Interesting Article Opposing High Speed Rail

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I believe the new catenary installed by Amtrak between erstwhile Shell and Gate is new but not constant tension, the last time I looked. But I will verify in December if my recollection is right. Since the all of Harold has also gotten new catenary.

In any case you don’t really need CT catenary for 100mph.
 
"Interesting" is all in the eye of the reader. The article bemoaned the cost of building rail and derided the cement used for ties ...


new track construction is between $1 Million - $2 Million per mile, depending on who is constructing the track

Construct a new 6-lane Interstate highway – about $7 million per mile in rural areas, $11 million or more per mile in urban areas. Mill and resurface a 4-lane road – about $1.25 million per mile. Expand an Interstate Highway from four lanes to six lanes – about $4 million per mile
 
new track construction is between $1 Million - $2 Million per mile, depending on who is constructing the track

Construct a new 6-lane Interstate highway – about $7 million per mile in rural areas, $11 million or more per mile in urban areas. Mill and resurface a 4-lane road – about $1.25 million per mile. Expand an Interstate Highway from four lanes to six lanes – about $4 million per mile
Would like to know the source of these numbers. All may be on the low side. The highway numbers look low, particularly the urban area highway cost seems extremely low. As a guess, these are probably basic construction costs and excludes right of way. Basic earthwork and drainage work costs can vary wildly, and I mean wildly, not widely, based on terrain an multiple other factors. Exclusive of track, a railroad's earthwork is not that much different from that for a two lane highway.
 
I can't comment on the anti-high speed rail article because I haven't read it.

But frankly, I'm not convinced of the demand for high-speed rail in general.

Instead of high speed rail, and as an ardent fan of overnight long-distance conventional rail I would like to see any additional dollars for passenger rail spent in this fashion:
1. more frequencies for current LD routes
2. additional LD routes (and I'm sure most of us have ideas on just what additional routes)
3. elevating the dining car cuisine quality to, say, for example, equal to the Fred Harvey quality of old, along with expanded dining car hours.

Anyway, I wonder if many more travelers nationwide would be better served by those three ideas rather than so-called high speed rail.
 
I can't comment on the anti-high speed rail article because I haven't read it.

But frankly, I'm not convinced of the demand for high-speed rail in general.

Instead of high speed rail, and as an ardent fan of overnight long-distance conventional rail I would like to see any additional dollars for passenger rail spent in this fashion:
1. more frequencies for current LD routes
2. additional LD routes (and I'm sure most of us have ideas on just what additional routes)
3. elevating the dining car cuisine quality to, say, for example, equal to the Fred Harvey quality of old, along with expanded dining car hours.

Anyway, I wonder if many more travelers nationwide would be better served by those three ideas rather than so-called high speed rail.
However I think if Amtrak wants to improve they also need more corridors, there's a lot of cities in the east, and some in the west (looking at you Las Vegas) that they should serve if they want a good, connected network. And trying to decrease trip times would be good too so they're at least not too much slower than driving.
 
"Interesting" is all in the eye of the reader. The article bemoaned the cost of building rail and derided the cement used for ties ...


new track construction is between $1 Million - $2 Million per mile, depending on who is constructing the track

Construct a new 6-lane Interstate highway – about $7 million per mile in rural areas, $11 million or more per mile in urban areas. Mill and resurface a 4-lane road – about $1.25 million per mile. Expand an Interstate Highway from four lanes to six lanes – about $4 million per mile
Would like to know the source of these numbers.

Costs of a Rail Siding - ACW Railway Company
Frequently Asked Questions - The American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA)
Cost Per Mile Models (fdot.gov)
 
Charles I agree with you but Cal has a good point about making Amtrak's average speeds a bit faster so that it is quicker than taking a car. Perception is crucial and Amtrak is not just perceived as being slow, it is slow. If Amtrak's LD routes could go from averaging 55 mph to averaging 70 mph it would be a VERY nice improvement, though a difficult one to achieve here in the States.
But I have to admit that having the more popular LD routes go to twice daily, bringing back some of the old pre-Amtrak LD routes (and maybe some new ones) and going to back to high quality, cooked to order meals would be phenomenal! I think the first and third would come close to paying for themselves, but the second one would take a while to even come close to breaking even.

