# Support for expanded Electrification?



## MattW (Oct 8, 2009)

I've taken something of an interest in the Caltrain electrification the past few days and it got me daydreaming into owning a company which somehow convinced NS to electrify the entire route of the Crescent etc. etc. yadda yadda details. If tomorrow, the route of the Crescent was electrified, would Amtrak have the capability of putting Toasters or HHP-8s on the head-end of the Crescent NYP-NOL? I know the Crescent and other LDs take up one or two electrics when they run the NEC, but those electrics are taken off at least at WAS and can be used for other trains like Regionals and other LDs northbound. What about another LD route such as the Cap Limited? Or even just keeping the Regionals electrified down to Newport News (and/or Lynchburg)?

Back in the land of reality and logistics aside, politically what would it take? What's the support like for the electrified trains outside the NEC? And what about Chicagoland? They're talking all about high speed rail up there, but I've heard nothing about electrification. California and their high speed rail is...well...out there and not truly Amtrak. I know it's a huge expenditure of billions and billions (mostly for studies  ), but aside from this, what's the status?


----------



## transit54 (Oct 8, 2009)

You might be interested in picking up a November copy of _Trains_. The cover story is actually on electrification and they cover these issues pretty well.

I really don't know how much of a political issue it is. It's more of a financial issue. It would be the freight railroads that would have to lead the way on electrification, and at the moment it doesn't make a lot of business sense. But if when oil prices begin to rise again, it will begin to make more sense. You also need a very high volume of traffic to even make it close to worthwhile. If there was to be any major freight electrification in the next decade or two, BNSF's transcon would probably make the most sense.


----------



## Philzy (Oct 8, 2009)

MattW said:


> I've taken something of an interest in the Caltrain electrification the past few days and it got me daydreaming into owning a company which somehow convinced NS to electrify the entire route of the Crescent etc. etc. yadda yadda details. If tomorrow, the route of the Crescent was electrified, would Amtrak have the capability of putting Toasters or HHP-8s on the head-end of the Crescent NYP-NOL? I know the Crescent and other LDs take up one or two electrics when they run the NEC, but those electrics are taken off at least at WAS and can be used for other trains like Regionals and other LDs northbound. What about another LD route such as the Cap Limited? Or even just keeping the Regionals electrified down to Newport News (and/or Lynchburg)?
> Back in the land of reality and logistics aside, politically what would it take? What's the support like for the electrified trains outside the NEC? And what about Chicagoland? They're talking all about high speed rail up there, but I've heard nothing about electrification. California and their high speed rail is...well...out there and not truly Amtrak. I know it's a huge expenditure of billions and billions (mostly for studies  ), but aside from this, what's the status?


I’m going to take a jump and say one it’s not likely any time soon. From everything I’ve read and what others on this forum board have mentioned it’s incredibly cost prohibitive short term.

While I don’t think it’s totally impossible, the state of VA or states along said route would have to offer serious - I meand serious - tax breaks and incentives to the railroads to electrify the route. VA has actually pretty much done a 180 in the past few years, now really seeing support for trains -obviously with the new Lynchuburg/Charlottesville corridor route, So, it’s always a possibility. Who knows it might create enough jobs that it would be a worthwhile investment.

Being all hypothetical and all, if they *did* electrify the route of the Crescent, one has to wonder what would happen in Charlottesville for the Cardinal. Would there be a change in route for the Cardinal to the NS tracks using a happy toaster to power all the way to CVS and then switching to Diesel (*salivating at the thought of all that happening in my hometown*) or just operating with a Diesel all the way down?

Honestly with the likelihood of us hitting peak oil in the next 10 years I’d like to see more LD routes become high speed and electrified. I would *guess* that if any one of them was to become electrified the Capitol limited would prob be first on Amtrak’s list. Anyone else venture to raise a guess?


----------



## AlanB (Oct 8, 2009)

If Virginia was in any way going to sponsor or encourage electrification, it wouldn't be for the Crescent's or Cardinal's route. The only route that would make any sense would be to Richmond as it's the only route with multiple trains that might just come close to justifying the costs of electrification.

And even then, I rather suspect that Amtrak would still do the engine changes for any trains going beyond Richmond in any direction, back in DC. No point in moving half the diesel base to Richmond when you still need to change the Card, Crescent, and other trains in DC.


----------



## stonesfan (Oct 8, 2009)

AlanB said:


> If Virginia was in any way going to sponsor or encourage electrification, it wouldn't be for the Crescent's or Cardinal's route. The only route that would make any sense would be to Richmond as it's the only route with multiple trains that might just come close to justifying the costs of electrification.
> And even then, I rather suspect that Amtrak would still do the engine changes for any trains going beyond Richmond in any direction, back in DC. No point in moving half the diesel base to Richmond when you still need to change the Card, Crescent, and other trains in DC.


I think any electrification stateside will be together with brand new high speed lines......


----------



## George Harris (Oct 8, 2009)

Given the current diesel engines' thermal efficiency, and the line losses in transmission lines from fixed power plants, it is entirely possible that the net energy savings from electrifying freight lines would be zero, and possibly even negative. As I have said elsewhere, there would be no saving in engine weight except in top of the line premium services, as in normal freight operation the ability of a diesel to get freight trains moving and haul them at low speeds is proportional to the engine weight.

In passenger service there might be some savings in long distance trains with infrequent stops because there is no need to haul around the power plant. And then again, maybe not. One of the usual advantages of electric powered passenger trains is faster acceleration due to the ability to have a higher power to weight ratio by not having to haul around your power plant. Higher acceleration equals more power consumed, all else being equal. So, if the increase power consumption in faster acceleration is more than the reduced power demand do to lower train weight, you have a net increase in power requirement. Couple that with electric system line losses, this electrification may also have no energy saving benefit.

And: Yes, for high speed lines there is not practical alternative to electrification. Here there are true savings due to modal shift, that is from automobiles to trains or airplanes to trains. When considering the savings in modal shift from plane to train, a factor not normally mentioned is the differential in fuel consumption between the origin to airport and origin to train station trips. After all, no one lives at and relatively speaking, few people work at either railroad stations or airports.


----------



## transit54 (Oct 8, 2009)

George Harris said:


> Given the current diesel engines' thermal efficiency, and the line losses in transmission lines from fixed power plants, it is entirely possible that the net energy savings from electrifying freight lines would be zero, and possibly even negative. As I have said elsewhere, there would be no saving in engine weight except in top of the line premium services, as in normal freight operation the ability of a diesel to get freight trains moving and haul them at low speeds is proportional to the engine weight.


Electrification was always attractive, in my mind, because it allowed the electricity to be generated from a diversity of sources, not necessarily because it was inherently more efficient.

But I do agree with you that the real investment needs to be made in moving trips onto rail from other more energy intensive sources of transportation. That's where the real benefits lie.


----------



## goodnightjohnwayne (Oct 9, 2009)

MattW said:


> I've taken something of an interest in the Caltrain electrification the past few days and it got me daydreaming into owning a company which somehow convinced NS to electrify the entire route of the Crescent etc. etc. yadda yadda details. If tomorrow, the route of the Crescent was electrified, would Amtrak have the capability of putting Toasters or HHP-8s on the head-end of the Crescent NYP-NOL? I know the Crescent and other LDs take up one or two electrics when they run the NEC, but those electrics are taken off at least at WAS and can be used for other trains like Regionals and other LDs northbound. What about another LD route such as the Cap Limited? Or even just keeping the Regionals electrified down to Newport News (and/or Lynchburg)?
> Back in the land of reality and logistics aside, politically what would it take? What's the support like for the electrified trains outside the NEC? And what about Chicagoland? They're talking all about high speed rail up there, but I've heard nothing about electrification. California and their high speed rail is...well...out there and not truly Amtrak. I know it's a huge expenditure of billions and billions (mostly for studies  ), but aside from this, what's the status?


