A challenge for train advocates

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.

CHamilton

Engineer
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
5,304
Location
Seattle
What will it take for the American people to recognize that a century of deferred maintenance is killing our country's infrastructure, and that they need to wake up and pay for the world-class transportation we deserve?

The Minneapolis 35W bridge collapse didn't do it. The I-5 Skagit River bridge collapse didn't do it. The MNRR and Sandy debacles of last winter didn't do it.

Instead, politicians and transportation [no, let's be honest--] highway departments all over the country are plowing what little money there is into megaprojects that feed the coffers of contractors, but only help the movement of people and goods for about five minutes.

Is it any wonder that the younger generation is driving less?

Yes, NARP has been too timid to suit me. But so have those of us who support trains. We agonize over champagne, hamburgers, and cranberry juice while our national rail system is balkanized by PRIIA 209 and falling apart due to lack of investment.

If we want decent trains, we don't have to move to Switzerland. But we DO have to stop rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic in places like AU. Instead, we need to be talking to our elected representatives.

I challenge you: make one less post each day to AU, and use that time to write your state legislators and your Congresspeople. Better yet, talk to them in person. I'll be on Capitol Hill with NARP on April 29. Will you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alright, let's take a working scenario: What if people don't wake up in general? Where does that leave us?
Third world country. The US is heading there. Folks just don't quite realize it yet because they are the proverbial frog that jumped into the pot when the water was cool, but the heat has been slowly bringing the water to a boil.
 
Trog is right. It happened to Mexico many years ago, and may well be happening in Canada now. OTOH, everyone thought that streetcars were dead and buried, but they are coming back in many places. So there is support for transportation other than cars: we just have to awaken that support.
 
Alright, let's take a working scenario: What if people don't wake up in general? Where does that leave us?
Third world country. The US is heading there. Folks just don't quite realize it yet because they are the proverbial frog that jumped into the pot when the water was cool, but the heat has been slowly bringing the water to a boil.
That's largely my point: There's a non-trivial chance that the Class Is are willing to keep up their tracks, to at least Class IV condition, while everything else starts falling apart or getting overloaded. The Class Is have enough money at present to keep capacity expansions going (even if they'll fall behind in places) and they have a good deal of freedom in pricing slots and moves.

Edit: To put this another way, our role may well be to keep as much of the LD system together (and expand it as opportunities arise) and build on the corridors where we can while everything else falls down. I can't see the US keeping up with failing infrastructure like we need to, at least with the present environment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Having written letter to my senators and congressmen, I have felt the only way to get "noticed" is if more than one person shows up for a meeting. Have found it difficult in locating groups to organize at local level. Yes it is time to push forward, but we must organize. Open for suggestions.
 
Edit: To put this another way, our role may well be to keep as much of the LD system together (and expand it as opportunities arise) and build on the corridors where we can while everything else falls down. I can't see the US keeping up with failing infrastructure like we need to, at least with the present environment.
It may be the case that US also has too much unnecessary infrastructure that it is trying to keep up with, when a judicious retrenchment would make it easier and more feasible/viable to keep the really necessary infrastructure in good shape while downgrading some of the extravagant limited access divided highways for example. But this is unlikely to happen until a serious existential crisis of some sort strikes. Unlikely to happen voluntarily.
 
jis, on 16 Feb 2014 - 11:52 AM, said:

Anderson, on 10 Feb 2014 - 11:33 PM, said:Edit: To put this another way, our role may well be to keep as much of the LD system together (and expand it as opportunities arise) and build on the corridors where we can while everything else falls down. I can't see the US keeping up with failing infrastructure like we need to, at least with the present environment.
It may be the case that US also has too much unnecessary infrastructure that it is trying to keep up with, when a judicious retrenchment would make it easier and more feasible/viable to keep the really necessary infrastructure in good shape while downgrading some of the extravagant limited access divided highways for example. But this is unlikely to happen until a serious existential crisis of some sort strikes. Unlikely to happen voluntarily.
Well, there are some places where I could see retrenchment happening. One of the big ones would be dropping segments of interstates (particularly out west) down to two lanes (or three lanes, one which alternates directions to permit passing) and mothballing the other side of the interstate. I could see this be threatened on, for example, I-80 in PA if Federal funding were jeopardized.

