem is a concept you cannot or refuse to tackle.
A $100 per car congestion tax solves all problems.
Derek Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 6:37 pm
Sorry, Joe, but charging everyone the same price at all times just doesn’t work very well in the real world. Have you every thought about why restaurants price their lunch menus differently from their dinner menus?
The “one price fits all” model went out with the fall of Communism. It’s a failed strategy. Let’s not repeat past mistakes, ok?
Spokker Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 7:00 pm
I would like to see more variable pricing on trains as well. On the Surfliner, you will pay the same price for a train at 5PM as you will at 10PM. There’s much more demand for travel at 5PM than there is at 10PM, and it shows on the train.
I would also like to see distanced-based pricing explored on the light rail and subway routes, but that’s a non-starter here.
Miles Bader Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 7:18 pm
You have to be very careful though, because people hate complexity in the fare system. Passenger hate means lower ridership, so there’s a very real cost to added fare complexity. It’s one of the huge turn-offs of the current air-travel system (in which fare complexity has reached truly ridiculous levels … it’s more or less like gambling at this point).
Distance-based subways work well because (1) the fare is constant for a given route, and most people tend to use a restricted number of routes, (2) fares are very low (pocket money), so misjudging occasionally isn’t particularly painful (and the average fare probably isn’t appreciably different than in a fixed-fare system), (3) distance-based fares can be implemented in a way that requires little or zero user thought/effort (current best practice being entrance+exit gates together with stored-value cards).
Miles Bader Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 7:47 pm
Oh, one more point:
Distance-based subways work well because: ….. + (4) fares vary slowly and smoothly based roughly on geography, so they’re easy to predict (roughly) and so don’t tend to be surprising.
Spokker Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:43 pm
One thing I would do is remove the bucket system complexity but add time of day fare complexity and perhaps it would all be a wash anyway.
Spokker Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 7:00 pm
They do have off-season and summer fares, though.
joe Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:26 pm
In the real world we apparently charge tolls based on dynamic marketplace. Not many examples – in my world. IL charges the same at night as day.
In the dynamic marketplace you use the highway and see how much it costs – you don’t know until the algorithm computes the congestion and demand. Simple right?
Spokker Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:46 pm
I proposed a congestion-based pricing plan for Disneyland tickets combined with the return of “ABCDE-Tickets” on RFID cards once. My cat was not very impressed.
Derek Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:58 pm
If you drive at the same time every day, the price will be about the same. That’s not difficult to remember.
joe Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:32 pm
What is the postage rate for a letter to Nome Alaska and my local water company? The same. Well to the United States of Communism.
Idiot.
Derek Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:58 pm
It only works when the USPS is the only carrier allowed to deliver first class mail–a legal monopoly.
Spokker Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Those assholes put it in the Constitution though.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:17 pm
The first class letter monopoly isn’t in the Constitution. Nor is delivering everything everywhere at a flat rate. For that matter neither is prepaid delivery. At one time the recipient paid the postage, in cash, or the mail wasn’t delivered.
MarkB Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:29 pm
Derek, it’s apparent that congestion pricing gives you a woody, but the fact is that a freeway built with federal money (which means pretty much every freeway in the state) CANNOT toll existing capacity unless the state first reimburses the feds for every dollar the feds contributed to the road’s construction. That’s why you’ll notice tolls are on NEW capacity or purely state-funded capacity. Thus, your idea of tolling I-5 or the 99 is an absolute, total, complete, 100% non-starter.
If states COULD easily toll existing freeways, don’t you think they would have done it decades ago???
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:52 pm
Congress could always change the law. If pigs had wings they’d fly.
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:58 pm
for the record…it is actually against the law. When they accept the money from the feds for maintanence they agree not to toll the roads…hence the name freeway.
PA tried to do an end around recently and they were denied.
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/transportation/analysis-with-death-of-i-80-toll-plan-now-what-410371/?print=1
Spokker Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:01 pm
All rules can be changed with political will. Yes, it cannot be done right this instant but anything is possible if you can imagine it. That’s what being a public policy wonk is all about. Come with me to Imagination Land where markets run wild and free.
Derek Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:00 pm
You made that up.
The truth is, interstates can be tolled, but the money cannot be spent on anything other than that interstate.
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:03 pm
Ummm…nope…read the link above.
flowmotion Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:45 pm
Pennsylvania got shot down because they wanted to spend the money on transit and other road projects.
The most recent transpo bill actually loosed the restrictions slightly, but state DOTs can only add tolls to fund that specific facility. So, for example, if CalTrans wanted to toll I-5 and use the money for extra lanes, they could.
http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6033
MarkB Reply:
August 6th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
Here’s the analysis from that link:
“While the states will still not be able to put tolls on existing non-tolled lanes (except for rebuilt bridges and tunnels like the Scudder Falls Bridge in New Jersey), the states will be able to use revenues from the new tolled lanes to pay for the capital improvement needs of non-tolled lanes. This is because toll rates for new capacity are not limited to that needed merely to pay for the costs of the new capacity.”
