High Speed Rail NOW!

amtrak2041864 said:
But we as citizens didn't build the interstate the government did. Most interstates are heavily subsidized also airports. We don't pay a dime to build or maintain them, all we do is use them. Airlines don't build their own airports and if they did expect that train ticket to look like a great deal, also applies to cars. If you really paid the actual price to use the roadways of today, train prices will look real pretty. And even people hate what they don't have or understand, given the chance you would refuse to knowledge what real meaning it really can have. Which you are doing, if HSR came through your town you would say no to using it because you would feel it was a waste of money, ridiculous. We only have one life to live and driving to work everyday stuck in traffic for hours at time is not I want to spend wasting it!
Click to expand...

We as citizens certainly did build the interstates, or at least who pay taxes did. We continue to pay taxes for their upkeep, but the tolls never end, the gas taxes never end and yet are never enough, and never will be and probably aren't applied to the task the taxes are proposed for in the first place. I don't want to continue paying taxes to a system of transportation that we neither need nor will see any great benefit from.

wholbr said:
Hi Hi everybody.
The arguments regarding high-speed rail in the United States have been the subject of many threads on this forum with the opposing views expressed time and time again. However, I was reading an article in British press this morning which advised that the biggest investors worldwide in high-speed rail is now the Chinese government. This is the world's most successful country that has its economy expanding at double-digit rates every year and is America's biggest competitor now and into the future. It is a vast country that sees its future transport based around railways with high-speed trains being at the centre of public transportation.

Therefore perhaps the question is not whether America can afford high-speed rail, but rather whether America can afford not to have high-speed rail.

Bill
Click to expand...

Of course America can afford not to have HSR, and a transportation system is not the only benchmark that superpowers are judged by. China and the US have many differences that have to measured before making assumptions about the superiority of one or another. Many countries have very fine transportation systems, and that's great, but claiming that the US is somehow 'backwards' by it's lack of HSR is ridiculous. I'm not saying that you've made that claim, but many people have. Of course America trails some other nations in that regard, but it also leads many nations in others.

amtrak2041864 said:
Great Point, America was build on the railroad, in a few years america will lose its status as Superpower because it is not making the investments in Its future. And it is very sad because I love the fact that the US is a superpower and that will also be taken away from the Chinese.
Click to expand...

See the above comment. I believe you're a bit narrow minded on the subject. Even if your fear is realized and America is no longer a superpower, why the gnashing of teeth? Are you going to rend your garments and throw dust upon yourself? Most of the world resents America for it's success, and many in America feel the same way. A more accurate measure of a nation's success is to look at the GDP of the nation, and barring war or catastrophe the US is unlikely to become the next Somalia. Too much manufacturing, natural resources and productivity for that to occur.

nikos1 said:
We need more conventional rail first, building HSR is like a house without a foundation. Lets get our passenger rail system to where it was in the 50's then lets talk about HSR.
Click to expand...

Indeed. If the rail system was truly useful in the way that you describe then taking the next step would probably be a good idea. The passenger rail system was once profitable because of it's usefulness, and private investors will always become visionaries when a decent profit is involved. Amtrak is just another government subsidy kept alive on life support against all reason. Sure, the NE corridor could maybe become a profitable enterprise, but as long as the taxpayer is footing the bill private money will be content to sit out.
 
Hi Ed and everybody.
Euphod said:
Of course America can afford not to have HSR, and a transportation system is not the only benchmark that superpowers are judged by. China and the US have many differences that have to measured before making assumptions about the superiority of one or another. Many countries have very fine transportation systems, and that's great, but claiming that the US is somehow 'backwards' by it's lack of HSR is ridiculous. I'm not saying that you've made that claim, but many people have. Of course America trails some other nations in that regard, but it also leads many nations in others.
Click to expand...

You are perfectly correct Ed, I was not claiming that America was “backward” in any way. Throughout my entire life I have always looked up to America and its people for the way that they have led the world by a great demonstration of democratic and industrial power along with the restrained use of its huge military might.

However, both Europe and America have declined industrially and financially in the last decade leading to recession on both continents. Both have tried different means of solving their problems, Europe has tried austerity while America has tried spending its way out of recession with neither solution appearing to have solved the problems in any way. Therefore in my view the only way forward on both sides of the pond is to work our way out of trouble. We will have to forget our much cherished five day 35 weeks and work whatever hours it takes to get our industries and businesses as efficient as our new competitors in Asia.

Within that we will have to make all the hours we work fully productive and efficient and that has to include when business people are travelling. Within my company we extensively use the rail system and especially the HST trains to travel around the country. Although it costs more to travel that way rather than use the car it also means that company personnel can work while travelling on the train something you cannot do was driving the car. Therefore the time/cost of the rail travel is almost completely negated by the simple fact that company employees are as productive while travelling as they are while working in the office.

The foregoing was what i was alluding to when I stated that China is now the biggest worldwide investor in high-speed rail. The press report I was quoting from was advising that Chinese company managements have realised the productive benefits of rail travel and had advised the Chinese government of the fact and this is why the government has decided to invest so much in the countries rail infrastructure.

