• America's Coming High-Speed Rail Financial Disaster

  • General discussion of passenger rail systems not otherwise covered in the specific forums in this category, including high speed rail.
General discussion of passenger rail systems not otherwise covered in the specific forums in this category, including high speed rail.

Moderators: mtuandrew, gprimr1

  by Matt Johnson
 
Of the high speed rail projects that won stimulus funding, I believe only two involve new right of way - the rest are upgrades of existing rail infrastructure.

Florida's Tampa - Orlando high speed line will be built in the median of I-4, with an operating speed of about 170 mph. (Phase II, currently unfunded, calls for speeds of 200 mph or so on new ROW to Miami.) And California's high speed rail project involves mostly new, dedicated right of way for the 220 mph trains, with some existing rails being used in populated areas (notably the Caltrain San Jose - San Francisco line).
  by Noel Weaver
 
I think the idea is fine but I think it should be one step at a time. Florida would be better off with corridor type services
between Miami and Jacksonville (via the FEC), Miami and Tampa, Tampa and Jacksonville (via Orlando) and maybe Miami and Orlando too than in building a whole new line just to run between Tampa and Orlando.
In every one of the above cases a decent railroad exists already and although upgrading would be generally required before
more passenger trains could run it would be a lot more cheaper than building a whole new railroad.
I believe that corridor type services are more needed today than ever and Florida needs them big time. Problem is that we
have a state government that is strapped for funds and even if they had the funds, they could care less about corridor type
service in this state.
What will come of all this, who knows at this point?
Noel Weaver
  by justalurker66
 
electricron wrote:You missed my point entirely. I'll agree the cost for the land of the corridor would be the same, whatever the transportation mode. It's the potential sale of neighboring land parcels where rural land owners make the most profits. And with new highways, they always plot the highways so landowners get to sell good land sized parcels on BOTH sides of the new highways.
"Always" is a bad word to use. It doesn't take much work to find a new ROW highway plot without "good land sized parcels".

You have missed MY point entirely and have failed to defend your point. How does owning the land next to a rural new ROW road help when the nearest exit is five or ten miles away?

I clearly specified the rural interstates that I'm thinking of ... similar to rural HSR that passes people by. Your talking about other roads doesn't change the validity of my comments. Where are the new ROW railroads? Certainly not as many as new ROW roadways.
  by george matthews
 
David Benton wrote:just curious , we always hear about these conserative think tanks , opposed to hsr / amtrak , where are the liberal ones that may support it ??? .
There has been a kind of cult of claiming that only "private enterprise" can or should be allowed to run any economic activity. It's an irrational dogma. People in these "foundations" would argue that if an activity can't make a profit for a private corporation we should do without it.

A less dogmatic view would point out that if we have to do without rail travel there are other costs we would experience. Society is far more complicated than these cultists recognise.
  by walnut
 
In 2008, Texas DOT proclaimed that roads do not pay for themselves using basic math. Although they took down the internet post for a while, then later reposted it, I think, I saved the original text:

Do Roads Pay for Themselves?

1. What is a traveler paying for when he or she pays state gas tax at the pump?

State motor fuel tax is collected from all over the state and goes into a single pool of revenue—about one quarter of which goes to fund education, and about three-quarters of which goes to the state's highway fund, where it is spent on transportation uses and some non-transportation functions of government.

Then the state receives federal funds as the state's share of the federal fuel tax; about 70 cents of every gas tax dollar Texans send to Washington comes back for road use.

The significant point here is that historically the fuel tax paid in any locality of the state is unrelated to the road projects in that locality. Every fuel taxpayer in the state paid something for any given road—which leads to the next issue.

2. When is a given road actually "paid for?"

Just like your car, it never is. You may have paid the note, but maintenance and fuel costs go on as long as you own the vehicle. Once a road is built, maintenance and rehabilitation costs last its entire life, generally about 40 years.

The decision to build a road is a permanent commitment to the traveling public. Not only will a road be built, but it must also be routinely maintained and reconstructed when necessary, meaning no road is ever truly "paid for."

