Amtrak Economics

[Boz]

Oct 1, 2010 12:20:37 GMT -5 hoyawatcher said:

Usually I think of Europe as being highly supportive of their high speed rail links and using rail instead of airlinks but I guess the support isn't as universal as I thought. I don't claim to know the specifics of the issues and concerns about this new link in Germany but I wonder if we wouldn't get some of the same reactions in the US if we went to set up new right of ways for a NE high speed rail link.

Well, that depends. Is it a Muslim high-speed rail link?

Ba-ZING!! ;D


I think you'd get a lot of negative reactions to high speed rail in the US if it costs as much as it sounds like it would.

But I haven't seen too much in the US that has caused violent demonstrations, required riot police, and involved shooting people's eyes out with water cannons.

Maybe if Facebook goes down again for more than a couple hours though, who knows?.

[Elvado]

Sept 29, 2010 20:11:02 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Amtrak wants, get this, $117 billion for a high speed rail line from Washington to Boston, and it'll take 30 years to build. .

greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=7344

Hey you give Barack Obama and his team $117 billion and they could create 20 or 30 real good jobs for folks out there...

[The Stig]

I'm sure there would be plenty of pushback against the Amtrak plan. Let's face it, most Americans don't understand the benefit of high-speed rail. There would also be a lot of pushback from states outside the NEC for spending this much federal money on one part of the country.

The protests in Germany aren't surprising. Germany has a surprisingly strong green movement. Also, most of the ICE network runs on upgraded conventional lines, not dedicated high-speed lines. The ICE network is certainly better than the Acela, but it's nowhere near the TGV. Therefore, the Germans don't have a lot of experience with the pains that go with building a dedicated line.

[SirSaxa]

TheStig, how does this cancellation of the proposed new Hudson River Rail tunnel by Gov. Christie impact the future viability of ACELA and AMTRAK. CLearly, it is a big negative. But HOW negative?

[The Stig]

I haven't followed that project too closely, but from what I know it won't have a huge impact on Amtrak in the short term. The ARC tunnel was for commuter trains, not Amtrak. While it might have taken some trains out of the existing tunnel that Amtrak uses, thus freeing up more capacity for Amtrak, it wasn't going to have a huge effect on Amtrak operations.

Longer term, it just shows how this country is afraid of investing money in big infrastructure projects. We're not going to make any substantial progress on high-speed rail or any other important projects until we get politicians who don't chicken out at every price tag they see. These sorts of projects are investments - they cost a lot of money now, but they also offer a big return on the investment once they're complete.

[kchoya]

Oct 8, 2010 10:44:01 GMT -5 The Stig said:

I haven't followed that project too closely, but from what I know it won't have a huge impact on Amtrak in the short term. The ARC tunnel was for commuter trains, not Amtrak. While it might have taken some trains out of the existing tunnel that Amtrak uses, thus freeing up more capacity for Amtrak, it wasn't going to have a huge effect on Amtrak operations.

Longer term, it just shows how this country is afraid of investing money in big infrastructure projects. We're not going to make any substantial progress on high-speed rail or any other important projects until we get politicians who don't chicken out at every price tag they see. These sorts of projects are investments - they cost a lot of money now, but they also offer a big return on the investment once they're complete.

How can you blame a politician from balking at being sucked into another huge cost overrun? It's not the fact that it costs almost $9B, it's that the state could get stuck with billions in overruns.

[The Stig]

Again, I haven't followed this particular issue too closely. However, cost overruns are a fact of life with these sorts of projects. If you are going to cancel every project that goes over budget, you're not going to get anything built.

[AustinHoya03]

It's not Amtrak, but here's an interesting article on light rail funding:

www.minnpost.com/steveberg/2010/10/20/22515/with_public_funding_exhausted_dallas_turns_to_private_partners_and_tif_to_build_new_rail_transit

[DFW HOYA]

Oct 21, 2010 0:42:04 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

It's not Amtrak, but here's an interesting article on light rail funding:
www.minnpost.com/steveberg/2010/10/20/22515/with_public_funding_exhausted_dallas_turns_to_private_partners_and_tif_to_build_new_rail_transit

The issue with Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) is not cost overruns but incompetent projections. The agency built into its 20 year plan an ever increasing pool of sales tax monies within member cities to fund projects. They came back and admitted the numbers are $3 billion off.

