Central Florida a dozen year ago first had what supporters thought was an exciting idea for a light rail system. It was based, however, on flawed public policy. Opponents asked, why should taxpayers of other parts of Florida and the other 49 states be compelled to pay for such a train. A study by the Florida Public Policy Institute compiled the judgments of the country’s most experienced experts in light, or high speed, rail. Their conclusions can be summarized as follows: “Light rail is not more energy efficient than the automobile, U.S. Department of Energy data indicate that light rail consumes more energy per passenger than the average automobile. It is not safer than automobiles. In fact, light rail’s fatality rate per 100 million passenger miles is double that of the bus and double that of the automobile in urban applications. It is not faster. The average single automobile commute rate in the United States is twice as fast as the average light rail commute. If the Tampa-to-Orlando system has the same cost overruns and passenger shortfalls as that which the U.S. Department of Transportation found in studies of eight projects, there would be construction cost overruns of 150 percent, operating cost overruns of 180 percent, ridership shortfalls of more than 50 percent, far less reduction in air pollution than promised, and the cost to taxpayers over 20 years would be at lest $6.7 billion.”
Other countries’ experiences with HSR and passenger rail warns how damaging the Administration’s enthusiastic commitment to HSR is likely to be. Looking at the European experience, “rail ridership in those countries accounted for just 7.9 percent of all surface transportation modes on a per passenger, per billion kilometer basis,” wrote Utt in his study, “This suggests that these countries received a poor return on their money given that more than 90 percent of the passengers in these counties chose other travel modes—mostly auto—despite subsidies.” HSR would attempt to shift travel from largely unsubsidized commercial aviation to massively subsidized trains. As bad as the Europeans’ experience has been, some counties have seen even worse outcomes. Japan’s rail system has been extremely costly, Utt reports. As a result of its commitment to trains that can travel 180 miles per hour, the Japanese National Railway was losing 20 billion a year. By the mid-1980s, the railway’s accumulated debt exceeded $300 billion. The Japanese government then began to privatize the system. Unlike Amtrak’s near-empty Amtrak trains, Japan’s trains carried about 29 percent of travelers in 2007. That’s the highest rate of rail use in the world. Now, privatized Japanese rail lines run at a profit, but only because they were bought at a fraction of their capital costs and the government soaked up much of the debt, Utt explains.
As Utt’s analysis reveals: With a HSR program in America, we can look forward to perpetual and huge government subsidies larger budget deficits, and wasted money because few travelers will use HSR, even with generous fare subsidies. Service would be furnished to only a fraction of the traveling public in a handful of cities. Added burdens will be placed on overloaded state governments, which would have to match the constant run of federal subsidies. There would be little or no difference in environmental quality. But high-paying and low-productivity jobs would be handed out to union and other political supporters.
As Congress glances back over its shoulder at its string of blunders in the past year or so, will it continue the fiscal insanity or will members rush with the speed of a HSR train to escape any connection with their star-gazing President?
Mr. Mann – Your critique of the ingredients in the writer's message is good. What I think he is trying to say is that as a whole, the entire concept of HSR is being downgraded to include (mostly) fixing up existing rail infrastructure, which as you know is well overdue.
O should not have ever used the term HSR in the USA. Highways are what America runs on. IMHO, that is where the money should go first, and then toward fixing up existing rail. HSR is a lost cause, and can not possibly work when planes and cars whisp you to where you want to go. Think about it.
We may be looking at this from difference places. I fly over 100,000 miles every year, and do my share of driving. But from D.C. to NYC, I take Amtrak. Take into account the lengthy check-in, security screening, and boarding processes, and the distance of the airports from the city centers, it's faster and more convenient to arrive at Union Station, print a ticket, step on the train, step off at Penn Station, and be on my way.
There are places in the U.S. where this model doesn't work. I would not, for instance, realistically consider taking the train from D.C. to Chicago or Miami as a substitute for flying (though I have taken those trips to enjoy the experience of train travel).
But genuine high-speed rail from D.C. to NYC, or from L.A. to Las Vegas, or a half-dozen other connections that are close enough to make it worthwhile? It makes a lot of sense. The proof is that countries like China are making the investments. We're getting left behind.