I can't comment on the anti-high speed rail article because I haven't read it.

But frankly, I'm not convinced of the demand for high-speed rail in general.

Instead of high speed rail, and as an ardent fan of overnight long-distance conventional rail I would like to see any additional dollars for passenger rail spent in this fashion:
1. more frequencies for current LD routes
2. additional LD routes (and I'm sure most of us have ideas on just what additional routes)
3. elevating the dining car cuisine quality to, say, for example, equal to the Fred Harvey quality of old, along with expanded dining car hours.

Anyway, I wonder if many more travelers nationwide would be better served by those three ideas rather than so-called high speed rail.
 
I think the first and third would come close to paying for themselves, but the second one would take a while to even come close to breaking even.

Why should it need to "break even" or even "pay for itself" since no one expects the highway system to do either?? Th "profit" comes in the economies the transportation serves - but many want to ignore that aspect of the return and only look at the "bottom line" when it comes to Amtrak while giving a green-light pass to DOT highway projects.
 
In a perfect world it wouldn't need to break even. But we live in a world where Amtrak has a limited budget. I wish that budget was a bit larger but what I think about Amtrak is not completely in line with what the politicians are going to fund.
Why should it need to "break even" or even "pay for itself" since no one expects the highway system to do either?? Th "profit" comes in the economies the transportation serves - but many want to ignore that aspect of the return and only look at the "bottom line" when it comes to Amtrak while giving a green-light pass to DOT highway projects.
 
I can't comment on the anti-high speed rail article because I haven't read it.

But frankly, I'm not convinced of the demand for high-speed rail in general.

Instead of high speed rail, and as an ardent fan of overnight long-distance conventional rail I would like to see any additional dollars for passenger rail spent in this fashion:
1. more frequencies for current LD routes
2. additional LD routes (and I'm sure most of us have ideas on just what additional routes)
3. elevating the dining car cuisine quality to, say, for example, equal to the Fred Harvey quality of old, along with expanded dining car hours.

Anyway, I wonder if many more travelers nationwide would be better served by those three ideas rather than so-called high speed rail.


I agree with you in principal, but disagree on your solution. Adding LD frequencies will help in specific cases, the only one coming to mind being LSL, but overall, a corridor approach between cities proving higher speed rail service is, in my opinion, a far superior way to expand service.

I don’t disagree regarding dining options and service aboard, but let’s first run slightly faster, more frequent and reliable trains between city pairs that desperately need service.

Mass electrification would probably be the best route to go rather than full on HSR.
The US simply isn’t capable of 220+ In most places (without a Herculean wartime type effort) and we shouldn’t be trying for that. Getting everything to 125 would be more than enough, and certainly pose a formidable challenge anyways.

Imagine a California Zephyr doing Chicago to Denver is 12 hours. That portion could be electrified, and perhaps would qualify for an additional daytime train. Would be nice...
 
I can't comment on the anti-high speed rail article because I haven't read it.

But frankly, I'm not convinced of the demand for high-speed rail in general.

Instead of high speed rail, and as an ardent fan of overnight long-distance conventional rail I would like to see any additional dollars for passenger rail spent in this fashion:
1. more frequencies for current LD routes
2. additional LD routes (and I'm sure most of us have ideas on just what additional routes)
3. elevating the dining car cuisine quality to, say, for example, equal to the Fred Harvey quality of old, along with expanded dining car hours.