The biggest risk from this would be that states might do this to routes that don't really serve "them" (i.e. I-81 in Maryland could be a candidate). The next risk would be things like I-80 in Nevada, which once you get past Reno (going east) doesn't serve much of a population base: You've got one, maybe two Senators and maybe two Assembly members who would be affected by such a slash as long as it didn't bother Reno.
 
I understand that of all places Texas has an initiative to remove paving from certain less used paved rural roads, rather than maintain the paving.
North Dakota has done the same. Of course, now oil trucks are tearing up roads in the western part of the state without any government intervention.

The problem with pruning roads is it's a ticklish political discussion. In Minnesota, for instance, there is a statutory list of routes that must be maintained, and it requires legislation or even a constitutional amendment to eliminate a route.
 
If you want to really look like a bunch of crazies to the general public, suggesting that existing roads be reduced and downgraded is an excellent way to do it.

To suggest going from divided highway to single two lane, particularly when it is done by taking out of service a side that is already there, aside from looking just plain stupid, has some very serious safety implciations, and I would suggest that thought be given an instant and unmourned death.

Roads built in rural areas, particularly in open and relatively flat territory are extrodinarily cheap compared to those of equivalent capacity in urban and otherwise built up areas. The key to reducing cost of construction and operation of the highway network is to provide good alternatives in urban areas. That is why you see Mica of all people promoting installation of commuter service around Orlando. Yes, it is a home turf project, but it is seen as being of more benefit than spending the same amount on roadwork. That is why you see major enlargements of the Houston light rail. That is why the Dalllas light rail has been expanded beyond its original plan.

In rural areas the gas tax revenue from relatively light traffic volume justifies the road's construction and maintenance costs. In an urban area, if you could run the traffic three vehicles high at maximum capacity for 24 hours a day, you would never approach covering a signifanct portion of the road's construction and maintenance cost from the tax revenue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the counter really comes down to this: In some states, particularly those that are exceedingly centered on one or two cities (Nevada comes to mind again, as does PA), cutting back some highways is only going to alienate but so many people. Again with the NV example, even if every single person in that I-80 corridor and the surrounding rural territory was up in arms...as a matter of math, it would barely matter. The seven counties in NE Nevada (Elko, White Pine, Eureka, Lander, Humboldt, Pershing, and Churchill) have only about 112k residents and about 40k votes case in 2012.

Edit: The point in these numbers is that you've got a lot of areas where people might go ballistic...but faced with a decision between letting them blow up and hiking taxes on everyone, I can see a situation where the political equation might well fall down on the side of "Let them blow up".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I understand that of all places Texas has an initiative to remove paving from certain less used paved rural roads, rather than maintain the paving.
The Reason is our Gov for Life (Dick Perry) and the T-Pub Lege are putting all the Highway Money into Toll Roads, the Hot New Trend in Texas Roads! :help:
 
[SIZE=medium]There are plenty of examples of deferred maintenance, but these well publicized structure failures are not among them. It is lack of attention to the essentially invisible day to day stuff. Proper patching, ditch and culvert cleaning, signage, etc. These are not glamorous, hence neglected. Given proper attention, many of the much more noticeable road projects would not even be needed. Attention to these details are why you see very old railroad bridges still performing their function at ages which would have had an equivalent road bridge replaced twice. As to the mentioned examples:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]FEMA report on I-35 bridge collapse:[/SIZE] http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr_166.pdf

[SIZE=medium]The probable cause given in the summary:[/SIZE]