First of all, the Caltrain electrification project is a total waste of resources. The density of service does not warrant electrification and Caltrain has been pushing for this project for years, despite contrary findings from one of their own studies. Caltrain is poorly run by group of naive, non-railroaders. These people have little regard for the practical aspects of the business, or even long established safety practices - as shown by the recent horn issue that might have gotten someone killed at a road crossing.

Second of all, looking at the population growth south of Washington, there is a very real opening for the expansion of electrification - although most definitely not to New Orleans. Current plans encompass Richmond, which is hardly an overambitious goal. I'd say that Atlanta might be a reasonable goal for electrification, although it would require a far greater number of daily passenger trains to justify the investment. A first step would be to introduce a daylight Washington to Atlanta train over the existing infrastructure, and then look at expansion from there.

As far as the freight business, electrification is hardly a rewarding proposition, since conventional diesel locomotives give you the flexibility to traverse the "last mile" to industrial customers. Electrifying yards and sidings just isn't practical, and for short stretches of electrified mainline, the labor costs associated with crew changes at the end of the wires outweigh any saving from electric traction.

So, your idea isn't as far off as you might think, although the costs of electrification will probably preclude even the Richmond expansion. Still, I think there is room for NE Corridor expansion to the south. I only wish there was a more sweeping vision.


----------



## George Harris (Oct 9, 2009)

goodnightjohnwayne said:


> First of all, the Caltrain electrification project is a total waste of resources. The density of service does not warrant electrification and Caltrain has been pushing for this project for years, despite contrary findings from one of their own studies. Caltrain is poorly run by group of naive, non-railroaders. These people have little regard for the practical aspects of the business, or even long established safety practices - as shown by the recent horn issue that might have gotten someone killed at a road crossing.


? ? ? ? ? ?

As a fairly regular, but not daily rider of Caltrain, I do not see any evidence for the "poorly run by a group of non-railroaders" with the front-line people.


----------



## goodnightjohnwayne (Oct 9, 2009)

George Harris said:


> goodnightjohnwayne said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, the Caltrain electrification project is a total waste of resources. The density of service does not warrant electrification and Caltrain has been pushing for this project for years, despite contrary findings from one of their own studies. Caltrain is poorly run by group of naive, non-railroaders. These people have little regard for the practical aspects of the business, or even long established safety practices - as shown by the recent horn issue that might have gotten someone killed at a road crossing.
> ...


I'm talking about the people who are making major management and capital spending decisions. All of the objective evidence is against electrification, but Caltrain management isn't influenced by the facts.


----------



## gswager (Oct 9, 2009)

Probably they have to prioritize the projects to make an easier transition for the massive electrification project.


----------



## George Harris (Oct 9, 2009)

At this point, Caltrain plans to get their electrification as a side benefit from the Calif HSR project which will use their right of way to access San Francisco.


----------



## Murjax (Oct 10, 2009)

The main problem with electrification is the fact that passenger rail is a money loser. Looking back to pre-Amtrak days, freight profit would make up for passenger losses, so railroads could improve their passenger services as they wished. Today electrifying lines probably wouldn't work in this country. It works in others because of high taxes. What we need to do is first upgrade our existing lines and/or create new ones so higher speed is possible. The next big step is to create a locomotive that can efficiently operate faster or at least as fast as the Acela. Does anybody remember the JetTrain? That failed mostly because simply put, no line outside the NEC could handle its speeds. If we could invest technology that would let railroads "plug in" their locomotives instead of operating on diesel that would be a money saver too. That in my opinion is the answer to high speed rail in America. A European or Japanese system just doesn't work here.


----------



## transit54 (Oct 10, 2009)

Murjax said:


> The main problem with electrification is the fact that passenger rail is a money loser. Looking back to pre-Amtrak days, freight profit would make up for passenger losses, so railroads could improve their passenger services as they wished. Today electrifying lines probably wouldn't work in this country. It works in others because of high taxes. What we need to do is first upgrade our existing lines and/or create new ones so higher speed is possible. The next big step is to create a locomotive that can efficiently operate faster or at least as fast as the Acela. Does anybody remember the JetTrain? That failed mostly because simply put, no line outside the NEC could handle its speeds. If we could invest technology that would let railroads "plug in" their locomotives instead of operating on diesel that would be a money saver too. That in my opinion is the answer to high speed rail in America. A European or Japanese system just doesn't work here.


I have to disagree that European-style HSR wouldn't work here. In fact, I think it would be immensely popular. Now, would the sorts of things we needed to do to make it affordable be politically viable? That, I'm not sure about. Things like raising our fuel tax to bring it in line with most industrialized countries and working to move towards lower energy forms of transportation and urban planning. Of course, the fact of the matter is oil is just going to continue to increase in price over time - we can either pay that money to oil companies in the form of higher profits, or tax fuel to reduce demand and utilize those funds to build a 21st century transportation infrastructure. But I digress..

Using typical, off the shelf technology commonly used in Europe and Japan, we could see 220 MPH trains on many corridors. Yes, this involves building a completely new right of way, and yes this would be very expensive, but nonetheless, it would be very popular if built. Washington DC to Orlando, FL could be covered in a little over 5.5 hours if the train averaged 150 MPH. Think of the number of people who fly that route everyday. 5.5 hours is very similar to the flight time, if you include the need to arrive at the airport early, wait in line to board the flight and get from where you live to the airport, and from the airport to your final destination. And that doesn't even include the tremendous demand there'd be between intermediate points.

Same thing could be said for New York to Chicago and a number of other corridors in this country. These would be very viable corridors if built. Now, you could argue that we wouldn't have the political support to build something like that here, but that's very different than a system not working here.


----------



## Murjax (Oct 10, 2009)

rnizlek said:


> Murjax said:
> 
> 
> > The main problem with electrification is the fact that passenger rail is a money loser. Looking back to pre-Amtrak days, freight profit would make up for passenger losses, so railroads could improve their passenger services as they wished. Today electrifying lines probably wouldn't work in this country. It works in others because of high taxes. What we need to do is first upgrade our existing lines and/or create new ones so higher speed is possible. The next big step is to create a locomotive that can efficiently operate faster or at least as fast as the Acela. Does anybody remember the JetTrain? That failed mostly because simply put, no line outside the NEC could handle its speeds. If we could invest technology that would let railroads "plug in" their locomotives instead of operating on diesel that would be a money saver too. That in my opinion is the answer to high speed rail in America. A European or Japanese system just doesn't work here.
> ...


Well I what I was getting at by saying a European or Japanese system wouldn't work here is mainly the financing part of it. I think we can must get high speed rail that can achieve speeds in excess of 150 or 200 MPH. If we can get the cost down in infrastructure a bit though it would help greatly. That's why I'm wondering if we can develop the technology of the "plug in locomotive" more. If we don't have to build a long distance catenary system, that's half the battle.


----------



## TVRM610 (Oct 10, 2009)

Murjax said:


> rnizlek said:
> 
> 
> > Murjax said:
> ...


Why must we go faster than 150 for a HSR system?


----------



## Murjax (Oct 10, 2009)

TVRM610 said:


> Murjax said:
> 
> 
> > rnizlek said:
> ...


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the very definition of HSR are trains that can travel at 150 or higher. It at least has to be 150 or it doesn't count.


----------



## transit54 (Oct 10, 2009)

Murjax said:


> Well I what I was getting at by saying a European or Japanese system wouldn't work here is mainly the financing part of it. I think we can must get high speed rail that can achieve speeds in excess of 150 or 200 MPH. If we can get the cost down in infrastructure a bit though it would help greatly. That's why I'm wondering if we can develop the technology of the "plug in locomotive" more. If we don't have to build a long distance catenary system, that's half the battle.


Well, such technology already exists, albeit for the freight world. See this photo, it's an experimental NS battery powered plug in locomotive.

Now, I really doubt that you'd be able to adopt this technology for HSR. For one, the massive amounts of energy that would need to be stored would massively increase the weight of the train, reducing efficiency and acceleration.