Until recently, when TxDOT built or expanded a road, no methodology existed to determine the extent to which this work would be paid off through revenues.

The Asset Value Index, was developed to compare the full 40-year life-cycle costs to the revenues attributable to a given road corridor or section. The shorthand version calculates how much gasoline is consumed on a roadway and how much gas tax revenue that generates.

The Asset Value Index is the ratio of the total expected revenues divided by the total expected costs. If the ratio is 0.60, the road will produce revenues to meet 60 percent of its costs; it would be "paid for" only if the ratio were 1.00, when the revenues met 100 percent of costs. Another way of describing this is to do a "tax gap" analysis, which shows how much the state fuel tax would have to be on that given corridor for the ratio for revenues to match costs.

Applying this methodology, revealed that no road pays for itself in gas taxes and fees. For example, in Houston, the 15 miles of SH 99 from I-10 to US 290 will cost $1 billion to build and maintain over its lifetime, while only generating $162 million in gas taxes. That gives a tax gap ratio of .16, which means that the real gas tax rate people would need to pay on this segment of road to completely pay for it would be $2.22 per gallon. This is just one example, but there is not one road in Texas that pays for itself based on the tax system of today. Some roads pay for about half their true cost, but most roads we have analyzed pay for considerably less. To conclude, in the SH 99 example, since the traffic volume for that road doesn't generate enough fuel tax revenue to pay for it, revenues from other parts of the state must be used to build and maintain this corridor segment. The same is true across the state, meaning that, as revealed by the tax gap analysis, overall revenues are not sufficient to meet the state's transportation needs.
  by MudLake
 
justalurker66 wrote:
electricron wrote:You missed my point entirely. I'll agree the cost for the land of the corridor would be the same, whatever the transportation mode. It's the potential sale of neighboring land parcels where rural land owners make the most profits. And with new highways, they always plot the highways so landowners get to sell good land sized parcels on BOTH sides of the new highways.
"Always" is a bad word to use. It doesn't take much work to find a new ROW highway plot without "good land sized parcels".

You have missed MY point entirely and have failed to defend your point. How does owning the land next to a rural new ROW road help when the nearest exit is five or ten miles away?

I clearly specified the rural interstates that I'm thinking of ... similar to rural HSR that passes people by. Your talking about other roads doesn't change the validity of my comments. Where are the new ROW railroads? Certainly not as many as new ROW roadways.
Railroads and highways are fundamentally very different and shouldn't be compared to each other in most circumstances. In the case of a new highway being of the limited access type, an interchange that's five miles away might still be of high value to local residents. It's been shown many times that good highway access is economically beneficial for communities. An HSR line is an entirely different animal. The ROW might pass near a rural town but if the next stop is 50 to 100 miles away, what benefit is that line to anyone in that town?

On an even more basic level, railroads and highways are completely different. Anyone with a vehicle and a license to operate a vehicle can use a highway. It's open access for all. Railroads are the exact opposite. Individuals can't buy their own train and run it on a rail line no matter who owns the line.

It makes far more sense to examine railroads and highways on their own merits. Co-mingling the two will always result in distorted and often irrelevant arguments.
  by electricron
 
MudLake wrote:Railroads and highways are fundamentally very different and shouldn't be compared to each other in most circumstances. In the case of a new highway being of the limited access type, an interchange that's five miles away might still be of high value to local residents. It's been shown many times that good highway access is economically beneficial for communities. An HSR line is an entirely different animal. The ROW might pass near a rural town but if the next stop is 50 to 100 miles away, what benefit is that line to anyone in that town?

On an even more basic level, railroads and highways are completely different. Anyone with a vehicle and a license to operate a vehicle can use a highway. It's open access for all. Railroads are the exact opposite. Individuals can't buy their own train and run it on a rail line no matter who owns the line.

It makes far more sense to examine railroads and highways on their own merits. Co-mingling the two will always result in distorted and often irrelevant arguments.
I wasn't making an argument!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was giving my opinion why there are few protests in rural areas against building NEW highways.