Anyway, I wonder if many more travelers nationwide would be better served by those three ideas rather than so-called high speed rail.
Sorry, but while long distance routes and overnight services are a legitimate part of the country's transportation system and deserve some funding, the real point of massive funding (especially by the government) to improve rail service in this country is to provide an alternative to driving and short-haul airline flights for the bulk of the county's population. And the bulk of the country's population lives in medium to large metropolitan areas. Thus, the top priority for anyone running a national rail system is to grow corridor service that connects these metropolitan areas and focuses on people taking up to 4-5 hour trips at most. High speed rail would allow the distance of the corridor to be increased and would make longer distance trips more competitive with flying in many markets.

The long distance network is a complement to the corridor service in some cases (like the Lake Shore Limited corridor), where a long distance train can share costs with the corridor service. In other cases, it provides connectivity to rural populations and also helps bring in political support from rural politicians whose constituents really don't need passenger rail as the major part of their total transportation system.

The most important thing here is to get as many people out of their cars and planes (especially short haul flights, which are the most harmful in terms of emissions.) This is both to reduce the emissions from transportation and to enable the conversion of our cities into a walkable transit dependent form that will further reduce emissions from other sources and provide social benefits that aren't obtained in our current sprawl lifestyle.
 
The Cato Institute paper has 139 footnotes with citations.
O'Toole and Cox do several things: they cite each other and themselves; they make false citations (i.e. the citation does not say what they claim it says); and they make irrelevant citations which don't support their arguments. Occasionally they use a slightly higher class of dishonesty and engage in the cherry-picking fallacy, picking one example which supports their argument while ignoring a dozen which debunk it.

I dug through every single citation in an O'Toole piece once. Never again. He's intellectually dishonest and would be expelled from a university for academic dishonesty if he were a professor and someone investigated.

I don't agree with their conclusions, but you can't say that the paper is merely an opinion piece that is devoid of evidence.
It is worse than that; it is a fraudulent piece which is devoid of evidence, but manufactures *fake* evidence. I could make lots of fraudulent "citations" if I were dishonest as O'Toole, and it means nothing. Don't be snowed by ********.
 
I recommend reading Alon Levy's work regarding transit infrastructure costs. In the blog post that I linked above he critiques O'Toole's paper. Some of the information cited was misused. Unrelated to transit or railways I've run across that problem with others in my history research.

The reason that I posted the Greenpeace story link is the significance of a non-transportation group taking an interest. In the past, intercity rail travel has often been ignored by environmental groups.

Here's Alon's critique of O'Toole's paper again:
Randal O’Toole Gets High-Speed Rail Wrong | Pedestrian Observations

Alon Levy is an actual honest researcher whose work is generally respected, whose citations are accurate, who corrects any errors he makes, and who changes his views when he gets new evidence. Unlike that hack O'Toole. Levy has some very cogent and accurate criticisms to make of the way rail construction in the US has been overpriced and underperforming. Well worth reading anything Levy writes.
 
He even went on to talk about Japan's failure of the Shinkansen. Literally even anti-transit article that gets circulated is by him and him alone, (along with maybe Cox). I haven't seen anything from Cox in quite a long time though. Whats even more bizarre is that he calls himself a rail fan.
Yeah, maybe Cox retired or his funder (Reason Foundation) decided to drop him? I can find him writing nonsense as late as 2019.

I finally remembered the third anti-rail hack writer -- Joel Kotkin. I suspect he was influenced by Cox, who he worked with personally. Unlike Cox and O'Toole, Kotkin is less dishonest. He actually does have expertise in geography, and his history and urban planning papers are defensible and have honest citations although he's got a sort of pro-suburbia fanaticism. But when he gets onto rail, his intellectual standards appear to fall out of his head -- possibly because Kotkin collaborates with Cox directly, and Cox is very dishonest.
 
You have to near "fill" the trains you have to get expansion to new lines(sadly the way it works). BUT first you need to have them on time! The SL has been on average so late the last month it could be a freight train. If there are laws saying Amtrak first, where are the lawyers???
Get on ASMAD and check the #1 sunset for the last 45 days average. Then want to ride it to make it from MRC to OKJ.
 