But is stringing catenary that much of a cost and burden? In the entire process of a new HSR line, I'd imagine obtaining the right-of-way and constructing the track would be far, far more expensive than running the catenary. I could be wrong, but that's my impression.


----------



## volkris (Oct 11, 2009)

rnizlek said:


> Things like raising our fuel tax to bring it in line with most industrialized countries and working to move towards lower energy forms of transportation and urban planning. Of course, the fact of the matter is oil is just going to continue to increase in price over time - we can either pay that money to oil companies in the form of higher profits, or tax fuel to reduce demand and utilize those funds to build a 21st century transportation infrastructure.


That's not the situation. Oil prices aren't increasing because oil companies are taking higher profits--in fact their marginal profits have been decreasing!--so it's not a choice between paying more for oil or paying the same amount and then more for taxes. Oil prices will continue to rise, and increasing taxes will increase the cost of fuel... thus harming the economy and making it harder to support infrastructure spending needed for rail. The right solution is to simply tax fuel as needed to pay for the infrastructure that it naturally uses, e.g. tax gas enough to pay for highways and no more. Then, tax everyone else through normal governmental taxation routes to pay for the rail infrastructure that will benefit everyone. The natural and fairly predictable increase in oil prices over time will have people chooses appropriately whether they want to travel by rail or road.

The point is, taxing fuel won't really work to pay for HSR the way you think it will because the oil companies aren't the profiteering evil corporations they're portrayed as.



Murjax said:


> Well I what I was getting at by saying a European or Japanese system wouldn't work here is mainly the financing part of it. I think we can must get high speed rail that can achieve speeds in excess of 150 or 200 MPH. If we can get the cost down in infrastructure a bit though it would help greatly. That's why I'm wondering if we can develop the technology of the "plug in locomotive" more. If we don't have to build a long distance catenary system, that's half the battle.


You start to run into problems with fundamental laws of physics at that point. There are limits as to how much energy can be stored in a given volume, and that energy can only be shoved in so fast. Having batteries (or whatever) store more and more energy and making them absorb energy more quickly not only increases difficulties of engineering, but also issues of safety. Just think, it's no big deal to short out a low-powered nine volt battery, but what happens when there's a short in a cell holding a million times the energy? You have to start armoring the storage compartments to guard against even unintentional piercing. These fundamental physical problems are why progress in battery capacity has been so slow over the decades: throw all the money you want at it, the gains remain marginal.

Fortunately we do have a well understood, mature, and common medium for storing huge amounts of energy in a safe, usable form: petroleum  I'd like to see what would happen if we married the very efficient single-speed turboelectric engines with modern batteries for storing energy during slowdowns, and switching to catenary power when it is available. The JetTrain was proposed as a turboelectric with an additional low-speed diesel engine almost a decade ago; I wonder how well the diesel could be replaced with power control and battery technology now developed for hybrid cars.


----------



## acelafan (Oct 11, 2009)

rnizlek said:


> You might be interested in picking up a November copy of _Trains_. The cover story is actually on electrification and they cover these issues pretty well.
> I really don't know how much of a political issue it is. It's more of a financial issue. It would be the freight railroads that would have to lead the way on electrification, and at the moment it doesn't make a lot of business sense. But if when oil prices begin to rise again, it will begin to make more sense. You also need a very high volume of traffic to even make it close to worthwhile. If there was to be any major freight electrification in the next decade or two, BNSF's transcon would probably make the most sense.


Sitting here in BOS waiting for the Lake Shore Limited departure, and I found the Trains article to be a very good read. There is a lot of discussion about why the US hasn't invested in electric but simply put I feel it is largely a result of our short-sightedness for future transportation needs. Only when petro rises significantly (for 6 months at a time) do we begin to look at alternatives.

It was interesting to note that electrifying 1 mile of track is abput 1.5 million dollars while widening a freeway can be 10+ times that amount. We should be getting trans-continental and regional tractor trailers off the interstates and use double stack freights similar to China and Russia. Use trucks for the final delivery. How backward the US is in terms of rail when compared to other countries. It's funny but sad at the same time.

But American politicians love the automobile and RRs take a back seat. We can't expect the RRs to string all the cat - the government needs to take a part. But Wall Street and car dealership bailouts take precedence.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 11, 2009)

volkris said:


> That's not the situation. Oil prices aren't increasing because oil companies are taking higher profits--in fact their marginal profits have been decreasing!--


I'd hardly call Exxon's $45.8 Billion in profit for 2008 marginal. 



volkris said:


> Oil prices will continue to rise, and increasing taxes will increase the cost of fuel... thus harming the economy and making it harder to support infrastructure spending needed for rail. The right solution is to simply tax fuel as needed to pay for the infrastructure that it naturally uses, e.g. tax gas enough to pay for highways and no more. Then, tax everyone else through normal governmental taxation routes to pay for the rail infrastructure that will benefit everyone. The natural and fairly predictable increase in oil prices over time will have people chooses appropriately whether they want to travel by rail or road.
> The point is, taxing fuel won't really work to pay for HSR the way you think it will because the oil companies aren't the profiteering evil corporations they're portrayed as.


This model has worked quite well for Europe for many years. No reason to expect that it won't work here. Not saying that there aren't other ways to get it done, including what you've suggested. Just saying that we should be considering all models.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 11, 2009)

acelafan said:


> It was interesting to note that electrifying 1 mile of track is abput 1.5 million dollars while widening a freeway can be 10+ times that amount. We should be getting trans-continental and regional tractor trailers off the interstates and use double stack freights similar to China and Russia. Use trucks for the final delivery. How backward the US is in terms of rail when compared to other countries. It's funny but sad at the same time.


Truth be told, last I knew and this info is a few years old, this country still leads the world in moving freight by rail. We only fall down on the job when it comes to moving people by rail.

I do know for sure that even if we no longer lead the world, we still do move more freight by rail than by any other form of transit. According the the Bureau of Transportation Stats, in 2007 the last year for which data is currently avaiable, rail moved 40% of the freight ton miles in this country. Trucks, the next biggest, moved 28%.


----------



## MrFSS (Oct 11, 2009)

AlanB said:


> acelafan said:
> 
> 
> > It was interesting to note that electrifying 1 mile of track is abput 1.5 million dollars while widening a freeway can be 10+ times that amount. We should be getting trans-continental and regional tractor trailers off the interstates and use double stack freights similar to China and Russia. Use trucks for the final delivery. How backward the US is in terms of rail when compared to other countries. It's funny but sad at the same time.
> ...


Wonder how they count it when a truck is on the train flat car?


----------



## Ryan (Oct 11, 2009)

volkris said:


> Fortunately we do have a well understood, mature, and common medium for storing huge amounts of energy in a safe, usable form: petroleum


Er, no. Unless there's some method that you'd discovered to turn energy into petroleum, there's no comparing it to other methods for storing energy.


----------



## transit54 (Oct 11, 2009)

volkris said:


> rnizlek said:
> 
> 
> > Things like raising our fuel tax to bring it in line with most industrialized countries and working to move towards lower energy forms of transportation and urban planning. Of course, the fact of the matter is oil is just going to continue to increase in price over time - we can either pay that money to oil companies in the form of higher profits, or tax fuel to reduce demand and utilize those funds to build a 21st century transportation infrastructure.
> ...


Alright, you've got me on one point. You're right, the oil price increases aren't a result of oil companies, and that I shouldn't be blaming them for the inevitable increase in the price of fuel. That increase is a result of the increasing costs of extracting oil in harder and harder to get locations - we're not running out of it by any means, but the oil we extract continues to cost more and more to do so. I just read an article about another large oilfield that was discovered - but to profitably produce from it, oil must be a consistent minimum of $70 per barrel.