Air travel will undoubtedly still have a significant role to play especially when distances of more than 500 miles are involved, but with Wi-Fi and mobile phone communication available on all HST consists throughout Europe the air carriers are certainly finding very significant increased competition for business passengers.

The foregoing is why I asked the question in my posting “can America afford to not have high-speed rail” I was just trying to place a new angle on a much debated matter on this forum And no disparity to any one person or nation was intended.


Bill
 
Last edited:
wholbr said:
(snip) I was not claiming that America was “backward” in any way. Throughout my entire life I have always looked up to America and its people for the way that they have led the world by a great demonstration of democratic and industrial power along with the restrained use of its huge military might.
Click to expand...

I understand, and your explanation is appreciated. I have always admired the people of the UK for their grit and determination to overcome against all odds, their devotion to civilized practices and their honor. I've become rather disheartened with the people of the US exactly because those qualities seem to be declining at an alarming rate. Many point to the Chinese as the reason for our downward spiral, but this is just not true. It's distressing that the scapegoating is repeated so often that it is coming to be regarded as fact.

wholbr said:
However, both Europe and America have declined industrially and financially in the last decade leading to recession on both continents. Both have tried different means of solving their problems, Europe has tried austerity while America has tried spending its way out of recession with neither solution appearing to have solved the problems in any way. Therefore in my view the only way forward on both sides of the pond is to work our way out of trouble. We will have to forget our much cherished five day 35 weeks and work whatever hours it takes to get our industries and businesses as efficient as our new competitors in Asia.
Click to expand...

In an anecdotal sense much of what you say is true, to an extent. The US manufacturing base has changed, but has not moved to China as many believe. Much of it has moved to the Southern states to take advantage of weaker union domination and less oppressive taxation than in the North. The US worker productivity index remains one of the highest in the world and the trend for work moving back to the US from China bears this out. Combining that with the shipping cost for raw materials and finished products to and from China and their principle market forces manufacturers to acknowledge that the lower cost of Chinese unskilled labor does not guarantee greater profits.

wholbr said:
Within that we will have to make all the hours we work fully productive and efficient and that has to include when business people are travelling. Within my company we extensively use the rail system and especially the HST trains to travel around the country. Although it costs more to travel that way rather than use the car it also means that company personnel can work while travelling on the train something you cannot do was driving the car. Therefore the time/cost of the rail travel is almost completely negated by the simple fact that company employees are as productive while travelling as they are while working in the office.
Click to expand...

In a nation that is more compact such as the UK, the rail networks serves well to accomplish what you have pointed out, but as the distances increase the justification of being able to "work" on the train becomes less significant. The use of the internet, remote meetings, teleconferences, E Mail and the like also render that point less than advantageous. Air travel provides the same "working time" over long distances. Most large big city areas use commuter rail to achieve the same effect as you are describing, but most workers need to be physically present in the work space to actually perform their work. It would be interesting to be able to compare in each nation how many workers are actually executives and managers that can take advantage of travel time to perform meaningful work during a commute, and how many are just actual workers that cannot. I suspect most of those pretending to work on the train are updating face book and playing angry birds...

wholbr said:
The foregoing was what i was alluding to when I stated that China is now the biggest worldwide investor in high-speed rail. The press report I was quoting from was advising that Chinese company managements have realised the productive benefits of rail travel and had advised the Chinese government of the fact and this is why the government has decided to invest so much in the countries rail infrastructure.
Click to expand...

Yes, but then you have compare the road system in China and the automobile ownership use statistics compared with the US. I have not researched this, but I suspect that where HSR may be vital to China, the use of the automobile negates that value in the US. The Chinese have depended upon trains for quite some time, and the infrastructure has grown to support that use. The US took a different path with the use of the automobile. I would love to see extensive rail travel for passengers return to the US, but not because some tax and spend bureaucrat decides so.

wholbr said:
Air travel will undoubtedly still have a significant role to play especially when distances of more than 500 miles are involved, but with Wi-Fi and mobile phone communication available on all HST consists throughout Europe the air carriers are certainly finding very significant increased competition for business passengers.

The foregoing is why I asked the question in my posting “can America afford to not have high-speed rail” I was just trying to place a new angle on a much debated matter on this forum And no disparity to any one person or nation was intended.


Bill
Click to expand...

Indeed, but I can't advocate for it in the US at the present time. Here the prospect of HSR is more a case of political patronage than a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. I can understand why anyone that loves trains would like to see this boondoggle become fact, but anyone mature enough, and reasonable enough to look at the big picture understands it for what it is. Sure, some will say that their big picture is bigger than mine, and we're saving the world and establishing our place and in three thousand years people will look back and....oh, please! The fact is our country is out of money and taxing more to pay for a complete revision of our transportation system is just unsupportable.

BTW; the decline of Europe and the UK that you pointed out earlier; it saddens me, but as with the US I place a great deal of the blame on immigration. In both cases it's a true shame.
 