So, yes, you can toll NEW capacity on I-5 to pay for improvements to I-5, but you can’t convert existing general-flow lanes to toll lanes even if the money stays on the I-5.
flowmotion Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:54 pm
Follow up – John would have been correct about the reimbursement thing until about 2005. Tolling was a pilot program until this year’s bill.
MarkB Reply:
August 6th, 2012 at 9:31 pm
You didn’t answer the earlier question: if states could easily toll existing capacity, why didn’t they do it decades ago? In other words, why are freeways still “free”?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 6th, 2012 at 10:20 pm
because the yokels out in the hinterlands love the guvmint subsidies they get in their free roads.
Anyone who supports the development of passenger rail in the United States should be a strong critic of Amtrak, not a supporter. The Amtrak model is largely responsible for the miserable quality of passenger rail service in this country, damaging this sector’s reputation and thus holding back its development.
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Ding!!! +1
joe Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 5:09 pm
Yes – opposite world.
I support education which is why I oppose teachers and unions.
Amtrak is anti-rail – simple concept until you look into why Amtrak was created in the first place.
Without Amtrak we would have lost passenger rail service.
Spokker Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 5:26 pm
If you support education you would oppose the Department of Education and unions.
If you support passenger rail in the United States you would at the very least speak out against the FRA. There’s a department that needs reform, but then again what doesn’t these days?
joe Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:27 pm
I support you 100% which is why I want you banned from this blog.
Spokker Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:48 pm
Stop taking the Internet so seriously.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:05 pm
“Amtrak is anti-rail – simple concept until you look into why Amtrak was created in the first place.
Without Amtrak we would have lost passenger rail service.”–Joe
See my comment to John N. above.
Caltrain Ridership Hits Historic High
Note: the press release makes no mention of HSR or considerations of compatibility therewith.
synonymouse Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 11:26 am
And if the electrification and TBT tunnel had been carried out in the early nineties Caltrain would enjoy an even larger ridership and present a profoundly embarrassing comparison to BART.
But of course BART is PB’s pet and the latter will protect BART’s garbage eccentritech to the last.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 11:51 am
and the catenary would have allowed the black helicopters to see you when you used Caltrain.
synonymouse Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 12:16 pm
I think VBobier is starting to beat out your ripostes.
If you had been in the Bay Area for the last 45 years you would appreciate the limitless corporate hubris and chutzpah of BART-Bechtel-PB. They are incredibly jealous and have been trying to stamp out any competition systematically since the inception. BART has never done a mea culpa for its multiple mistakes and probably never will. They fully think the rest of the know universe should change to Indian broad gauge and 1000vdc.
synonymouse Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Try “known” for “know”
Peter Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 12:37 pm
I guess this explains why eBART is being constructed to run DMUs on standard gauge tracks?
synonymouse Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 1:09 pm
money issues
Peter Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Sorry buddy, but you can’t have it both ways. Either BART/MTC have access to unlimited resources, as you appear to claim they do, or they don’t.
jonathan Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 1:09 pm
eBart: “Faster, better, cheaper”…… at least it _could_ be.
synonymouse Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 1:13 pm
“Faster, better, cheaper” does not play much in California, certainly not with the CHSRA crowd.
Paul Dyson Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 1:23 pm
The usual bleat about “no dedicated funding source”. It does have one, selling tickets. It also has a dedicated financial drain, a large overhead. This could be reduced if we did nit have three boutique passenger rail organizations (Cap Cor, ACX and Caltrain) in the same back yard each with its own staff, maintenance, etc. Never mind, keeping whining for a bigger subsidy, it’s easier than managing.
Jon Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 2:01 pm
It’s rather telling that Caltrain was not included in the ‘Northern Unified Service’ plan developed by CAHSR. Caltrain is going to be left on life support until it withers and dies and BART comes in to pick up the pieces.
Neil Shea Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 2:48 pm
Paint the BART strip on the cars now, capitulate and merge all the Bay Area (rail) transit together. Apply the same tax to all counties and elect the board from all counties. Suddenly timing connections will be desirable, and big projects to change standard/eBART tracks to Indian gauge will not. Get rid of the us vs. them mentality and we can all move forward.
Neil Shea Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 2:49 pm
And now the new expanded BART (of course we’ll still call it that) can claim over 500,000 daily passengers.
Jon Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 3:46 pm
That would be the sensible solution.
joe Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 8:29 pm
Will Caltrain ridership dip in 2014 when the HW 101 expansion is completed and they add 4 more lanes to an often congested section of HW 101?
Magic 8 ball says…..