However, if you reduce demand by way of a fuel tax, a price decrease will follow simply due to the decreased demand. So the cost, if the tax is set appropriately, wouldn't rise as much as one thinks. A $1 a gallon tax (which would be excessively high to start with, anyway - you have to slowly implement it to give consumers the ability to change behavior over time) wouldn't increase gas prices by anywhere near $1 a gallon. It's been a year or two since I've seen academic literature on this, but I think a $1 increase will result in fuel prices rising 60-70 cents due to the underlying commodity price decreasing as a result of slackening demand.

Now, you argue that a gas tax should only cover the cost of maintaining infrastructure for cars. I disagree with the specifics, but I agree with you in principle. A gas tax should cover the full expenses occurred by society due to the operation of an automobile. Part of that is infrastructure. But there a lot of other negatives that drivers don't pay for, but are assessed against society as a whole. Pollution, congestion, unnecessary consumption of a limited resource, car based urban planning and deaths of cyclists and pedestrians are only a few. In economics, these are referred to as externalities and to create an efficient market, should be taxed to ensure that the consumer is paying the full cost of consuming their product, which they aren't right now.

Now what do you do with that extra revenue? You could invest it in transit infrastructure, or you could return it to the people as a revenue neutral tax (i.e. divide up all the revenues and distribute them equally to all taxpayers). Either works and I'm alright with both models. In a revenue neutral scenario, you'll have to raise money from other areas to pay for transit improvements (due to massively increased demand), but it really doesn't matter, the result is the same: once people start to pay the true cost of driving, many will choose to take transit. As long as everyone is paying their costs, there's nothing wrong with driving versus any other form of getting around. The problem is that drivers don't pay their full costs right now.


----------



## Murjax (Oct 11, 2009)

volkris said:


> rnizlek said:
> 
> 
> > Things like raising our fuel tax to bring it in line with most industrialized countries and working to move towards lower energy forms of transportation and urban planning. Of course, the fact of the matter is oil is just going to continue to increase in price over time - we can either pay that money to oil companies in the form of higher profits, or tax fuel to reduce demand and utilize those funds to build a 21st century transportation infrastructure.
> ...


You do have a point there. I still think that finding a way to cut the cost will give HSR a better chance of success though. If catenary is a must, then maybe its power source can be changed. I was thinking solar energy could be an option for power in some areas, but I'm not an expert there and I don't know if the costs of building an energy plant that could produce an unlimited amount of energy very cheaply and then connecting it to a HSR system would be any cheaper than just connecting it to a regular plant.



acelafan said:


> It was interesting to note that electrifying 1 mile of track is abput 1.5 million dollars while widening a freeway can be 10+ times that amount.


It's interesting that you mention that, because now that I remember, I read an article a few years ago that building an entire HSR system would be significantly cheaper than constructing a new runway at O'Hare airport.


----------



## PRR 60 (Oct 11, 2009)

acelafan said:


> ...It was interesting to note that electrifying 1 mile of track is abput 1.5 million dollars while widening a freeway can be 10+ times that amount.


$1.5 million a mile is pretty optimistic. The Amtrak New Haven to Boston project ran nearly twice that ten years ago. My reasonably educated guess is $5 million per track mile (based on double-track): more if utility infrastructure needs to be upgraded.


----------



## PRR 60 (Oct 11, 2009)

Murjax said:


> ...It's interesting that you mention that, because now that I remember, I read an article a few years ago that building an entire HSR system would be significantly cheaper than constructing a new runway at O'Hare airport.


New runway 27R at ORD, and a new control tower, cost $457 million. That would buy about five to ten miles of new-build high-speed rail.


----------



## Murjax (Oct 11, 2009)

PRR 60 said:


> acelafan said:
> 
> 
> > ...It was interesting to note that electrifying 1 mile of track is abput 1.5 million dollars while widening a freeway can be 10+ times that amount.
> ...


Wasn't the New Haven-Boston project mostly an electrification project? If electrification cost $5 million per mile, then how much would it have been if track were laid too? :blink:


----------



## Murjax (Oct 11, 2009)

PRR 60 said:


> Murjax said:
> 
> 
> > ...It's interesting that you mention that, because now that I remember, I read an article a few years ago that building an entire HSR system would be significantly cheaper than constructing a new runway at O'Hare airport.
> ...


Well as I said, I read this a few years ago. I forget the source.


----------



## volkris (Oct 11, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > Fortunately we do have a well understood, mature, and common medium for storing huge amounts of energy in a safe, usable form: petroleum
> ...


Of course there is. We use petroleum as a way of storing and transporting energy. Sure we didn't put the energy into petroleum in the first place, but that doesn't matter too much since the main point in moving a vehicle is moving it, not making the fuel.

Using numbers from wikipedia, a lithium ion battery can hold 0.46 MJ/kg while gasoline holds 49 MJ/kg. That's quite a lot more energy per weight, and is not even considering the ease with which we can put the energy from petroleum to use.

In the end the train has to carry its energy with it while it's not running from catenary, and carrying fossil fuels means carrying a lot more energy more efficiently. The right solution, I'd say, is electrifying where electrification makes sense and continuing to rely on fossil fuels in between electrified stretches.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 11, 2009)

volkris said:


> Sure we didn't put the energy into petroleum in the first place, but that doesn't matter too much since the main point in moving a vehicle is moving it, not making the fuel.


The fact that there is a finite supply of it and it's impossible to make more, certainly matters. Ignoring that fact is rather short sighted.


----------



## volkris (Oct 11, 2009)

AlanB said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > That's not the situation. Oil prices aren't increasing because oil companies are taking higher profits--in fact their marginal profits have been decreasing!--
> ...


A financial analyst would. Or, at least, would recognize the meaning of the term I used, "marginal profit."

Fact is the oil companies are making more money, sure, but they're producing even more oil. They're actually making significantly LESS on each gallon of gas that they're delivering than they had before; it's just that Americans, like the rest of the world, keep using more, and competition is alive and well for those dollars.



> > The point is, taxing fuel won't really work to pay for HSR the way you think it will because the oil companies aren't the profiteering evil corporations they're portrayed as.
> 
> 
> This model has worked quite well for Europe for many years. No reason to expect that it won't work here. Not saying that there aren't other ways to get it done, including what you've suggested. Just saying that we should be considering all models.


No, I mean it won't work in the revenue neutral way described. What was described was a simple redirection of money out of the pockets of oil companies into the government's coffers. Well, things aren't going to work like that since the oil companies aren't just setting their prices artificially high so as to bring in insane amounts of cash. We'll be paying a tax in addition to the profits, not instead of, just as in Europe.



rnizlek said:


> It's been a year or two since I've seen academic literature on this, but I think a $1 increase will result in fuel prices rising 60-70 cents due to the underlying commodity price decreasing as a result of slackening demand.


I've seen studies like that before, and as a person who deals with such numbers professionally, I don't buy them. The numbers don't seem to add up, and they're filled with weird assumptions almost as if they're trying to massage that conclusion from the data. Also, more and more price pressure is coming from overseas demand which is certainly not going to diminish just because domestic demand decreases.

And after all, intuitively one should find the claim questionable: a $1 increase in price meaning a $0.70 increase? That's a clear contradiction, no matter how the math works. Clearly there's some feedback and time evolution involved in the model, and in any such dynamic situation the conclusion has to be far more complicated than "this will mean a 70 cent increase." In reality, it will at least cause the system to swing back and forth searching for an equilibrium that very well won't exist.



> A gas tax should cover the full expenses occurred by society due to the operation of an automobile. Part of that is infrastructure. But there a lot of other negatives that drivers don't pay for, but are assessed against society as a whole. Pollution, congestion, unnecessary consumption of a limited resource, car based urban planning and deaths of cyclists and pedestrians are only a few.


Not to mention the lining of politicans' pockets, paying for their reelection campaigns, and paying for the therapy for a person suffering from depression who claims it somehow involves living near an interstate highway... No, only direct costs should be factored in, including infrastructure and, if one can absolutely, positively nail down a scientifically rigorous number, the cost due to pollution. Everything else is politicized and equivalent to outright corruption--politicians making up numbers that they portray as costs when in reality they're just attempts at behavioral control.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 12, 2009)

volkris said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > volkris said:
> ...