Euphod said:
In a nation that is more compact such as the UK, the rail networks serves well to accomplish what you have pointed out, but as the distances increase the justification of being able to "work" on the train becomes less significant. The use of the internet, remote meetings, teleconferences, E Mail and the like also render that point less than advantageous. Air travel provides the same "working time" over long distances. Most large big city areas use commuter rail to achieve the same effect as you are describing, but most workers need to be physically present in the work space to actually perform their work. It would be interesting to be able to compare in each nation how many workers are actually executives and managers that can take advantage of travel time to perform meaningful work during a commute, and how many are just actual workers that cannot. I suspect most of those pretending to work on the train are updating face book and playing angry birds...
Click to expand...

I think my programmers were about three times more productive working at home than in the office. The best mix seemed to be about one or two days in the office out of five but it does depend on the work. The other issue is trains these days have free wifi both Amtrack and Via rail offer it now which I don't think the airlines do. With air travel you also hit the fog /snow / whatever and security which are the same issues as rail travel. I seem to recall once when a group of us were off site, I managed to get home with only slight delays by train, the others spent three days and eventually hired a car to drive back the 300 miles. Their flights were cancelled and no seats were available certainly for three days not even on the train.

Cheerio John
 
So lets talk HSR in about 10 years, Amtrak in reaching is becoming more and more profitable, at the rate their going next year they will require 81 million in government subsidies. Making Amtrak a very successful mistake as some may say. While Airlines go bankrupt, passenger trains are hitting a renaissance.

Read what I found
Link 1
Link 2

I see in the upcoming years Amtrak cutting back on Long distance Trains, I may be wrong. But I see it in the near future. I really don't have a narrow mind.:cool:
 
amtrak2041864 said:
Well the build cost for HSR is expensive but well what isn't, the interstate system is a great example it took over 100 billion dollars 1960 value but it was still built so why not HSR. If people supported HSR then in due time it might come though your area but for now only in areas where ridership will be found. Northeast, California.
Click to expand...

The Interstate Highway system was built for one distinct purpose that will almost always get funding, national defense. Copying the Autobahn in application and design, the Interstate Highway system was created in order to allow for the rapid deployment of military equipment and personnel across the country. More importantly, restrictions on overhead obstruction height were put in place for its primary purpose, the transportation of nuclear missiles. We needed a system to ensure that Russia couldn't disable our nuclear capability in one blow, so having nuclear missiles able to be moved around in "random" directions was a key factor in the creation of the Interstate Highway system. It just so happened that the best way to fund a military infrastructure installation is via the public sector, just like the internet.

High speed rail does not have this advantage. There is no military application to high speed rail because travel time is usually the least important factor in rapid deployment these days. The development of the Tactical Nuclear Warhead and nuclear submarines also makes the nuclear application null and void.

In any case, HSR is a gigantic waste of money and there are far more important things to apply the money too. The only beneficial place would be the North East Corridor.

But enough about me typing crap, let me just grab my walls of text from the previous thread about this subject.

jadebullet said:
Anyway, my last post got me thinking about the feasibility of High Speed Rail in the US, and I decided to figure out whether or not it would make sense to implement High Speed Rail in the USA. Below is what I came up with.


1)Is it a necessity?
-At this point in time, I would have to say no, it is not. We currently have a system in place, that while slower in some aspects, can still get the job done. There is also not much of a need for regular long distance transportation.

2) Would implementing the system reduce costs to individuals and businesses enough to provide benefit?
-This one depends on many factors. The longer the distance, the more economical it would be for a passenger, this is assuming that the ticket doesn't scale upwards with the milage too much. Below a certain distance, it is probably cheaper to take the car, or take a lower speed commuter train which already exists. Then you have to factor in the time factor. A very short amount of time is negligable in its value, as you would derive the same benefit from driving, or taking the commuter train, especially once you factor in the time in station. Once you exceed the minimum time threshold though the high speed train gains benefit above a car, despite ticket price being higher than fuel consumption price, as you waste less time and can thus get more done. This lasts until about the 2-3 hour mark of high speed travel. At this point, it is cheaper to take the car as the day is no longer going to provide much value for you. At about the distance equivalent of 12 hours of car travel, HSR becomes valuable again and stays that way until you reach the point where the amount of time it takes to go through an airport terminal routine, board a plane, and fly a certain distance is equal to the time it takes to travel the same distance by high speed rail.

So in short, there is a cost benefit constrained by several variables. Without knowing the actual cost of the tickets though, it is difficult to judge how much of a benefit to the economy as a whole it would create, though judging by #1 above, probably not too exceedingly much.


3)Can the private sector to build afford it?
-Absolutely not. The cost of building such a network alone would be a giant waste of capital for any private entity involved, which would be capital that would be better invested elsewhere, both for the entity, and the economy itself.

4) Will it turn a profit, allowing its cost to be offset by non tax capital?
-There is almost no chance. Amtrak has never turned a profit in its entire existance. There just isn't that much demand for it. As such, it will probably run in the red and require more tax in order to operate.

5) Will any industries be negetively affected by the program?
-The airline industry would be very negetively affected by competition with the HSR. The airline industry is already failing as it is, requiring massive government subsidies in order to say afloat and continue to perform adequate maintenance.