Sooooo, there are some studies -- I do not have the citations on hand -- which show that people judge trip time by a 10th percentile or 5th percentile rubric. So with the 5th percentile rubric, if 1% of the trips take 12 hours, people blow it off as a one-time event -- but if 5% of the trips take 12 hours, they treat it as taking 12 hours, even if most of the trips take 4 hours.

This means that if there's variability in trip time -- like there is with Amtrak due to corrupt freight rail companies causing delays -- people mentally judge the trip time by the worst 5% of trips. All of you rail travellers can probably confirm that this is how you think, though there's probably some variation in whether it's worst-5% or worst-10%.

This means that on-time performance is, in many ways, far more important than scheduled trip time, in terms of perceived trip time, and therefore customer acceptance and customer demand.

I believe that the purported distinction between "corridor" trains and "long-distance" trains is essentially bogus, and I would classify the NY-Pittsburgh-Chicago corridor, the NY-Albany-Buffalo-Chicago corridor, the Chicago-Denver corridor, the NY-Miami corridor, and the NY-New Orleans corridor, and the Chicago-Minneapolis-Fargo corridor, as corridors.

The Salt Lake to Bay Area route probably doesn't qualify as a corridor, and the same with the Eugene to Sacramento route, and the same with the cross-Rockies portion of the Empire Builder and the Raton Pass section of the Southwest Chief, and the desolate sections of the Sunset Limited between San Antonio and Tucson. Call these outliers "system connectivity routes", perhaps. These all have the characteristic that there's a severe absence of intermediate population centers. A corridor, in my opinion, has decent-sized cities located less than two hours apart.

But most of the so-called long-distance routes are corridors. The problems with these corridors right now are that (a) they are not running on time, and (b) they are not fast enough even when running on time (even between intermediate cities -- we're not talking end-to-end), so they are not working as corridors right now. They also (c) don't have enough frequencies per day, but I think that is largely due to (a) and (b). I think the top priority for "corridor development" should be the Lake Shore Limited because it interconnects the Northeastern network with the Chicago-centered network, so it has the maximum benefit in terms of the synergies caused by network effects.
 
I think the top priority for "corridor development" should be the Lake Shore Limited because it interconnects the Northeastern network with the Chicago-centered network, so it has the maximum benefit in terms of the synergies caused by network effects.
Another priority might be to better connect the other parts of the NEC (i.e. Philadelphia and Washington) with Chicago via Pittsburgh, although this is more difficult because crossing the mountains really slows things down and finding the funding to rebuild the lines for faster operation across the mountains would be really difficult.
 
Another priority might be to better connect the other parts of the NEC (i.e. Philadelphia and Washington) with Chicago via Pittsburgh, although this is more difficult because crossing the mountains really slows things down and finding the funding to rebuild the lines for faster operation across the mountains would be really difficult.
What do you mean by better? More service? Faster service? Both? They already have direct lines linking them (although no direct train from Philly to Chicago via Pittsburg).

I think that Amtrak should be trying to expand corridors and get new ones as a priority to create a much connected and useful network before trying to tackle huge and expensive projects such as those (although more service can be added). Cities such as Las Vegas, Phoenix, Nashville, Cincinnati, Louisville, Columbus, and more which aren't even served by Amtrak at all and can become a part of a corridor, although I am unsure of what track conditions would be, from what I've heard the running times would be quite slow. 🤷‍♂️
 
Sooooo, there are some studies -- I do not have the citations on hand -- which show that people judge trip time by a 10th percentile or 5th percentile rubric. So with the 5th percentile rubric, if 1% of the trips take 12 hours, people blow it off as a one-time event -- but if 5% of the trips take 12 hours, they treat it as taking 12 hours, even if most of the trips take 4 hours.