While I will admit that I misread what you were saying there, it's still not true. Keep in mind the fact that Exxon set a record in 2008 for profit, beating the old record by $4.6 Billion. And they did that despite the fact that the amount of fuel consumed decreased in 2008 from 2007. The only way to accomplish that would be for them to have increased their margin, not decreased it. Can't have profit going up, if you're selling less product, unless you've increased the profit margin on the product, or you've made huge cuts in expenses. or some combination of cuts in expenses and an increase in margin. And I'm not aware of any huge cuts in expenses, as that usually means laying off thousands.

Fuel consumed in 2007: 142,349,298,000 gallons

Fuel consumed in 2008: 137,800,488,000 gallons

Now if you told me that the local gas station's marginal profits have decreased, that's something that I would believe and would agree with.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 12, 2009)

I think what we should do is, we tax fuel at a reasonable but progressive rate. The more you consume, the more you pay. And you understand that this is going to cost the average American, who despite all there complaints about fuel prices, still sit in drive-thru lines in vehicles with no less than six cylinders (the same number of cylinders, incidentally, found in most 18-wheeled rigs) letting their engines idle as they "save time" waiting in line for their cheeseburgers.

Unlike most developed countries, most of our engines still burn gasoline. I still see people commuting to work in a car designed to seat 6 or 7 people. In minivans. In trucks. In so-called crossovers. I drive an old car, and I know a newer one might be more fuel efficient. But I don't whine about my fuel bills, and I advocate higher gas prices.

A Hyundai Accent can carry mom, dad, and 3 kids quite comfortably.

I mean, come ON. It might have a temporary brake on the economy, but it will work itself out in time. Also, I've decided that profit distributions from corporations should be capped at $1 billion, and that includes bonuses to employees. Everything else is straight income tax to be paid half to the IRS and the rest of it to be distributed to the American people.


----------



## DET63 (Oct 12, 2009)

> But I don't whine about my fuel bills, and I advocate higher gas prices.


Many do complain about high fuel bills (I wouldn't call it whining, though), and they don't advocate higher gas prices. Most trips made are local trips—or the store, to kids' soccer practice, to church. For the vast majority of those trips for American working families, public transit is not practical or affordable. Small cars don't carry two or three kids and their soccer gear. Small cars don't carry many groceries. People buy large cars, SUVs, minivans and the like because they're more practical, not because they like to spend a lot of money on fuel.

Taxing the price of fuel to get people out of cars and onto buses (whether diesel or trolley), light-rail, HSR or other transportation alternatives that are simply impractical, no matter the cost, will simply put the country into a recession, if not a major depression.

Decisions about electrification, and how to pay for it, are not easily made, no matter how much we may wish otherwise.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 12, 2009)

DET63 said:


> Taxing the price of fuel to get people out of cars and onto buses (whether diesel or trolley), light-rail, HSR or other transportation alternatives that are simply impractical, no matter the cost, will simply put the country into a recession, if not a major depression.


Doing that right now might well reverse the very slow recovery that we're starting to see on the current recession. However, long term it shouldn't cause that problem. Europe has been following that model for years without a recession occuring.

And just for the record, although we don't do it to the lengths of many of the European countries, we already do tax fuel at this point to benefit transit. Right now a bit over 2 cents per gallon of the Federal fuel tax goes into the Mass Transit Fund. The rest goes into the Highway Trust Fund.


----------



## transit54 (Oct 12, 2009)

DET63 said:


> > But I don't whine about my fuel bills, and I advocate higher gas prices.
> 
> 
> Many do complain about high fuel bills (I wouldn't call it whining, though), and they don't advocate higher gas prices. Most trips made are local trips—or the store, to kids' soccer practice, to church. For the vast majority of those trips for American working families, public transit is not practical or affordable. Small cars don't carry two or three kids and their soccer gear. Small cars don't carry many groceries. People buy large cars, SUVs, minivans and the like because they're more practical, not because they like to spend a lot of money on fuel.
> ...


You are absolutely correct in the short run (though I'd argue the vast majority of trips are for commuting purposes, where transit should be practical and affordable). The problem is that we have structured society around the automobile and to change that will take decades. But we need to start somewhere. The problem is that the rise is fuel costs is absolutely inevitable, but no one acts as if it is. When fuel prices rise, people start buying hybrids and moving near transit. When they fall, people just go back to their old ways. Properly implementing a fuel tax could provide the necessary price signals to slowly shift to a lower energy society. Let's say we created a fuel tax to be phased in over the next 25 years, that would eventually be an inflation adjusted $2 per gallon. Next year, we'll raise the gas tax by 5 cents, which shouldn't have a major impact on any household (and the actual increase in gas will be a bit less due to decreased demand). The follow year, another five cents. And so on for the first five years. Then raise it by 10 cents a year for the next five years. And so on, till you get to a $2 a gallon tax 20 years from now. To prevent it from really being a burden, the legislation could even cap the price of fuel - say $4 a gallon. If oil prices pushed gasoline beyond this, the tax would just diminish.

Now, what will this do? It's not going to bankrupt any family tomorrow, next year, or the following year. But what will these families do the next time they buy a car? They know, without a doubt, gas prices are going to go up. So they will purchase something more efficient. In this scenario, there's no need to legislate efficiency standards for cars, because the demand will be for efficient vehicles and auto makers will respond to market demand. When families or businesses move, they will be more likely to move to areas with decent transit access.

Finally, the money being collected can be used to support additional transit and rail, so that viable systems are created that people can use to get around. The problem is now, transit isn't viable in many places due to lack of infrastructure and funding. We need to change this, and a slowly increasing tax can work to build these systems.

Now, why would we want to do this? It's not because transit is somehow morally superior to driving or something like that. The fact of the matter is, gasoline prices are going up either way. We can defer this price increase for another decade or so without a tax, but the simply reality is that fuel prices are going to continue rising. We can either build solid, alternative infrastructure now or we can wait till fuel prices are high, families have no choice, and that situation, as you said, "will simply put the country into a recession, if not a major depression." If we don't act now to start building a lower energy, more compact society, our economy and everyone here is going to suffer. We can't stop the rise in fuel prices, but we can work to use less energy and move towards more abundant, alternative forms.

Secondly, I have to disagree with you about the need to purchase large vehicles. I grew up in a house in the middle of nowhere in suburban Connecticut in a family of four. We had to drive everywhere. I played sports (and yes, soccer for a number of years!) and my sister was also very active. We had haul all our groceries from 15+ miles away. We never, ever owned a large SUV and got by perfectly fine. We had a station wagon back when I was a kid (Oldsmobile Cutlass Cruiser, if I recall correctly), a Suburu Wagon, followed by a Oldsmobile Intrigue and another, slightly smaller Oldsmobile. My father had a Mitsubishi Mighty Max pickup truck, which served us if we needed to haul anything large or have a 4WD vehicle. Even that got a good 22+ MPG. I understand the need for a large vehicle if you have a 5 or 6 or 7 person family, but that's not the statistical reality in this country.

Secondly, even owning a large SUV is affordable for a family under the fuel tax scenario I described. It doesn't take that much fuel to drive your kids to soccer practice or go around the block to pick up some groceries. Where you're going to burn the most fuel is during a daily commute - during which you're not going to need the size of that vehicle anyway. And commuting, with its routine, regular schedule, is where transit should come in.

As I referenced in my first post in this thread - these are the sort of obstacles that we're going to see moving forward towards any solid improvements in transit infrastructure. I think the debate in this thread is just the tip of the iceberg if you tried to do something like this on a national scale.


----------



## jis (Oct 12, 2009)

PRR 60 said:


> acelafan said:
> 
> 
> > ...It was interesting to note that electrifying 1 mile of track is abput 1.5 million dollars while widening a freeway can be 10+ times that amount.
> ...


