Just as it looked liked a nationwide high-speed rail system was taking off, a backlash by conservatives who now control many state governments is threatening to knock it off the tracks.
And Florida is on the verge of becoming the biggest derailment yet.
Florida has received $2 billion from the federal government ó 70 percent of the total cost ó to build a line from Orlando to Tampa. It is envisioned as an alternative for workers and tourists to the state's often snarled interstate system, promising, roaring along at 168 mph, to deliver them to their destinations in a fraction of the time.
But new Gov. Rick Scott as well as the state's leading transportation force in Congress, Rep. John Mica, are signaling that it is not too late to stop the project ó and that they may be the ones to do it.
It is a shocking turn of events for high-speed rail advocates who thought they were on the cusp of gaining a national model for getting cars off highways while creating up to 10,000 jobs building and running the train line.
I think I predicted earlier that whatever grading has been done is simply the start for additional lanes along I-4.
It appears that this initiative by the Obama administration is fast becoming a boondoggle (didn't I predict just that at an earlier topic?) that the Republicans will be quite quick to remind the voters about come 2012.
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
The problem with democratic elections, especially the ones of 2008 AND 2010 is that there are no "mulligans." Stated another way, be careful what you wish for, etc.,etc.,etc.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
I'm happy to see HSR being sidelined. We need to do this in CA as well. Does this mean that I do NOT want HSR? Nope...I'd like to have it. But we don't have the money for it, and in CA particularly, it has become a boondoggle. I'm glad common sense is beginning to return to some areas of politics. It's almost like the pro-HSR people are saying, "But mommy, I WANT it!!!!" while they are kicking and screaming. And the parents are saying, "Look honey, we can't afford it". But the "kids" don't understand what that means.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
I'm with Smitty. This obsession with 110+ mph trains is not economically viable. We spend 500% more to get somewhere 40% faster (numbers I just made up, but are probably close). Speculation from my reliable local rail newsletter says 90 mph costs 3-4 times 60 mph, 110 mph costs twice 90 mph, and 200 mph costs about $100,000,000/mile to build in open farmland. Incremental improvement to existing track makes more economic sense to me, and would probably require fewer expensive preliminary studies. Perhaps even the now prospering freight railroads would welcome the upgrades and share some cost.
The NEC gobbles up a half billion dollar subsidy per year over revenue, while the rest of us still fill up trains (and expensive bedrooms) poking along at half the speed, seeing the other 90% of the country for about the same subsidy.
If my math is right, for each 100 miles traveled, 110 mph vs. 79 mph saves you 21 minutes. And 200 mph saves 24 minutes over 110. About the same time you spend on hold on a customer service phone call, but without the annoying loud music.
With efficient dispatching and station stops, 79-90 mph is competitive with driving, especially into city centers. Part of the money saved settling for lower high speeds could be spent instead on more attractive equipment.
Perhaps the great philosopher, Tarzan the Ape Man, made my point more eloquently on film when Jane explained how modern civilization had these wonderful fast airplanes and trains that saved everyone time. Tarzan replied "What need time for?".
<steps down from soapbox>
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
Like I say, the election process should allow for "mulligans":
Ct and Mass, has completed its umpteeth HSR study along with a few getting dog and pony shows with politicians riding the rails for a rolling press confrence. This HSR plan will connect Springfield Mass to New Haven Ct. Amtrak runs this more like an excursion train not the commuter line it should be. Sure the inferstructure should be updated but its not just the tracks and switches. It is not just about the speed of the trains it is about the frequency and reliability of the schedule Amtrak has never operated this way.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
OK, so much for Florida getting the Wisconsin give away Feddybux.
California, here it comes... (the cash)
Posted by RR4me (Member # 6052) on :
While we complain about affordability, others in this global economy move right along, able to differentiate between investments and spending. I'm sure not all agree , but I will also state that in the trough of a growth cycle is not the time to avoid government investment, rather it is at the peak. And that concept, central to Keynesian economics, has been thoroughly forgotten by both parties ever since it was espoused. I believe the HSR should continue in California, even if they build the first leg between Corcoran and Bakersfield. The goal is not to match driving times, rather it should be to match regional airline times.
Posted by Tanner929 (Member # 3720) on :
What are peoples thought on Eminent Domain in California would the wage scale be similiar to those building the China Express? Hey if we could build a train that can get from NY to DC in an hour would they still have a full snack car?