And the fact remains that Highway Departments build rural fences when asked, and route highways in such a way to minimize harm and maximize profits.

I'll agree with you that few new rail corridors have been built in America for a very long time. I would like to point out not one new rural Interstate Highway has been constructed in over 25 years. So, no new rural Interstate Highways have been built recently either.

Highway Departments are - have been building thousand of miles 4 lane highways in rural areas. with mostly at grade intersections, some of these highways are divided while some are not.

Please list all the recent new rural Interstate Highways you so sure have been built recently.
I dare you to name ONE!
  by David Benton
 
"Some roads pay for about half their true cost, but most roads we have analyzed pay for considerably less" .
Well , that makes Amtraks "around about 50 % average fare recovery" look pretty good , doesnt it ??? .
  by justalurker66
 
electricron wrote:Highway Departments are - have been building thousand of miles 4 lane highways in rural areas. with mostly at grade intersections, some of these highways are divided while some are not.
Yes ... the better ones are being built to interstate quality and specifications. Even if they don't get an "Interstate" label, they are limited access high speed roads with limited interchanges. Some probably do more service to the communities they pass by reducing traffic through town. It is a trade off between the businesses who believe that heavy traffic through town brings them customers and those who understand that through traffic isn't going to stop anyways and might as well be removed.

I'm not a "road fan", so I don't have a complete list of projects nationwide but from my area I-69 was completed to Port Huron in 1992 (18 years ago) and planning is still underway for the Indianapolis to Evansville portion of I-69. This will be built in a 2000ft wide ROW, much of it new terrain. I'm sure if you checked out a site specializing in roads you could get more information.

Back to MY point ... roads are getting built on new terrain at interstate quality with limited access and somehow the government manages to get the land for those roads .... in ROWs that are hundreds of feet (even 2000ft) wide. Yet try to get 100ft for a railroad? The planners don't even seem to be trying to do new terrain alignments ... they just follow old lines with minimal upgrades.

If rail planners could get out of that box they wouldn't be choosing between corridors such as Chi-Tol via South Bend vs Chi-Tol via Fort Wayne (both following existing lines with the Ft Wayne option being a very low use line CSX leases to RailAmerica). Why not draw a new line just south of South Bend (still serving that metro area) then south to Ft Wayne (adding service to that area)? Sorry. The planners can't do that. Still stuck following lines left on the map by the survivors of the 19th century rail planning. The least they could do is ASK for new terrain alignments.
  by matawanaberdeen
 
The Republicans have to tacks when it comes to every issue #1 If the private sector can't make money with it,we can do without it and it should die #2 Get rid of the unions then it will be profitable. I can't figure out why I will not vote Republican :wink: JC
  by ne plus ultra
 
electricron wrote:
I'll agree the cost for the land of the corridor would be the same, whatever the transportation mode. It's the potential sale of neighboring land parcels where rural land owners make the most profits.
Highways increase land values only at exits. Most of the land sale is by eminent domain.
  by Trainer
 
The federally funded high-speed rail debate is not unlike the current healthcare debate. There's hosts of entrenched players in the game trying to ilk out political and financial advantages out of an ancient infrastructure that no longer meets current and future needs. Throwing billions of public dollars at this infrastructure, as is being done with the current healthcare plan and high speed rail, simply reinforces low-quality antiquated design. As in the healthcare bill, while massive government money thrown into high speed rail projects may increase system access, it will also simply pile IOU's onto our children and grandchildren without solving the fundamental problems inherant into its design.

In both cases, we need to start over from scratch. Medicine MUST make enough profit to break even, and so must high speed rail transportation, or they will both simply drag us all down into crisis status. The goverment's role in both medicine and HSR currently is that of setting obstacles to financial viability... instead, the government should be working together with for-profit concerns to enable win-win situations. Ironically, the Chinese economic model may be the best approach to the future, where government actively supports private business, unlike our present situation here where the goverment seems bent upon milking the cash cows to death via taxes, fees, and regulatory mandates.