US always seems to turn out to be a special case 

BTW, have you ever come across a breakdown of the costs of various items in the Boston electrification projects? How much of it was for the actual electrification and how much for other crud that was thrown in while they were at it. Incidentally they have still not quite completed the original plan. They are still working on the third track between Readville and Back Bay.

The general figure that is quoted in 2008 currency is about $1.5million per track mile if done in a once off turn-key project. Usually considerably cheaper when done using what is called a rolling program covering multiple long segments in progressive electrification. That is how the Chinese and the Indians keep their electrification costs down. OTOH, they often have to include the cost of transmission lines to take the power to the substations since they are usually out in the boonies where there was no electricity before. Also standardized mass produced equipment used in a standard design and avoidance of special case equipment helps control costs. The cost of electrification per km in the world's top five electrified countries (Russia, China, Germany, India and France) is generally lower than what is quoted in the US. I don't know exactly why that is the case.


----------



## George Harris (Oct 12, 2009)

jis said:


> The general figure that is quoted in 2008 currency is about $1.5million per track mile if done in a once off turn-key project. Usually considerably cheaper when done using what is called a rolling program covering multiple long segments in progressive electrification. That is how the Chinese and the Indians keep their electrification costs down.


how about they keep their labor costs down by paying extemely low wages, have a 60 hour work week, and house their labor forces in barracks under conditions that are horrendous for the duration of the job. Local made materials are cheap for much of the same reasons. I won't talk about quality control and environmental considerations, and other factors that can significantly affect costs here.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 12, 2009)

DET63 said:


> > But I don't whine about my fuel bills, and I advocate higher gas prices.
> 
> 
> Many do complain about high fuel bills (I wouldn't call it whining, though), and they don't advocate higher gas prices. Most trips made are local trips—or the store, to kids' soccer practice, to church. For the vast majority of those trips for American working families, public transit is not practical or affordable. Small cars don't carry two or three kids and their soccer gear. Small cars don't carry many groceries. People buy large cars, SUVs, minivans and the like because they're more practical, not because they like to spend a lot of money on fuel.
> ...


Pfui. Its whining when people complain while doing predictably stupid things that predictably cause the problem they are faced with. When you create your own problem and then complain about it, you're whining.

Now to counteract what you are saying on several levels. First of all, somebody crashed into the back of beloved Mercedes almost a month ago and while waiting for them to repair the thing I have been driving a Kia Rondo. That's a fairly small car right there. It can fit 5 and six tons of luggage, or 7 and still a good deal of luggage on its roof carrier. It has a four cylinder engine and gets livable fuel economy. Mazda makes a comparable vehicle called the Mazda5. Both seat seven people or can haul decent amounts of cargo. Both of them come with 4-cylinder engines (in fact, the Mazda isn't even available with a six).

Our old Pug seated 8 and got decent mileage- it was a station wagon. Ford built a station wagon on the Taurus platform well into this century. None of these are particularly huge cars. By European standards maybe, but not here. Volkswagen and Subaru currently offer wagons, as does Volvo. They don't really seem to sell in large quantity, but the Volkswagen Passat TDi can get 40 mpg. The more expensive Toureg TDi sells more units.

Sure, if you have a family of more than 5 people, you need a larger car then a Honda Accord- one of them, for carrying people around. The other cars you own can be smaller, and you don't need anything more in size than a Volvo V70 or Mazda5. How can a small car be spacious? Consider Toyota's original Scion xB. In that tiny little car, we had more rear-seat legroom than Audi's much larger A6 had FRONT legroom. Plus lots of room for luggage.

People don't need a Ford Explorer or Toyota Highlander or Dodge Caravan. They buy it because they want a large car. Because they like the idea of a large car. Which is fine. I like large cars, too. But if you buy yourself a gazinta car, don't complain about how much it costs to run. You should know that walking in.

As for causing a depression, we wouldn't cause one. We are already neck-deep in the biggest financial crisis since the 1930s, and personally I think that we will surpass it this time. You can chalk that up to conspicuous consumption on borrowed money- such as for huge cars.


----------



## DET63 (Oct 12, 2009)

Sorry, but we are a family of four with a Mitsubishi Montero, and even it is occasionally not big enough for us to do what we need it for. Families will buy the vehicles that meet their biggest customary needs, even if those needs occur only on an occasional basis. Small vehicles may be adequate for short commutes, but if the vehicle is going to be regularly used for something other than short trips to work or the 7-11, a 3- or 4-cylinder putt-putt is not going to cut the mustard.

People who drive on freeways, whether to commute or for other purposes, on a regular basis will want something capable of decent acceleration. They'll probably also want something that's comfortable. If public transit is unavailable or impractical (the rule everywhere but in some of the largest cities), a comfortable car or small truck will be what they use.


----------



## MattW (Oct 12, 2009)

Wow, lots of good info here thanks! Thanks also for pointing me to that article in Trains, very good read!

From what I can see so far the capital cost is the big prohibitive thing right now as well as lack of technology. Any large-scale electrification won't be able to come near capacity until long after the start date so any operations would have to use a captive fleet which wouldn't make much financial sense short-term.

I'm of course all for the complete electrification of America's railroads, but I also have to be realistic and know what it'll take.

As to the thing about the cars, some people just don't have a choice. I tried sitting in the driver's seat of almost every brand car sold around Metro Atlanta and found one model that I fit in, fortunately, it's a reasonable car, 27 sticker mpg, 30 real if the computer is right.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 12, 2009)

DET63 said:


> Sorry, but we are a family of four with a Mitsubishi Montero, and even it is occasionally not big enough for us to do what we need it for. Families will buy the vehicles that meet their biggest customary needs, even if those needs occur only on an occasional basis. Small vehicles may be adequate for short commutes, but if the vehicle is going to be regularly used for something other than short trips to work or the 7-11, a 3- or 4-cylinder putt-putt is not going to cut the mustard.
> People who drive on freeways, whether to commute or for other purposes, on a regular basis will want something capable of decent acceleration. They'll probably also want something that's comfortable. If public transit is unavailable or impractical (the rule everywhere but in some of the largest cities), a comfortable car or small truck will be what they use.


Nobody builds putt-putts anymore. The Kia Rondo has a 4-cylinder, and it hits sixty in just under 10 seconds. More then adequate for any real needs. I drive, normally, a Mercedes diesel, which takes about half again as much time to hit sixty, and I can handle the traffic and road just fine. I admit to use it, I needed to learn how to drive. But then, the vast majority of people using excessive horsepower to cover up their incompetence at planning maneuvers isn't a good thing.

Cars like Honda's Civic or Volkswagen's Jetta are more than adequate for commuting on the highway, and truth be told, on the rare occasions I happen to be out on the highway during rush hour, the main car I find is Honda's Civic.

Fact of the matter is, most V6 family sedans currently on the market blow the doors off a Ferrari Testarossa. That isn't decent. Its bloody overkill. And the fuel consumption that goes with it is likewise overkill.


----------



## volkris (Oct 13, 2009)

These assertions that nobody "needs" this and that are really irrelevant when it comes right down to it.

I mean, what do people really need? Food, water, air, shelter? Nobody NEEDS a car at all. Nobody NEEDS trains either, for that matter, or TVs, or more than two lamps per house, or computers...

People WANT these things, and there's nothing wrong with that. People want cars and computers and cellphones, and they invest their money in these purchases to fulfill their wants. Who are you to tell them they're wrong? Some people choose to buy big, inefficient cars because that's the direction they want their lives to go, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's the hight of arrogance to make assertions that they don't need the big cars and therefore should go with the smaller ones.

And no, I think people have once again realized that gas prices are going to continue trending up, so they will shop with more of an eye to fuel efficiency than they have lately. The world is changing, as it always does, and the current track it's on means higher gas prices. And in the end, you just have to let people make their choices and suffer the consequences when they fail to take higher gas prices into account when buying a gas guzzler.