You can certainly point out a number of flaws in the article, but the principle is sound. There are places where HSR could work, but they are short-distance heavily traveled routes. There is no reason why the federal government should get involved in a rail project between two cities in one state; that's for local people and the market to decide and sounds like rather blatant vote-buying. I live in an area where business travel between 3 large cities about 200 miles apart is heavy and the subject comes up. However, the local airline accomodates schedules and pricing needs very well and most really don't see the need other than as a "cool project".
The author is exhibiting the reflexive free market fanaticism that afflicts too many "conservatives". Think of Tea Party "leader" Dick Armey's defense of mass third world immigration – don't interfere with the right of business to as much cheap labor as they want. My question regarding B. Hussein's proposal is why wasn't this done via the first stimulus package? Where, or into whose pockets, have all those $billions gone?
Do I think Obama himself has good intentions? I'd like to think so. However, the purpose of the Obama administration's ill-conceived HSR plan was without question vote-buying, and not based on sound financial advice. The proposed national HSR system was designed to hit as many delegates as possible – 13 projects in 31 states. Realistically, this is probably the only way Obama could get enough buy-in. Lots of promises of jobs there. Everyone is happy…until the realities set in, but don't tell the unions that.
The total cost of this HSR system is estimated at between $500B and $1T. Knowing there is clearly not enough money to build this system, if Americans could be honest with themselves for once (instead of thinking they could get something for nothing) they, and therefore Obama, would focus on building what we can afford: one or two projects, and make sure they are exemplary. By creating one or two success stories, it's likely others would follow. But the way it is now – spread too thin, the project, as a whole, is set up for failure.
I can see it. Only the cheapest, elevated designs will prevail if they are completed at all. Environmental (CEQA, NEPA, etc.) laws protecting communities against egregious designs will have to be ignored because the project is money (or lack of money) and not law driven. We will be facing flashbacks to the protests of the '60's against elevated highways. There will be political backlash. People who would normally vote Democratic, will vote Republican just to protect their communities from these destructive designs. And, we will be left with partially built systems that cannot possibly pay for themselves.
Now, to keep this in perspective, while admittedly HSR was not on their agenda, the Republican party has had some hand in the current situation, without which Mr. Obama could have achieved what I believe is his genuine desire for a national HSR system. It was the Republican Party that got us into a war that has cost us the price tag of a national HSR system.
If you believe HSR is for the greater good and should be subsidized (I'm not sure there is a good case for this) as it likely will, then this is not the way to approach it. Very sad, indeed, to think what could have been and where our money went instead.
This is an odd article for a website normally dedicated (very credibly) to national security issues (inernal and external). The Chicago-St. Lous "high speed" project is really highER speed (110 MPH), hardly super speed (HSR). Aside from Calif. and Fla., that is essentially what most such projects nationwide are about. Bringing passenger trains into some semblance of 21st Century technology is long overdue. The figures cited in costs of rail vs. air vs highway are suspect, if not irrelevant.
The interstate highway system while vital does not solve any of our traffic problems, highways will always operate on the peter principal and we have already paved enough acreage in our country to completely pave over the northeastern 6 most states. Highways do not move people from point A to point B, they move automobiles. Roads like mass transit, while they cannot solve traffic problems they do offer us a quality choice, therein is our justification for their continued existance.
Expecting Amtrak to make a profit, be it high speed rail, corridor services or contract commuter services is unrealistic but continued cuts or outright abandonment may well rob our children of future mobility as fuel prices continue to climb. Certainly Amtrak should be expected to make a profit either as a government corporation or as a private enterprise just as soon as we hold Airlines and Highways to the same expectation after covering 100% their own costs. One only has to ask what your locality spends per year on roads and airports and do the math. Toll booths at the end of neighborhood streets and 4 figure airline fares would be the immediate result of a level playing field.
Spreading disinformation about railroads, rail passenger services, high speed or light rail serves only to discredit the fiscal conservative argument for balance. Following a sensible growth plan for conventional fast intercity passenger rail makes far more sense then the starvation diet that Amtrak has suffered under from 1971 to date. Just as it would be impossible to turn a profit in a department store with a single product, Amtrak is never going to get close to breaking even with a network of single train routes some of which are tri-weekly. Adding services between our major cities, even on the long distance routes actually brings the chargeable seat mile costs down.