Right now, the US government is interested in creating a very linited number of short-term unionized HSR construction jobs whose main purpose is not to enhance overall US rail transportation but to benefit their political supporters. Instead, why not step back... let the government design a series of interlocking regional HSR systems, aquire the appropriate ROW by eminant domain, provide financing to investors and entrapanuers who wish to develope the services, and promise to keep taxes for these investors reasonable (no capital gains) for several years. If there's still no hope of profit, or at least breaking even, then it shouldn't be done... however, if the government promises to get out of the way (other than with safety regulations), I think that an innovative viable high-speed network run as a business by business people has a great potiential to turn a buck or two.
  by jtr1962
 
Trainer wrote: In both cases, we need to start over from scratch. Medicine MUST make enough profit to break even, and so must high speed rail transportation, or they will both simply drag us all down into crisis status.
Actually, the cases of medicine and transportation are two instances where the benefits extend far beyond the bottom line. You can't simply look at HSR or medicine in isolation and say that they're not viable if they can't make money. If both these things enable a larger functioning of the economy than is possible without them, then they are worthwhile endeavors, even if they lose money when looked at in isolation. Will the costs of building HSR cause a large enough reduction in spending elsewhere to justify it? Probably from most of the studies I've seen, provided the dollars aren't spent on lines to nowhere which nobody will use. The hard part with both things is getting the politics out of it as you said. We need to do what is necessary without catering to the myriad special interests. If a HSR line or station isn't viable based on studies, then it shouldn't be built. If it is, then it should be. It shouldn't matter if some states will end up with a lot more lines than others, while some end up with none. I'll hazard a guess that those states getting little or no HSR funding might be getting more farm subsidies, or more highway money per capita, than the states getting more HSR. It all boils down to spending money where it makes sense, not political expediency.

Same thing with the health care debate. If the goal is to increase the availability of medical care, then we shouldn't be including profit-making middle men ( i.e. insurance companies ) into the solution. It annoys me hearing about all the construction jobs HSR will create as part of its reason for being. First off, the jobs are temporary. Second, the primary purpose of HSR is to move people more efficiently, not create jobs. If we could create and run an entire HSR system with robots, it would make a lot of sense from the standpoint of the greater good to do so.
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Anyone else in receipt of same from Dr. Utt?

  • America's Coming High-Speed Rail Financial Disaster

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Report ... l-Disaster

    by Ronald Utt, Ph.D.

    Backgrounder #2389

    March 19, 2010

    President Barack Obama has committed the United States to building at least 13 high-speed rail (HSR) lines, one of the most expensive forms of transportation that a nation could choose. Even in a strong economy, building HSR makes little sense, offering minimal reductions in travel times at exorbitant costs. In the current weak economy and with the government facing massive budget deficits, the country simply cannot afford to squander $8 billion in stimulus funding, $5 billion over the next five years, and billions of dollars in matching state funding on a transportation system that will at best serve a minute fraction of the traveling public. The country would be better off either not spending the money or spending it on something productive.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ron Utt
    Herbert and Joyce Morgan Senior Research Fellow
    The Heritage Foundation
    214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
    Washington, DC 20002
    202-608-6013
    heritage.org

    The Foundry has a new look. Check out The Heritage Foundation's policy news blog for insight into the day's news, featuring research, data, charts and analysis. We've made it easier to navigate the site and interact with Heritage. Click http://blog.heritage.org to view the Foundry.
Oh well, somebody must be "farming" one rail forum or the other.

Since I take many a position here that can be construed as "anti-Amtrak", I would think that he would leave me alone and go after the "advocates' we have around here.
  by jtr1962
 
Well, it's almost laugable that he considers $8 billion squandering money when we've spent nearly 100 times that on the questionable endeavor of bailing out banks, and about the same on two senseless military ventures. $8 billion is a rounding error in the Federal budget. Even if it turns out to be a complete waste, I'd rather we "waste" money this way, on things which at least potentially are of some general utility, than spend it on things which are clearly not, and can never be.