6) Will any industries benefit from the HSR directly?
-The manufacture of the equipment and locomotives will most likely be contracted out to a third party. That being said, the company chosen will most likely be from a country with an existing HSR system.
-The laying of the rail line and infrastructure will benefit many industries.
-Power to the catenary will require an increase in output, so the power companies will benefit from supplying that power.

7)What are the advantages and disadvantages?

Advantages
-Rapid intercity transportation
-benefit to the industries that provide the equipment to the rail line.
-It creates jobs, both in manufacture, and operation
-It would allow weekend trips to points across the country feasible depending on the ticket price.

Disadvantages
-High construction cost - 8 billion has already been proposed for the cost of construction, and that is probably not enough.
-Very low chance of profitability
-The maintenance costs will be extremely high to keep safety at proper level.
-The line itself will have to be laid new in order to isolate it from freight traffic, and road crossings.
-The topography of our country makes it very difficult to lay rail lines. As such, much of the existing passes through the harsher terrain have already been filled, making the laying of a new line more costly, and more difficult.
-High cost to airline industry which would require more government subsidies.
-The lack of profit would me that there would be a lack of luxury. Compare the airlines of the 1950s when they were profitable, to today.
-Purchasing land for the line would be a logistical nightmare. Sure, there is imminent domain, but there would be legal disputes.
-Maintaining isolation from other rail lines and roads will be very difficult, requiring bridges and underpasses which would necessitate grade changes.


Finally, we don't have the infrastructure in place to adequately support a high speed rail line. While some cities, like New York, Chicago and LA have commuter rail in place that would allow you to ride to the secondary locations on that line, but not every city has adequate commuter rail, and even then you are still restricted to the commuter stops.There is no current rail system to go from small towns to the bigger terminals and vice versa. This reduces the chance that someone will choose to use the train over some other transportation. Even the bus lines are almost non existant. As such, there is no network to integrate the HSR with to make the high speed rail easy and convenient to use. It would be like having an internet connection that could quickly connect to other computers and servers, but is unable to access any websites without using a second connection. Sure there is the Autotrain concept for allowing for transportation after you arrive, but that doesn't work with high speed rail where you would require as little weight as possible to allow for higher speeds and acceleration.




Anyway, after coming up with the above I have decided that I really don't think that a High Speed Rail program is feasible or even currently needed in the US. We don't currently have the necessary infrastructure to make it work properly, it would be exceedingly expensive and there isn't that much actual benefit to it from a business standpoint. Right now it just seems to be something the public wants because other countries have it, and we don't. It would be a logistical nightmare to build and pay for, and it would probably operate at a deficit. Even then, there would be not efficient network to integrate the high speed rail with. What makes other country's rail networks work so well isn't the high speed aspect of it, it is the networks that the high speed rail connects together. Instead of focusing on the high speed rail part of it, we should continue to focus on light rail, and intertown commuter rail networks to connect the nation to the high speed rail terminals. Of course, this won't happen because it doesn't have a cool sounding name like "high speed rail" and thus the public won't be demanding it, and will probably even oppose it as a waste of money. That being said, these smaller networks will probably also run in the red, but would at least serve a valid purpose and be a viable alternative to driving short to medium distances, the most common traveling distance for driving.
Click to expand...




Stand by for part 2
 
jadebullet said:
The problem with the feasibility of the high speed rail in the US versus in Europe, England and Asia is that, with a few exceptions, we do not have the density needed to make it worth while, as well as too much dead space to cover. For the most part, the US can be broken into several small parts that would benefit from HST. The first is the Northeastern Seaboard. Here we have a very high density of urban cities compressed into a relatively small area. It is currently the location of the Northeast corridor and has an existing network of branching commuter lines. It is also one step away from being upgraded to HST anyway and is the only place where Amtrak makes a profit. The second location that would benefit from an isolated HST system would be the Chicago, Milwaukee, Twin Cities area. Once again there is existing infrastructure, but the density is nowhere near the Northeast. Still, a few short distance HSTs would probably provide benefit in just linking the major cities and commuter networks of that area. The final area that would benefit from the system is California. A north-south HSR would open up some more residential choices for commuters and possibly shift people out of the currently clogged LA.

So in theory, if you would build up an HST system between New York, Chicago and LA, connecting those 3 systems and those 3 systems alone, nothing else, you could create a potentially profitable system. And suddenly the whining begins. What happens if you don't live in those areas? Well the business minded solution is "tough." You aren't going to be making your money on the New York to Chicago traffic. You are going to make your money off of the Boston to New York to Philly, ect traffic. That part of it is steady and constant. Throwing a line down to Pittsburg so Jimbob can visit his grandmother in Chicago is not going to make you money. In Europe, where the cities are relatively close in proximity and a commuter line can fill in the gaps, it is possible to set up a system where everyone can be happy. In the US though, we just don't have the amount of dense urban areas that would create the shorter haul HST capital to offset the loss from the long distance trains as well as the loss from the trains running to and from further apart cities.