This means that if there's variability in trip time -- like there is with Amtrak due to corrupt freight rail companies causing delays -- people mentally judge the trip time by the worst 5% of trips. All of you rail travellers can probably confirm that this is how you think, though there's probably some variation in whether it's worst-5% or worst-10%.

This means that on-time performance is, in many ways, far more important than scheduled trip time, in terms of perceived trip time, and therefore customer acceptance and customer demand.

I believe that the purported distinction between "corridor" trains and "long-distance" trains is essentially bogus, and I would classify the NY-Pittsburgh-Chicago corridor, the NY-Albany-Buffalo-Chicago corridor, the Chicago-Denver corridor, the NY-Miami corridor, and the NY-New Orleans corridor, and the Chicago-Minneapolis-Fargo corridor, as corridors.

The Salt Lake to Bay Area route probably doesn't qualify as a corridor, and the same with the Eugene to Sacramento route, and the same with the cross-Rockies portion of the Empire Builder and the Raton Pass section of the Southwest Chief, and the desolate sections of the Sunset Limited between San Antonio and Tucson. Call these outliers "system connectivity routes", perhaps. These all have the characteristic that there's a severe absence of intermediate population centers. A corridor, in my opinion, has decent-sized cities located less than two hours apart.

But most of the so-called long-distance routes are corridors. The problems with these corridors right now are that (a) they are not running on time, and (b) they are not fast enough even when running on time (even between intermediate cities -- we're not talking end-to-end), so they are not working as corridors right now. They also (c) don't have enough frequencies per day, but I think that is largely due to (a) and (b). I think the top priority for "corridor development" should be the Lake Shore Limited because it interconnects the Northeastern network with the Chicago-centered network, so it has the maximum benefit in terms of the synergies caused by network effects.

I wouldn't say its a bogus distinction so much as inadequate terminology. Thinking of the routes more like the railroads did before Amtrak would make more sense, such as having a route being the path of the train travels and the long distance vs corridor vs whatever you want to call the Palmetto as being service level distinctions. Considering the Lake Shore one corridor, but not the western ones is an inconsistent standard. Considering the path a train could take be thought of separately from the level of service of the trains makes more sense, and its not like there isn't historical precedence in railroading to do so. The SP had the Coast Route and the Daylight and Lark were a class of service along the route.
 
I think my main distinction is between sections of routes where there *is* a "chain of pearls" along the way each of which has substantial population and therefore substantial ridership potential, and routes where you go for 3+ hours without a meaningfully populated station (such as the vast gap between San Antonio and El Paso).

The former routes, those with a "chain of pearls" along them, *all* have high potential for popular, frequent service. The latter routes, with nothing in the middle, don't. Does that make sense as the distinction?
 
Sooooo, there are some studies -- I do not have the citations on hand -- which show that people judge trip time by a 10th percentile or 5th percentile rubric. So with the 5th percentile rubric, if 1% of the trips take 12 hours, people blow it off as a one-time event -- but if 5% of the trips take 12 hours, they treat it as taking 12 hours, even if most of the trips take 4 hours.
Wow, this is really really interesting! I'd love to see those studies if you do find them :)
 
I think my main distinction is between sections of routes where there *is* a "chain of pearls" along the way each of which has substantial population and therefore substantial ridership potential, and routes where you go for 3+ hours without a meaningfully populated station (such as the vast gap between San Antonio and El Paso).

The former routes, those with a "chain of pearls" along them, *all* have high potential for popular, frequent service. The latter routes, with nothing in the middle, don't. Does that make sense as the distinction?

I see the method to the madness but still disagree with it. I'm looking at it from a level of service standpoint. Long distance as a service being over 24 hours in run time, coachs, sleepers, dining car and cafe car. And corridor as a service level being coaches, business and cafe car. There is some distinction to be made between an "Interstate" and "State" and I have my thoughts on what that line should be. But, why I disagree with just considering long distance routes corridors when we feel like it is that extra service from say Chicago to Cleveland shouldn't be and doesn't need to be thought about in context of what it means for the Lake Shore Limited whether as a route or level of service. Same thing if the LSL can justify a second departure from New York or Boston. Since aside from potential schedule conflicts, the LSL running 2 or 3 times a night has very little to do with the utility and function of say 8 round trips between Chicago and Cleveland. Amtrak doesn't plan the NEC around what the Silvers are doing, so why should additional services anywhere else be planned around whatever the long distance train a local shares tracks with is doing?
 