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
the main problem with building the high speed rail is dealing with all the opposition and the "mitigation" requirements where you have to consider the "habitat" of critters down to bugs, "wetlands" (somehow the noxious swamp of years past has become the necessary wetland of today), and every other issue that people with more time and money than sense can dream up. By the time you deal with all these issues you have not only spent a lot of money to do nothing but generate paper, you have also significantly increased the cost of the construction project, itself.
As to the "reliable" local newspaper that says "90 mph costs 3-4 times 60 mph, 110 mph costs twice 90 mph, and 200 mph costs about $100,000,000/mile to build in open farmland." It is obvious why these guys are writers instead of construction contractors or estimators.
In open farmland, the difference in costs between lines built for these various speeds in essentially zero. The only differernce would be if you allow road crossings on the lower speed lines which are not allowed by FRA requirements on the higher speed lines. How many of these and the nature of these and that alone affects the costs. In more rugged terrain the story is different, as high speed requires large radius curves. On the other hand, passenger trains powered for high speed can climb much steeper grades, so money can be saved in fill and bridge height and cut depth/tunnel length.
The differences are not as simple as those that only sit on their butt and comment about the work of others imagine.
Posted by Tanner929 (Member # 3720) on :
Well what ever you said George I'm sure the builders of the China Express needn't concern themselves with it.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
I defer to Mr. Harris in regards to the relative cost of various rail speeds, as I have always valued his technical input on this forum. The figures I quoted exactly were from this month's "Minnesota Rail Passenger News", a newsletter (not available online) from the Minnesota Association of Rail Passengers (MinnARP). They were written by Andrew Seldon, President of MinnARP, lifelong rail advocate and once a finalist for President and CEO of Amtrak. He is also Vice President of the somewhat controversial passenger rail advocacy think tank, URPA. I also (small world) attended Sunday School with him as a child, and remember him to be very intelligent and factual. That is why I chose the word "reliable". I remain neutral in the debate over who is right, but I would speculate electrification would add greatly to cost.
I do however, stand strongly behind the words of Tarzan the Ape Man ("what need time for?").
I am in total support of HSR programs, environmentally and for long term cost savings over highway and airport expansion. But since I am 65 years old I selfishly want a viable rail choice for travel in my immediate future. And I fear the current (dare I say stupid?) political climate and economic realities put that at risk.
And since I have some college economics education, I STRONGLY agree with Mr. RRrme that "the trough of a growth cycle is not the time to avoid government investment".
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
I will agree that electrification adds considerably to the cost of the railroad. But, again that is almost completely independent of the proposed maximum speed. Yes, so far all high speed rail lines are electrified, but it makes sense to electrify high volume passenger lines, regardless of maximum speed, it just becomes more impractical to lug around the power plant as the maximum speed increases. This is particularly true for lines with frequent stops. If you remember the basic formula for acceleration of F=ma and turn it around to the form of a=F/m, you see that that the power required to get any desired rate of accleration increase in direct proportion to the weight of the vehicle. That is a major part of the why that almost all rapid transit systems are electrified. You simply would expend a lot more energy if you had to be accelerating and braking the power plant than you would if the power plant can be stationary and the power carried to thte vehicle by a wire. That is, after all what electrification does. When we see these diesel powered trains, we tend to forget that in the early days of dieselization, they were consistently called Diesel-Electrics. Why? Because the wheels are turned by electric motors. In the simplest sense, electrication is taking the source of the power for the electric motors off the vehicle so you do not have to haul it around. The power plant weight is of almost no significance in freight service because you need the weight on powered axles to get and keep the train moving at low speeds.
High price for high speed occurs primarily in congested areas and rugged terrain where keeping the line as straight as possible requires building expensive features and buying expensive property that you could go around if you were willing to accept lower speeds. High speed also means building larger tunnels than simple clearances require due to aerodynamic issues.
As to Mr. Selden: I have read quite a bit of what he has written in past years, but not recently. I do not question his integrity. Sometimes I do question his logic. But then, what can I say? I am an engineer and he is a lawyer. Perhaps his understanding of my field is in the same range as my understanding of his.
Mr. Tanner, you are absolutely right. It will be intersting to watch if the Chinese try to get into the rail building and operating business in the US. They will never be able to understand what hit them when they find that they may be the 500 pound gorilla on their home turf, but are one 500 pound gorilla in a cage full of 1000 pound gorillas here.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
, but I will also state that in the trough of a growth cycle is not the time to avoid government investment, rather it is at the peak. And that concept, central to Keynesian economics, has been thoroughly forgotten by both parties ever since it was espoused. I believe the HSR should continue in California, even if they build the first leg between Corcoran and Bakersfield. The goal is not to match driving times, rather it should be to match regional airline times.