Make people pay for the real, legitimate costs of their purchases and habits--make them pay for their gas, liability insurance, and costs of highway infrastructure--but don't be so arrogant as to "show them the way" by taxing them into doing the "correct" thing. These savages don't need taming.


----------



## jis (Oct 13, 2009)

George Harris said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > The general figure that is quoted in 2008 currency is about $1.5million per track mile if done in a once off turn-key project. Usually considerably cheaper when done using what is called a rolling program covering multiple long segments in progressive electrification. That is how the Chinese and the Indians keep their electrification costs down.
> ...


And that explains the lower electrification costs in Europe too? OK.

So your argument then is that we have priced ourselves out of the world market and therefore we will never be able to catch up in infrastructure construction with the rest of the world, or at least until they catch up with us in wage levels. I could believe that very sadly - but yes I could believe that.

But I think one significant issue is that the individual electrification projects here have been minuscule compared to the big four and this has prevented the exploitation of advantages of scale. If our auto industry was based on occasional production of 2000 cars at a time, cars and roads would be much more expensive too.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 13, 2009)

volkris said:


> These assertions that nobody "needs" this and that are really irrelevant when it comes right down to it.
> I mean, what do people really need? Food, water, air, shelter? Nobody NEEDS a car at all. Nobody NEEDS trains either, for that matter, or TVs, or more than two lamps per house, or computers...
> 
> People WANT these things, and there's nothing wrong with that. People want cars and computers and cellphones, and they invest their money in these purchases to fulfill their wants. Who are you to tell them they're wrong? Some people choose to buy big, inefficient cars because that's the direction they want their lives to go, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's the hight of arrogance to make assertions that they don't need the big cars and therefore should go with the smaller ones.
> ...


First of all, the fuel tax doesn't cover the cost of highway construction. It should. That is plain and simple. The motorists, and motorists alone, should pay for the direct costs involved with modifying the world to bow to their choice. Highway construction, auto insurance, road construction, and so on. It is fair, I'd thnk you agree, that a fuel tax, which due to the nature of it, charges people based, atleast with a reasonable correlation, on how much they drive. There is more than just the highways, though. There are highway patrolment, for one.

Now, some of there being there is the responsibility of, and paid for in part, people who break the traffic code. But not all of it. The patrolmen who assist people with broken down cars, changing tires, enterin their car that they locked themselves out of, pushing cars off the road, and so on is part of the cost of operating a highway system. And so should be born, in its entirety, by the fuel tax. People who violate the laws should simply be paying their money into the general fund.

Fair statement that any libererian like you should agree with: Users of a system should pay its full cost, non-users of the system should pay nothing. And when it comes to taxing for the paying of roads, they should at least pay that.

However, here we come to a more murky water. Cars don't just take up space with their roads and their parking lots. They also pollute. They pollute, they damage the enviroment, they create air pollution, noise pollution, etc. Some of that simply costs money to clean up. There is probably a distinct price that could be put on the actual clean up of physical pollution. That too, should be in the fuel tax. I have the right to damage something. I have the right- and responsibility- to pay for that damage. That is, to me, fairly clear.

However, lets go into a water more murky still. Not everyone can drive, Volkris. I'm borderline, my eyes keep getting worse. A hundred years ago, there was public transit every which way. Almo0st everyone used it, and due to its volume, it was even profitable. Due to the increased prevalence of the automobile in this country, that system has all but disappeared. What is left is a system that can't pay for itself, for it isn't used enough. You could argue, with justification, that the increased use by able bodied people of cars has cost those of us who can't use them a safe, simple, and affordable way to get around. Because they deprive those of us who can't drive of our mobility, it seems to me they should pay to restore it. For that too is a damage, and a cost.

By that logic, taxing fuel to cover, at least in part, the operation of a system to give those of us who simply can not drive a car (and while some can't do it for monetary reasons, that isn't all of them) mobility is fair. If you build the system to cover that need, one will find that, in truth, it costs little more to build a system for the benefits of everyone, because increased volume allows for better cost efficiency.

Persuading people who drive large cars into smaller ones is really a side benefit of requiring drivers of motorcars to pay the cost for all of the problems of their existence- roads, enforcement, pollution, and sacrificed mobility for non drivers.


----------



## George Harris (Oct 13, 2009)

jis said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Are you sure that they are? Show me the numbers.


----------



## jis (Oct 13, 2009)

George Harris said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > And that explains the lower electrification costs in Europe too? OK.
> ...


The $1.5million per track-mile was a figure from UK in 2008. I am told that Boston cost more per track mile a little earlier in the decade, hence my comment.

It is quite possible that the Boston numbers are inflated by other factors.

But notwithstanding all that, piecemeal electrification of a couple of hundred miles at a time is bound to cost more per track-mile than large and continuous electrification projects electrifying thousands of miles over many years. Just like piecemeal purchase of 30 locomotives once in a while is bound to raise unit costs when compared to almost continuous purchase of several hundred standardized locomotives over several years.


----------



## TVRM610 (Oct 13, 2009)

so does anyone actually know what it costs to electrify existing freight ROW?


----------



## jis (Oct 13, 2009)

I have no way of knowing for sure what it might cost in the US today, since there is no current project under construction. PRR60, who knows a bit about these things being an industry insider quotes the figure of $5 million per double track mile for the New Haven - Boston segment which was completed some 10 years back, which possibly works out to something like $2.6 million per single track mile. (slightly more than half of what it costs for double track mile)

I found a study in the UK which says:



> The cost of electrification per single track km is in the order of £550K to £650K. Work published last year by the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB)


which at today's exchange rate works out to about $1.6 million per track mile in UK.

According to an article on Railway Electrification in India:



> The average cost of electrification per rkm is estimated to be around Rs 65 lakh for a double-line section and around Rs 40 lakh for single-line section.


which works out to about $150K per track mile. Considering that those are 2001 costs and India has been running an inflation of about 5%, call it something like $240K per track mile today.

I have seen claims in Australia that it costs $650K per track mile.

So you can see that the costs can differ hugely depending on where it is being done and under what circumstances.


----------



## George Harris (Oct 13, 2009)

As to New Haven to Boston: There was a GAO report that held this particular project up as an example of how not to do this sort of thing. In other words, it cost far more than it ought to have cost. The project also included some unique provisions. For example, carrying power through a drawbride, four of them I think it was.

Therefore, to use this one as an example of what would be the norm for electrification in the US would be wrong. I may be able to find a link to this report sometime, but right now I do not have the time to look.


----------



## PRR 60 (Oct 13, 2009)

New Haven to Boston was affected by several factors:

- Limited work hours to accommodate rail traffic. Getting clear rail only from 1am to 5am is not very productive.

- This was a "turn key" design-build project done outside the normal Amtrak engineering review process. It did not follow established ET standards and was performed with limited input from Amtrak Electric Traction engineering staff (who, by the way, finally were brought in when the project began to circle the bowl). It took many long proven designs and tossed them for some "innovative" ideas. The stainless steel banding around some of the failing precast structure foundations is testimony to the success of some of the "innovations."

- And finally, the basic inefficiency of the Amtrak work culture. Everything that involves Amtrak costs multiples of what the same work would cost done by others. If a project would require two crews of four in private work, it will require three crews of six for Amtrak to perform. That is a legacy of Amtrak's Penn Central heritage. It hasn't changed in 38 years. I don't expect it to change anytime soon. Whenever my work involves Amtrak, I double the estimate, hold my breath, and hope for the best.


----------



## George Harris (Oct 13, 2009)

PRR 60:

I think you are being very polite.

Early in my post green suit time, I got somewhat involved in site layout for a small yard for Amtrak. It had another name, but I am trying to not be too definite since the field of people involved in this stuff is realtively small. Among many other things, a simple solution to the main drainage issue got lost because, since it improved drainage of the adjacent main line, there was an issue of who's budget was going to be tapped for the construction and for the maintenance. The first cost difference was minuscule, but the proposed solution would be easier and cheaper to maintain. In a cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face move, both sides refused to agree because each thought the other MIGHT get something at their expense.