. At least much of the Pennsy is straight enough that increasing speed limits would have some real value, but getting rid of the slow spots first gains more.

Correct getting rid of slow spots helps the most. Can you imagine how much time could be saved if the section from north PHL thru the Frankford CP location of the overturn accident was straightened for 160 MPH ? No more 50 - 60MPH slow sections. IMO that is the one location that straitening the track would help the most for the whole PRR section of the NRC. Of course Elizabeth "S" curve would help as well but not as uch. HAZ MAT soil remediation will be needed around Frankford.
 
Last edited:
Sooooo, there are some studies -- I do not have the citations on hand -- which show that people judge trip time by a 10th percentile or 5th percentile rubric. So with the 5th percentile rubric, if 1% of the trips take 12 hours, people blow it off as a one-time event -- but if 5% of the trips take 12 hours, they treat it as taking 12 hours, even if most of the trips take 4 hours.

This means that if there's variability in trip time -- like there is with Amtrak due to corrupt freight rail companies causing delays -- people mentally judge the trip time by the worst 5% of trips. All of you rail travellers can probably confirm that this is how you think, though there's probably some variation in whether it's worst-5% or worst-10%.

This means that on-time performance is, in many ways, far more important than scheduled trip time, in terms of perceived trip time, and therefore customer acceptance and customer demand.

I believe that the purported distinction between "corridor" trains and "long-distance" trains is essentially bogus, and I would classify the NY-Pittsburgh-Chicago corridor, the NY-Albany-Buffalo-Chicago corridor, the Chicago-Denver corridor, the NY-Miami corridor, and the NY-New Orleans corridor, and the Chicago-Minneapolis-Fargo corridor, as corridors.

The Salt Lake to Bay Area route probably doesn't qualify as a corridor, and the same with the Eugene to Sacramento route, and the same with the cross-Rockies portion of the Empire Builder and the Raton Pass section of the Southwest Chief, and the desolate sections of the Sunset Limited between San Antonio and Tucson. Call these outliers "system connectivity routes", perhaps. These all have the characteristic that there's a severe absence of intermediate population centers. A corridor, in my opinion, has decent-sized cities located less than two hours apart.

But most of the so-called long-distance routes are corridors. The problems with these corridors right now are that (a) they are not running on time, and (b) they are not fast enough even when running on time (even between intermediate cities -- we're not talking end-to-end), so they are not working as corridors right now. They also (c) don't have enough frequencies per day, but I think that is largely due to (a) and (b). I think the top priority for "corridor development" should be the Lake Shore Limited because it interconnects the Northeastern network with the Chicago-centered network, so it has the maximum benefit in terms of the synergies caused by network effects.
Yeah, people's perceptions v. reality is an interesting concept. There have been similar studies on lines at grocery stores when they ask people how long they've been in line. Say a person has been waiting in a line for 5 minutes, they walk up and ask him how long he's been waiting and and he's more likely to say something like 15 minutes instead of the real time of about 5 minutes. Major grocery stores work on line management based on people's perceptions of how long it takes rather than the actual amount of time.

I agree whole heartily with you about corridor v. long-distance. We've got to get rid of this mindset expectation that going some of these long distances has to take so damn long. If we had high speed rail between Chicago and NYC (the biggest problem with our state system is that this corridor could have been a great first place to start with HSR rather than LA-SF, but harder to do with multiple state entities to deal with) we could go between those cities in five hours. I would never fly that route again if that line existed.
 
Back
Top