[Bando]

Really, the most bang for the Obama administration's buck would have been to give all the HSR stimulus money to the NE corridor. Significantly upgrading that corridor (by say, making DC-Boston take 3 hours) would have real economic benefits in the long term. Instead because of political considerations, we had to fund things like a sure to be unused Orlando-Tampa train.

If given sufficient independence from Congress, a National Infrastructure Bank could inject some real cost-benefit rationality to way we allocate transit dollars. Maybe then we could get a real HSR line in the NE (where there's sufficient density and people use trains all the time) instead of a likely SF-LA boondoggle.

[SirSaxa]

Oct 25, 2010 14:32:56 GMT -5 Bando said:

Really, the most bang for the Obama administration's buck would have been to give all the HSR stimulus money to the NE corridor. Significantly upgrading that corridor (by say, making DC-Boston take 3 hours) would have real economic benefits in the long term. Instead because of political considerations, we had to fund things like a sure to be unused Orlando-Tampa train.

If given sufficient independence from Congress, a National Infrastructure Bank could inject some real cost-benefit rationality to way we allocate transit dollars. Maybe then we could get a real HSR line in the NE (where there's sufficient density and people use trains all the time) instead of a likely SF-LA boondoggle.

Bando.. welcome back. Haven't seen you posting recently.

Your point about an NIB independent of Congress applies not only to AMTRAK, but to almost everything the US govt. does. Remember all that money allocated for Homeland security... and how Nebraska and Wyoming got more money/person than NYC and N. VA where the terrorists actually DID attack?

Or think of weapons procurement for the Pentagon and how every major weapons system..... and I mean EVERY major weapons system, has components made in each and every one of our 50 States.

As you know, this is not a phenomenon of the Obama admin, this has been going on for decades under every administration. Congress is a mixed blessing. The more micro-managed, the worse the results.

And BTW, what ever happened with Gov. Christie and his two week delay on his final decision re: that big RR tunnel from Jersey to NYC? Did I just miss the result of that?

[kchoya]

Oct 25, 2010 14:46:45 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

Oct 25, 2010 14:32:56 GMT -5 Bando said:

Really, the most bang for the Obama administration's buck would have been to give all the HSR stimulus money to the NE corridor. Significantly upgrading that corridor (by say, making DC-Boston take 3 hours) would have real economic benefits in the long term. Instead because of political considerations, we had to fund things like a sure to be unused Orlando-Tampa train.

If given sufficient independence from Congress, a National Infrastructure Bank could inject some real cost-benefit rationality to way we allocate transit dollars. Maybe then we could get a real HSR line in the NE (where there's sufficient density and people use trains all the time) instead of a likely SF-LA boondoggle.

Your point about an NIB independent of Congress applies not only to AMTRAK, but to almost everything the US govt. does. Remember all that money allocated for Homeland security... and how Nebraska and Wyoming got more money/person than NYC and N. VA where the terrorists actually DID attack?

That argument is such crap. Give $600,000 in funds to Wyoming and $19M to New York and you know what happens? That's more money per capita to Wyoming than to New York.

Statistics are fun.

I bet if you build a high speed line from NYC to DC, Delaware ends up with the most funds per capita. What a joke.

[Boz]

See, Bando?

We all missed you!

;D ;D

[hoyawatcher]

Curiosity question - why would a high speed rail link from the San Francisco/San Jose area to the LA area be a boondogle? While I travel out there I admit to being an east coast guy so I don't have a dog in the hunt, but I did a quick Kayak search of non-stop flights from NY to Washington with all local airports and the same for LA to San Francisco and found 110 or so for Wash to NY and 150 for LA to SF. Both are about 400 miles and I would easily admit the flights are reduced for NY to Wash by the Accella service - but 150 still seems to me to be a huge amount of demand that could be serviced by a high speed rail link. You seemed to have a real strong opinion and I am curious why?