Now it is time to remove even more feasibility from an HST in the US. What a wrote in the preceding paragraphs does not take anything into account but urban density. Once you start adding in other factors, suddenly it becomes more and more difficult to accomplish the creation of the line. Take the California example. Good luck creating a line that does not contain grade crossings, and shares little or no track space with slow moving freight trains in the densely populated city of Los Angeles. Throw in the houses and businesses that you either have to purchase through imminent domain, or avoid and you are in quite a situation. Chicago is easier because of its history. The only reason why the corridor works the best is because of how old it is. It was designed for high speed, high density traffic. There is no need to start fresh.

Then comes the terrain. You know what would be a pretty decent HST route? LA to Las Vegas. The only problem is that you have the Sierra Nevada mountains in the way. Locomotives didn't have to be as big and powerful in the UK and Europe as in the US because of two factors. The smaller distances needed to be covered in Europe, and the harshness of the terrain in the US. The terrain is a big factor and it is just as big today as it was back in the steam days. In the US there are three main barriers to railroads when it comes to the terrain. The Sierra Nevada Mountains, the Rocky Mountains, and the Appalachian mountains. There are a limited number of ways through each of these and for the most part, they have already been filled, and are usually twisting and have steep grades. An HST is all well and good on flatlands, but how effective will it be upon going up several miles of 2.6% grade track, or going down said track? You also won't be able to maintain that 160mph+ speed when you are winding your way through a mountain pass and clinging to the side of a mountain. Especially with the possibility of rock slides.

And really, for that matter, I don't think that we could keep the proper maintenance up on the rails to keep them at a safe quality level. Once again, it is the mountains that become the problem. The flatlands will result in rails that are stressed from the speed, but they are relatively easy to access and the curves won't be as bad. In the mountains though, the curving nature of the path through the mountains as well as the harsher conditions will put more strain on the rails. The remoteness of the area will also make it more difficult to quickly repair and maintain the tracks and not cause delays.
Click to expand...


And finally, just a response to your post in the last thread.
amtrak2041864 said:
HSR is worth the cost, we know it will not pay itself off but it increases the quality of life. Which is worth the cost. That is what the interstate did so why can't HSR.

Airlines profits don't match their operating cost that is why their going bankrupt and merging, if Amtrak is getting 88% from ticket sales this must mean Rail is coming back and or Amtrak is really doing something well. Also the operating cost of Amtrak in about 3 Billion. So About 88% of 3 Billions is 2.64 Billion dollars. That is alot from just Ticket sales. And also you are one hard Anti-HSR Troll.
Click to expand...


As I have stated above, the increase in the quality of life is negligible, and only for a select few. It would also most likely have a negative impact on interstate towns, and tourist attractions that rely upon the interstate traffic, such as Indian Casinos. HSR would turn these into ghost towns just like the new highway killed towns along Rt 66. As for the airlines, they are going under because the demand just isn't there and they are unable to reduce costs in any area but the service.(and for good reason) This reduced service reduces demand even more. The only reason they are still around is that the government subsidizes them because they are still a necessity. This is very similar to Amtrak which does not have the demand to turn a profit, but because it was an established part of our infrastructure(note: established, not new), the Government stepped in to keep it running and eat the cost.

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/778/373/Amtrak-Covers-88-Percent-of-Operating-Costs-ATK-13-022.pdf

In any case, the main reason I wanted to respond to your post was your misunderstanding of the 3 Billion dollar operating cost of Amtrak. That isn't profit, that is the cost that they spend. Their revenue is less than that and they have never had a year where they broke even, let alone turned a profit. They only made enough to recover 88% of their costs off of their revenue. The article in question also isn't that great. Why? Because most people are just going to read the fancy cover article, and not actually look at the graphs below it.

The 88% revenue is mentioned to be ticket sales and other revenue but the article doesn't break down the other revenue, and as such, makes it look like the revenue is mainly due to ticket sales. It also glosses over the fact that the 88% is not typical, and will not be able to be maintained. As such, they need more government assistance in the future. They are asking for more money, not less. The article also makes a case for the importance of the long distance trains, which seems telling of how much of a loser they are in a business sense.

But that is just the article. That is enough of a wall of text for now, so look forward to part three, where I actually analyize the part of the article where the important information is, as well as Amtrak's financial statements to see if I can figure out what their other revenue is. I would say that I would look at their taxes, but they don't have to pay any if they don't have income. (though their NOL tax allowance account must be astronomically high)
 
jadebullet said:
In any case, the main reason I wanted to respond to your post was your misunderstanding of the 3 Billion dollar operating cost of Amtrak. That isn't profit, that is the cost that they spend. Their revenue is less than that and they have never had a year where they broke even, let alone turned a profit. They only made enough to recover 88% of their costs off of their revenue. The article in question also isn't that great. Why? Because most people are just going to read the fancy cover article, and not actually look at the graphs below it.
Click to expand...

But does anyone consider the full costs when we look at transport? Cars especially have higher accident costs and pollution costs.

Cheerio John
 
It is time for triple post madness. I apologize for the wall of text, but I figure that this is relevant to the topic at hand and will help to show that HSR isn't worth the money with facts rather than opinions.

Anyway, looking at the financial information stated in the article linked in part two, this is what I have found.
1) Amtrak is broken into 3 distinct divisions. North East Corridor trains, State Supported Trains, and Long Distance trains. There are several reasons for this. First, they might be doing it for tax purposes. Long Distance trains probably offset the profit from the NEC for tax purposes rather than wasting the Net Operating Loss tax credit.