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, was the inadequate load capacity, due to a design error by Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc., of the gusset plates at the U10 nodes, which failed under a combination of (1) substantial increases in the weight of the bridge, which resulted from previous bridge modifications, and (2) the traffic and concentrated construction loads on the bridge on the day of the collapse. Contributing to the design error was the failure of Sverdrup & Parcel’s quality control procedures to ensure that the appropriate main truss gusset plate calculations were performed for the I-35W Bridge and the inadequate design review by Federal and State transportation officials. Contributing to the accident was the generally accepted practice among Federal and State transportation officials of giving inadequate attention to gusset plates during inspections for conditions of distortion, such as bowing, and of excluding gusset plates in load rating analyses.
[SIZE=medium]Another interesting discussion of this I-35 bridge failure can be found here: [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]http://thinkreliability.com/CM-I35.aspx[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Thus, using this structure as an example of lack of maintenance is incorrect. It was in fact undergoing some major work at the time of collapse. According to the NTSB report, the initial issue was a design defect due to lack of paying attention to a detail.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]As to the Skagit River, it appears that the NTSB has only a preliminary report out on this one: [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2013/HWY13MH012_Mt_Vernon_WA_Preliminary.pdf[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]This link will get you some pictures: [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2013/mt_vernon_wa/mt_vernon_wa.html[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Scroll down on the left and you will see a picture of the corner of the load showing the dent where it struck the truss. Would suspect that this damaged more than the top frame of the truss, but took out the connection at the top corner of the truss itself, which would definitely lead to collapse.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]The primary cause of this one was given as the overhead portion of the truss being struck by an oversize load. Again, this is not a case of inadequate maintenance.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]As to Hurricane Sandy flooding out a lot of NJ Transit equipment: I tend to regard that as incredibly stupid. Maybe that is because of my Gulf Coast connections. The common practice of the railroads that service New Orleans and other low lying areas along the coast is to move everything with wheels under it to higher ground before the water rises or the levee flood gates are closed, whichever comes first. A decision on the part of anyone in management to not do so or not do soon enough to avoid the equipment being flooded would result in their unemployment. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]You are definitely right concerning the things that are done that should not be done. An outstanding example of what not to do in infrastructure is the replacement of the eastern half of the San Francisco Bay Bridge. There has been around 6 BILLION dollars spent for this structure, which is about 4 times the original estimate and the completed structure is suffering from a number of well publicized deficiencies, whether design, construction or combination thereof, seems to be uncertain, or at least unpublicized, at this time. All of this money achieved a structure with, other than a bicycle lane, no more capacity than the one it replaced. ALL real and imaginary deficiencies in the existing structure could have been corrected for a small fraction, possibly less than 1% of the cost of this structure which appears to have been built primarily to satisfy some politicians’ egos and to replace a bridge considered ugly.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]San Francisco is an outstanding example of lack of street maintenance. All the streets are full of rough spots, unrepaired or poorly repaired pavement damage, etc. Yet, this is a city with high enough taxes and fees on almost everything to do with an automobile (and everything else) that they should be able to repave the streets every couple of years. [/SIZE]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
George,

Thanks very much for the details of the incidents I originally mentioned. I totally agree with you that infrastructure spending is tremendously skewed toward huge new or rebuilding projects while basic maintenance goes begging. Here in Seattle, we're spending billions on a waterfront tunnel that is stalled (literally) while traffic on the elevated highway it's meant to replace has decreased significantly.

As a taxpayer, my money is being sunk into such projects, even though there is every indication that the tunnel (and other local projects, such as replacing the 520 floating bridge over Lake Washington) will not improve mobility, and are likely to be white elephants.

Meanwhile, our roads are pothole-ridden, and our bus system faces yet more cuts in funding and service. And the eastside rail line, which could have been used for a commuter rail alternative to the 405 freeway, has been chopped into pieces, and is unlikely to ever see train service again.

What will it take for us to reverse a century of bad infrastructure decisions? I can only think that it will take loud noise from voters. Here in Seattle, football fans can make record-breaking noise: rail supporters must do the same.
 
Back
Top