As an example of the long distance train savings, imagine a train (each way daily) between Washington and Chicago, and that for the purposes of this exercise costs $20 million a year in operations costs. Adding a second set of trains between the same destinations might lower the cost per train to $12 million. Thus for $24 million we could offer more choices, more seats and more opportunities to relieve congestion or make up some of the costs through fare purchases.
As a rail planner/historian I will go out on a limb here with two predictions. 1. The planned (2012?) return of passenger train service to the Florida East Coast will be the most successful new start Amtrak long-distance has ever seen. Why? Somebody is finally matching demand with service. 2. The Florida High Speed Rail starter line between Orlando and Tampa will fail. Why? Planned by what has been a historical highway agency it misses all intermediate markets, too many stops, nobody travels airport to airport, and the Orlando Airport is not even close to convenient to most of the Orlando Metro which will negate any imagined time savings. High Speed Rail might indeed be the answer in dense corridors, but suddenly tossing 20 trains a day at a society weaned on the freeway isn't going to work, we need to go slow and build up our systems.
BOB http://www.metrojacksonville.com/transit/ http://jacksonvilletransit.blogspot.com/
Has any of you geniuses stopped to consider that the US is effectively BANKRUPT with the only actual growth in Obie's imagination???
Outside of that minor issue I would suggest that the Gubmint's running of Amtrak will probably look GOOD compared to what they will do to HSR!!!
Get Gubmint OUT OF OUR LIVES!!!!
PS: Robert Mann, when you tell someone he is wrong it is good to back up your statements with references. I notice you gave NONE!!
Our country's dependency on automotive transportation and neglect of rail transportation has resulted in the House of Saud becoming another branch of US government. That is a cost beyond calculation.
kuhnKat, In my original reply to the article (first comment) I stated that the fuel efficiency data came from a Greyhound Study and dates from the "Carter Fuel Crisis." I would know this because at the time I was a party to it, a Transportation Supervisor for Tamiami Trailways Bus System. The safety data I noted were from the FTA and USDOT or any of dozens of sites online or printed. In my second comment, the one that you responded to I posted two blogs or websites in which I have posted hundreds of little known facts on the subject.
As you can see in the following, the playing field is far from level. The total amount spent on rail doesn't amount to a hiccup in hell when it comes to saving the national budget. We should not be wasting money anywhere, yet considering the bang-for-the-buck it would be pretty hard to match what Amtrak has done even with their infamous management.
The US Chamber of Commerce says – Guideway Transportation brings an Investment multiplier of 5 to 1 in new pedestrian development around stations.
U.S. Department of Transportation Funding, 2002:
$32,300,000,000 54% Highways
$14,000,000,000 23% Aviation/ airports
$ 5,000,000,000 Mass transit
$ 4,000,000,000 Maritime
$ 521,000,000 -1% Amtrak
$60,000,000,000 TOTAL USDOT BUDGET
Federal transportation funding 1971-2001
$1,890,000,000,000 Air & highway funding 63:1 ratio
$ 30,100,000,000 Amtrak funding
-Sources: New York Times, Washington Post
User fees only account for about 60% of highway spending by all levels of government. The rest comes from non-users and in 1990, non-highway users subsidized roads at the rate of $18 billion per year. -Source: Highway Statistics 1990,
Tables HF-10 and SMT, Federal Highway Administration
When the Reagan Administration claimed that each rail passenger required a $35 subsidy, Amtrak President Graham Claytor countered that air passengers were subsidized at $42 each, including $9 for the air traffic control system. -Source: US
News and World Report, April 29, 1985
Between 1958 and 1971, the year of Amtrak's creation, the federal government spent more than $50 billion on highways and at the same time, the government subsidy to intercity bus operators grew to $50 million annually. -Source: USDOT, "Study of
Federal aid to Transportation" and R.L. Banks and Associates, "Is Subsidy Unique to Amtrak?"