2) While ridership is steadily increasing over the last 10 years, it is too late. The infrastructure needs a major overhaul in order to sustain any more growth. Their fleet is aging and needs replaced and they can't do that without government assistance. They also need to fund a gateway project. The other project is upgrading to next gen HSR, which would require equipment and infrastructure. This is for the NEC only, and it makes sense. The Acela is aging, so retiring it with HSR would make sense. The density of cities and existing infrustructure allows the HSR to be beneficial in this area and probably only this area of the country.

3) The gateway project that they need funding for is bridge replacement.

4) And now we get to the meat of the problem, the Long Distance Traffic.(page 8)
-The traffic makes up a large chunk of operations and infrastructure, but a lessor amount of revenue. (25% revenue for 42% of the route miles)
-Intercity Bus traffic is on the decline. This could indicated more people using Amtrak, or it could indicate less demand for intercity transportation. (Probably a mix of both, but more of a leaning towards the latter due to the ease of internet shopping.) The average decline is 26.9% over 5 years. That is a significant number and probably not due to Amtrak.
-Only 11% of the ridership is long distance. That isn't much demand.
-Demographic wise, more than half of the riders are 55 years or older which does not show new growth in the area. Also, they only connect to 40% of rural America.
-Intercity bus traffic declined further from 2010-2011 by 11%. That is half of the 5 year decline in only 1 year. That is very bad.

5) The map breaks the route down into the high profit NEC, low profit long distance, and lessor density corridor service. (pg 9) The long distance routes are the routes that people want when referring to HSR.

6) Only two long distance trains produced revenue. The rest ran at a massive operating loss.

7) The last map shows what would work the best for HSR if it had to be implemented. Good luck only serving those areas though. The rest of the country would flip then wouldnt use the added lines if and when they got their way.
 
Hi Everybody.
I think Johns point regarding the increased numbers of people being able to work from home is significant in this debate. There is absolutely no practical reason why we see millions of office workers commuting into city centres every day when with modern technology those jobs could be just as efficiently done from home. When I was employed as a safety officer for a large road transport company in 2004 I was advised that I can work from home if I wished as much of the work concerned training reports and near miss/accident investigation and that did not need me necessarily to attend the office at all.

The foregoing worked well for me as I did not have any young children at home and more importantly I found I did have the self-discipline to ensure that I got the work completed as efficiently as I would in the company offices. Two other employees who were also told they could work from home at the same time did however find it did not work out well due to the distractions of being at home. That said I believe it still remains a fact that most companies and their employees could operate far more efficiently and in a greatly increased environmentally friendly way by allowing employees the option of working from home where practicable.

With regard to the Jadbullet point that people will still use their cars as a matter of choice I believe that is not necessarily the case. In my own business several of us have to extensively travel around Britain working in our industrial safety business. The foregoing involves talking to employers who have had accidents/near miss incidents in their businesses, interviewing employees and witnesses involved in accidents or near miss incidents.

A few years ago I decided to look at the amount of time those of us that were out on the road carrying out the above duties spent just travelling to meet people using our cars. It turned out that In some cases over 60% of the time booked to the customer was in fact non-productive travelling time just getting to various destinations in the car.

We therefore decided to experiment in travelling by rail as that meant you could actually work and compile reports etc on your way to and from meetings or interviews. The foregoing soon completely changed the amount of non-productive downtime spent within the company. It also meant that the offices became more productive as reports from interviews or investigations could be filed into the office even before the member of the on the road team got back. Results of it all are quicker reporting back to customers of our enquiries or investigations. Reduced cost for the customer, quicker invoicing to the customer and therefore quicker payment by the customer to us.

In view of the above no employees involved in the on the road side of the work is these days allowed to use their car when it is possible for them to travel by rail as that benefits the company. Of course people will still wish to use their cars when travelling for individual social reasons such as holidays, pleasure visits etc. But certainly in Britain and Europe high-speed rail is without doubt more efficient and productive for business. With the United Kingdom now planning on having high-speed trains running at up to 230 mph that incentive to use the rail for business travel can only increase.

Bill
 
I realize that I probably should have elaborated just a little more on the car issue. Most of our major cities already have a rail commuter service in place which is used quite extensively by commuters. It needs to be expanded more, in my opinion, but it works. Outside of this area though, you have nothing. At most you will have an abandoned railroad station next to a freight only line. Where as people in the city don't actually need cars, for the most part, in rural areas you will need a car even more than in rural Europe. By the way, rural doesn't mean farm country in this instance. Instead, it means anywhere that you don't have a major city, or aren't on an existing Amtrak line. There are several cities near me that have no passenger what so ever. (besides tourist)

Actually, even in our cities it is pretty bad. Where as some cities in Europe, and especially Asia, you can live your entire life without needing a car, some of our cities do not have the proper infrastructure to support this lifestyle. Some do, such as Philly, and some are actually putting in light rail in order to solve this problem. That being said, we do not have the infrastructure to put HSR in place.