[The Stig]

I think the Florida HSR project actually has some promise, if they do it right. The land is perfect rail country - flat and sparsely populated. They've got a lot of population centers that are relatively close together, but not convenient driving distance. If they do a good job of linking up the stations in the big cities with local public transit and don't bog down the system with tons of stops along the way, I think it could be a success.

Texas is another place where HSR could thrive, with the Dallas/Houston/San Antonio triangle. There's also some pretty advanced plans to build a network in the Midwest centered around Chicago.

California's got the right idea, but they're going to muck it up with a bazillion intermediate stops along the way. If they run express trains it'll help a lot.

So there's more to HSR in the US than just the Northeast Corridor. In fact, given that you'd have to basically start from scratch and build a new right of way to do the project right in the NEC, I'd say you'll probably get more for your money elsewhere in the country.

[rosslynhoya]

The fact that Congress today can't spend money rationally hardly seems like a sufficient reason to set up another, even more unaccountable organization to hand out billions of dollars worth of taxpayer money to favored projects each year.

[Bando]

First, thanks for the welcome back everyone. Sorry, I kinda got really busy at work a few months ago and got out of the habit of coming here all time. Now that a new season is upon us, it's just the right time to come back.

hoyawatcher: The CA line's cost projections seem way optimistic, as do the time projections, as they have a LOT of stops on that line. It seems like it was more important to start funding a LA-SF link that looking into actually how to do it right. Also, southern California doesn't have the intracity transit that a lot of the northeastern cities have. I feel that the success of intercity rail is linked to the strength of the intracity transport networks. It's not enough to build a rail link to a city if people still have to rent a car when they get there.

Sir Saxa: Damn democracy, always screwing things up! Actually, this isn't a bad idea, and it builds off the BRAC model. Then again, BRAC doesn't always work either (think either Congress getting around the commission to get bases in their district saved, as well as the decisions in the DC area to move jobs from bases near Metro to bases in the exurbs.

[kchoya]

Oct 25, 2010 18:52:45 GMT -5 The Stig said:

I think the Florida HSR project actually has some promise, if they do it right. The land is perfect rail country - flat and sparsely populated. They've got a lot of population centers that are relatively close together, but not convenient driving distance. If they do a good job of linking up the stations in the big cities with local public transit and don't bog down the system with tons of stops along the way, I think it could be a success.

The problem is it's not being done right. If I understand correctly, they have too many stops, it's only going to reach top speeds of about 165 mph, and will cut a 90 minute drive down to a 60 minute ride.

[hoyawatcher]

Christie has doubled down on canceling the Manhattan tunnel

www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g90Br0me8JfHZr7u0kZ106s-i-5A?docId=f9b05cc9bd204aac82db1dfb21a9a5f9

I don't claim to understand all the dynamics but the report at least suggests to me the issue is the cost overruns being uncapped for NJ. I can take this as a negotiating position to get the overruns put against the feds and not NJ. Or it could really be "no". Time will tell and I admit I am speculating.

[kchoya]

Oct 27, 2010 12:38:59 GMT -5 hoyawatcher said:

Christie has doubled down on canceling the Manhattan tunnel

www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g90Br0me8JfHZr7u0kZ106s-i-5A?docId=f9b05cc9bd204aac82db1dfb21a9a5f9

I don't claim to understand all the dynamics but the report at least suggests to me the issue is the cost overruns being uncapped for NJ. I can take this as a negotiating position to get the overruns put against the feds and not NJ. Or it could really be "no". Time will tell and I admit I am speculating.

Am I missing something here? Christie doesn't want to NJ to be stuck with the bill for cost overruns on a massive public project, yet he's getting tons of flack. What's unreasonable about his position?