Some other interesting federally-funded transportation projects:
$12,000,000,000 Los Angeles Proposed LAX expansion (1/20/01)
$ 5,400,000,000 Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport expansion Georgia's largest public works program ever
$ 3,400,000,000 St. Louis Airport expansion
$ 3,000,000,000 Washington Dulles Airport expansion
$ 521,000,000 U.S. Amtrak yearly funding Serving 530 U.S. cities in 46 of 50 states
$ 112,000,000 Los Angeles LAX aesthetic upgrade
Note how Atlanta's expansion – one airport project – is NINE TIMES Amtrak's current appropriation.
Other road and waterway federally-funded projects:
$654,000,000,000 Maryland State ports expansion
$ 1,000,000,000 Louisiana Expansion of Red River Waterway
$ 13,000,000,000 Boston "Big Dig" freeway 20-year expansion project
$ 6,000,000,000 I-95 Wilson bridge project
$ 3,200,000 Alabama Two-mile highway widening cost.
$ 3,000,000 Alabama Cost to provide passenger train service to Montgomery, Mobile, Birmingham
As you might imagine, I could go on with this and ANYONE who would like to learn more is welcome to visit or join (free of charge) my blog, forum or websites. The information I have gathered is an open resource.
Hope I have answered some of your questions.
BOB MANN
* http://www.metrojacksonville.com/transit/
* http://jacksonvilletransit.blogspot.com/
* http://lightrailjacksonville.webs.com/
What a great post….you help do what the writer fails utterly to do…which is teach us something about this issue.
I live in LA, CA and I can tell you we suffer daily for want of decent public transportation…there are a few good things here and there (like the busway through the valley) but it's all mediocre and reflective of half measures and lack of seriousness.
What do you expect from an article titled "Obama’s High-Speed Disaster".
I don't think the point was to inform about trains.
The problem with mass transit is that when one person boards, then all passengers stop and when one passenger gets off, then all passengers stop. The bill in time and energy increases as the stopping points become closer together and the number of current riders increases and people boarding departing decreases .
Mass transit is also a gift to the overcompensated union workers and their union-directed political contributions.
Private transportation in congested areas suffers from traffic jams. The reason for traffic jams is restriction points. If traffic were restricted evenly, you couldn't get out of your driveway, for instance. When one car would stop then all would stop. This is a ridiculous analogy but illustrates the issue of restriction points. But this illustration also illustrates a cure.
Optimizing existing road systems could minimize time wasting, expensive mass transit.
(Continued)
First, restriction points need to be removed; but in the absence of that happy day, traffic needs to be re-routed or access limited. The principle behind this is that roads have speeds of maximum throughput measured in terms of vehicles or passengers per hour. Taking the vehicles per hour measure, If traffic is stopped, then throughput goes to zero. If traffic goes to the maximum safe speed, then throughput is increased by speed, but decreased by spacing between cars. Spacing and optimum throughput can be calculated, but let's do that some other day.
The point is that critical highways in particular need to have access limited to ensure maximum throughput. Why use an expensive highway for a parking lot when there are plenty of cheap ones available to store parked cars. When speeds drop below optimum, then access needs to be rerouted or parked or travellers notified to stay home or take another route. This would be a great fuction for GPSs and already is to some extent.
Optimizing existing road systems could minimize time wasting, expensive mass transit.
As usual with such politically motivated "reporting" (just propaganda actually), the figures quoted are wildly skewed toward the writer's thesis. Yes, looking at the cost of Amtrak versus Greyhound, it may seem that Greyhound is much cheaper. But if Greyhound had to pay their actual portion of costs for interstate highway construction and maintenance (anyone who thinks that vehicle taxes cover the cost of our highway system is delusional), as Amtrak does in having to pay the freight railroads for use of their tracks at the rate of thousands of dollars PER TRAIN, PER DAY, they would be selling tickets from NY to Chicago that cost a thousand dollars. Rail, high-speed or otherwise, deserves at least a tiny fraction of the billions of federal highway dollars spent in this country each year.
And frankly, if the rail system we had in this country came anywhere near what they have in most European and many Asian nations, people would be HAPPY to abandon cars and planes in favor of rail travel, no propaganda required.
I don?t even know how I stopped up here, but I thought this post was great. I do not recognize who you might be however certainly you’re going to a well-known blogger should you aren’t already
Cheers!