To get back to the point about cars, mine is this. If you need a car for one everyday thing, you are probably going to just use your car. Plus, we Americans love cars.
 
jadebullet said:
I realize that I probably should have elaborated just a little more on the car issue. Most of our major cities already have a rail commuter service in place which is used quite extensively by commuters. It needs to be expanded more, in my opinion, but it works. Outside of this area though, you have nothing. At most you will have an abandoned railroad station next to a freight only line. Where as people in the city don't actually need cars, for the most part, in rural areas you will need a car even more than in rural Europe. By the way, rural doesn't mean farm country in this instance. Instead, it means anywhere that you don't have a major city, or aren't on an existing Amtrak line. There are several cities near me that have no passenger what so ever. (besides tourist)

Actually, even in our cities it is pretty bad. Where as some cities in Europe, and especially Asia, you can live your entire life without needing a car, some of our cities do not have the proper infrastructure to support this lifestyle. Some do, such as Philly, and some are actually putting in light rail in order to solve this problem. That being said, we do not have the infrastructure to put HSR in place.

To get back to the point about cars, mine is this. If you need a car for one everyday thing, you are probably going to just use your car. Plus, we Americans love cars.
Click to expand...

Well jadebullet you are correct, HSR should be an upgrade from what is currently in place and most cities are without public transport or is at a minimal. But in recent years cities and or states have been looking into their public transport systems and are creating as you said light rail and or commuter rail. But more is needed expand the current systems, I love the way New Jersey is tackling that issue. NJT have been expanding and growing ever since they started operating. With ridership on some lines at over 50000 people, that is as much as a medium city just traveling by rail. Which is amazing, but I feel if HSR was to say built in one area. The demand will become great for a country wide system, reason is that Americans want things. That is why intermodal traffic has gone up in past years. So if you give Americans a taste they will run with it. I am not say I hate cars, I can't wait for the day I get my drivers licence but I really don't want to drive to work (in the city) everyday and also working from home sounds like a great idea, but you will always have that need for jobs out of the major metropolitan area's, with some jobs to say in the future 90-100 miles away from your home. So HSR sounds like a great idea then but I may be wrong, I won't have a real job until I'm at least 23 so things may be different then.
 
Last edited:
amtrak2041864 said:
And it is very sad because I love the fact that the US is a superpower .
Click to expand...

What difference will it make to you? By the way, superpower means nothing to do with High Speed Rail or investing in anything. China invests in its economy, its military and its manufacturing industry

nikos1 said:
We need more conventional rail first, building HSR is like a house without a foundation. Lets get our passenger rail system to where it was in the 50's then lets talk about HSR.
Click to expand...

So Privatize it to railroads that don't want it and don't make money on it?

A 15 year old on an internet talking to people he doesn't know and whose names don't necessarily matter to any politician won't suddenly convince your government to invest hundreds of billions of dollars to a project that probably won't pay back, and won't be exceptionally beneficial to many

Jamie
 
Last edited:
amtrak2041864 said:
Well jadebullet you are correct, HSR should be an upgrade from what is currently in place and most cities are without public transport or is at a minimal. But in recent years cities and or states have been looking into their public transport systems and are creating as you said light rail and or commuter rail. But more is needed expand the current systems, I love the way New Jersey is tackling that issue. NJT have been expanding and growing ever since they started operating. With ridership on some lines at over 50000 people, that is as much as a medium city just traveling by rail. Which is amazing, but I feel if HSR was to say built in one area. The demand will become great for a country wide system, reason is that Americans want things. That is why intermodal traffic has gone up in past years. So if you give Americans a taste they will run with it. I am not say I hate cars, I can't wait for the day I get my drivers licence but I really don't want to drive to work (in the city) everyday and also working from home sounds like a great idea, but you will always have that need for jobs out of the major metropolitan area's, with some jobs to say in the future 90-100 miles away from your home. So HSR sounds like a great idea then but I may be wrong, I won't have a real job until I'm at least 23 so things may be different then.
Click to expand...

NJT is successful because it is:
1) On the Northeast Corridor
2) Runs mainly in a major metropolitan area, AKA the Jersey City area where there is a massive existing infrastructure that was not torn up unlike the rest of our infrastructure.
3) Runs in the state with the highest population density.
4) Provides commuter service for the Commercial capital of the US.
5) Is an integrated rail network. It runs heavy rail, light rail and busses. It is an example of what we need more of rather than what we don't need which is more Amtrak.(non integrated, rail only line)
As such, it isn't that good of an example. Plus, I have already mentioned that the NEC is the only place where HSR makes a lot of sense. (The other areas have their own private commuter lines which could be negatively affected by Amtrak competition with an HSR line which is against the goal of Amtrak.)

The demand would not be great for a country wide system in the long run. You would have an initial burst of "hey, this is cool" and then the novelty would wear off and demand would plummet because there is no need for a country wide HSR system. It could go as fast as you possibly can and it wouldn't change the fact that long distance passenger travel isn't a necessity to daily life. Our country is too big and too sparsely populated. You can't connect everyone and unlike a highway system, HSR would be point to point only. Americans will only run with it if it conveniences us. And really, it doesn't anywhere other than the NEC.

What we need is to focus less on intercity high speed rail, and focus more on extending our existing commuter networks around the cities. High Speed Rail is useless in this regard anyway. There is no need to be able to go that fast. 100mph tops is what would work, just like how it used to be. And really, you aren't going to be going that speed most of the time due to congestion, track layout, and track condition.


As for intermodal, that has nothing to do with American's wanting it. Intermodal traffic is so big because it is the perfect form of supply chain management. You remove the whole trucks competing with trains junk from the equation and rather than treating them as separate entities you view the ship, truck, rail and warehousing as one combined entity. It makes a chain and by working together revenues increase.

High speed rail should be applied to a limited area and a limited area only. They should start with the NEC and see how much of a difference it makes.





In any case, we don't need a high speed rail network. We need a low speed rail network first. Ask yourself, why do you want an HSR network? Are you really going to be driving up to an hour (2 hours for me) to the nearest Amtrak station to board a train to head for Chicago or LA despite having no way of traveling once you reach the destination other than the limited public transport that is available? Or do you want the ability to hop on a low speed train at your local station and have a nice relaxing ride to the nearest city? I would prefer the latter and that would actually have economic benefit unlike HSR.

HSR is bad for America, bad for the economy, and bad for America's railroads. Why should I have to pay taxes to provide government funding to Amtrak in order to fund something that is an extremely horrible idea implemented at the expense of much better ideas and one that "solves" a non existent problem rather than fixes an existing one. And no, that isn't some "F you, got mine!" mentality because I haven't gotten mine. Actually, it is more of a 1% argument because only 1% of the country will have reasonable access to the HSR and 60% of the US will still have no access to a working transportation network. (based on the 40% stated in the article)

I don't even know what you supporters of HSR think that it will do. It isn't going to create a working transportation network like how Europe has. Sometimes I feel like people just look at Europe's transportation network and think "you know what makes that work? It isn't the fact that their towns are interlinked by an impressive network of tracks and other transport methods. It has to be that their trains go fast. Why don't our trains go fast?"

Actually, you know what? I think you guys might be right, but I think we are looking at this the wrong way. I can sum up what America needs in one word.
Monorail*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEZjzsnPhnw



*I understand that some of you may be too young to understand the implication of this reference but I really don't feel like explaining it. You have google, you can look it up.







Edit: Oh hey, would you look at that. Looks like I should do some more research before posting because I was wrong. You can throw NJT back into the list and make it a HUGE red flag because despite the things I listed above, it is still operating at a deficite and not turning a profit.
http://www.njtransit.com/pdf/NJTRANSIT_2012_Annual_Report.pdf

2012 revenue: $960 Million, an increase of 2.1%
2012 expense: $1,924 Million, an increase of 2.6%

The cash flows from operating activities for 2012 were: $986,798,000 outflow. This means that operating their train passenger service resulted in them losing almost 1 billion dollars last year. That number isn't total expenses, that is expenses from operation minus revenues from operations.

Sure, ridership went up, but so did expenses and they went up at a higher rate last year.



It just goes to show you that even a VERY well set up and implemented passenger rail network still can't pull a profit. And really, the only reason why they have an increase in riders is that the state increased the tolls on the toll roads which just shows that even if you have a good rail network, people will still rather sit in traffic than take the train. So even if you make the trains able to go faster(which they won't be because of our freight lines and congestion) it really isn't going to increase appeal.


So, HSR is pointless, a proper passenger rail network isn't going to actually happen because it isn't a cool buzzword, and HSR probably still will happen and be a gigantic waste of time and money. Is there any good news? Well, at least we still have the best freight network in the world and jobs are being shipped here from overseas rather than the other way around as of late due to the comparative advantage changing.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to take my leave of this thread now. I always feel obligated to present the "other side" of the conversation because as expected anyone that loves trains enough to be here often supports HSR just for that reason alone. Everyone has brought up good points here this time though.
For the purposes of clarification I meant "narrow minded" as in one who only looks at the debate through the trains lover point of view. I don't consider myself an Anti HSR troll, but there are far greater concerns about the subject than just "I love HSR".
Carry on all.
 
Well me too, I wanted to see if I can get some support but I was slapped at every turn I had, I will still love the idea of HSR but if I can't get support. I might as well take up shop, I have genuine respect for you Anti-HSR supports but as I said before I love HSR. And in future years will probably be built, but it is not only happening here in the US. You have people in England are opposing HS2, so it is world wide. High Speed Trains are a very difficult topic to talk about, as it requires alot of up front cost and may never pay it self off. But I will leave and continue my construction of HSR in Trainz. And please Stop implying that I am narrow minded, I just have a set focus.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
The abandoned and existing lines in my area a bit of RR Tycoon in the early days!
Replies
15
Views
1K
UP5521
U
H
Please Stop, I Already Got The Point
Replies
8
Views
1K
ministerfarrigut
M
C
Please Keep Trainz Real
Replies
14
Views
1K
pitmilly
P
M
Abouot Transport Fever 2, a Trainz perspective
Replies
4
Views
2K
martinvk
M
T
Old Boilerplate Coffee
Replies
3
Views
642
Forester1
F
Back
Top