I would not call it left overs from Penn Central, but left overs from the Pennsylvania Railroad. PRR seemed to have fought all forms of modernisation after buying their first diesels.


----------



## jis (Oct 14, 2009)

George Harris said:


> As to New Haven to Boston: There was a GAO report that held this particular project up as an example of how not to do this sort of thing. In other words, it cost far more than it ought to have cost. The project also included some unique provisions. For example, carrying power through a drawbride, four of them I think it was.
> Therefore, to use this one as an example of what would be the norm for electrification in the US would be wrong. I may be able to find a link to this report sometime, but right now I do not have the time to look.


Yes, George, I have seen that report and I do agree with your assessment. Doing electrification across bridges always poses a challenge, even if they are not movable bridges. For example on several very long bridges they had to slightly modify the girder cross braces to make room for the catenary when they electrified Calcutta to Delhi in India.

The problem with the Boston electrification is that it appears to be incredibly over-engineered. Even the structures on the French LGV do not look as shall we say "robust" and poles as frequent as on the Boston segment, granted the curves do make it necessary to put poles closer - but why on the straight segments too?



PRR 60 said:


> Limited work hours to accommodate rail traffic. Getting clear rail only from 1am to 5am is not very productive.


This is usually the norm when an existing line is electrified, so I don't see why this should be a cause for adding significant cost. Actually these guys did get clear rail predictably 1am to 5am. Other electrifications that I have seen done got 2 hour windows two or three times a day on a per section basis and that was it. It was actually a site to behold working under those circumstances. As soon as the window opens first the base drilling machine trundle down the track and drill the base cast holes quickly one after the other and clear the section as time runs out. Then the big base pouring exercise happens in several windows, and simultaneously the posts are dropped by each pole location. etc. etc. It almost ran like a clockwork whenever two hour windows were found with massive forces deployed to complete the work scheduled for the segment in that window. Of course these guys have it down pat and are fully practiced with the routine since they work as a team allover putting in hundreds of kms of electrification a year, year in and year out.

I think this is what I was alluding to when I mentioned the difference between doing a few miles here and there at a time vs. doing a massive project continuously. I bet our highway system construction unit cost would be much higher too if we built it in fits and start thus allowing the logistical expertise to not develop or disappear between building activities.


----------



## sueb (Oct 14, 2009)

Well, they recently reactivated the electrification on the Keystone service, which had been allowed to become derelict. That's the line I commute on. Don't know what that cost per mile, but I think it is worth it as it gives Amtrak more options for running our trains. We still see a diesel engine once in a while, when everything else is in the shop, I guess. But I still need a car to get about 10 mi to the station. Nothing big, I currently use a 12-yr old Toyota.

Also electrification doesn't solve the problem that the station at ELT is still inaccessible to my handicapped son, since it has a steep flight of stairs and a low platform. Nearest semi-accessible station (freight elevator available with employee assistance) is HAR, about 30 minutes drive away with limited and expensive parking. ELT station is currently being renovated extensively and is supposed to end up being fully accessible, but that is about 16 months off.

Another comment about people's choice of cars. We need a car that can fit my son's adaptive stroller in the trunk or in the body of the vehicle such as a van or SUV. My 12-yr-old Corolla can fit the stroller in the trunk, but more recent Corollas can't. The van we have is also old but runs OK and I will keep it as long as I can because it also fits the stroller plus luggage. There seems to be a trend to make vehicle trunks smaller, forcing people like us to look for larger cars than we might like if we have to replace our current ones. We don't need extra passenger space, but we need the cargo space.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 14, 2009)

sueb said:


> Another comment about people's choice of cars. We need a car that can fit my son's adaptive stroller in the trunk or in the body of the vehicle such as a van or SUV. My 12-yr-old Corolla can fit the stroller in the trunk, but more recent Corollas can't. The van we have is also old but runs OK and I will keep it as long as I can because it also fits the stroller plus luggage. There seems to be a trend to make vehicle trunks smaller, forcing people like us to look for larger cars than we might like if we have to replace our current ones. We don't need extra passenger space, but we need the cargo space.


Obviously, if you have a need for a larger car for any number of specialized reasons, it can't be faulted. Actually, I once drafted a long and detailed memorandum detailing my suggestions for gas tax/road/rail/transit funding/incentivizing, I had a variety of items built in for things like that. A for instance would be a reduced tax for people with accessible plates. It also included reduced tax for trucks operating between points where freight rail doesn't exist or was inpractical.

I once discussed it with Corzine way back when he was a state senator and attending a local event, then later by invitation in his local office. He said he liked the general setup of the thing, but pointed out to me that backing it would be political suicide. Which comes down to one of the general problems with democracy, but whatever.

I know what you mean by cars getting less practical, although I haven't actually seen reduced trunk capacity in any meaningful way. What I HAVE seen is increasingly small and hilariously impractical trunk openings, driven by peoples apparent desire for more rakish C-pillars. It also increases glare, and peoples desire for more rakish A-pillars heavily compromises visibility. As does the perplexing desire for pill-box slit windoes.

A few years back, Ford introduced a car called the "Five Hundred", and they spelled it out like that. I was completely enthralled by the thing. I thought it was the best effort at building a car the domestic builders had done since Ford introduced the original Taurus in 1986. It was beautifully concieved and executed, well built on a solid platform using excellent materials and durable, proven mechancicals. The Duratec V6 has proven its durability, the platform was an expanded version of the Volvo P2 platform (S60/V70/S80/XC90 of the early 2000s) a very solid design, the CVT was solidly designed, and the availible Haldex AWD system was simplicity itself.

It was very tall, offering unbelievable space efficiency and very comfortable chair-height seats. The CVT allowed the smallish V6 to move the vehicle with decent alacrity while providing it with better fuel economy then it gave in the smaller (and lighter) Taurus. It was extremely safe - no surprise, it was a Volvo at heart - and handled, while unenthusastically, predictably and well. The window belt line was pretty low, visibility was excellent, the seats extremely comfortable, and the controls set standards for ergonomics. The trunk was huge and the opening allowed access to almost the entire trunk.

I thought this thing was going to give the Camry a run for its money. It was a dowdy looking car, but everything else about it was perfect, a paradigm of large, practical, family car design. It being a dowdy looking car killed it on the market place. In every quantifiable, objective way except outright acceleration it was the best mid/full-size sedan in the $20-40k market, period. It was made slightly less dowdy looking when it was renamed Taurus a few years ago, but it didn't help. Now they have fully redesigned it keeping its basic bones, but lowring the roofline, shortening the windows, increasing the rake on the A and C pillars, and its selling like hot cakes.

In a market that illogical, how can you expect decent products to prevail?


----------



## AAARGH! (Oct 14, 2009)

GML:

As for cars, it's form over function. Always has been. As you said, that's why the Ford Five-Hundred failed.

I agree with your assessment, but I disagree with your statement: _"In a market that illogical, how can you expect decent products to prevail?"_ It's not illogical at all. What is considered decent is different for each person. You (obviously) fall on the function side of the equasion, while the majority fall on the form side. It's all ego.


----------



## George Harris (Oct 14, 2009)

AAARGH! said:


> GML:
> As for cars, it's form over function. Always has been. As you said, that's why the Ford Five-Hundred failed.


Because people who go for function over form usually keep a car much longer. As a very solid functional car buyer, I have bought exactly 7 cars for self and family plus an assist to 4 for kids. Only 4 out of the 11 were new. That is in 49 years since I got a drivers license. Most were truly dead when unloaded, and all were well past the 100,000 mile mark, one over 300,000. Rigth now I am driving shoe leather or a rent car to go out of town since we live in the middle of San Francisco.


----------



## volkris (Oct 15, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> A few years back, Ford introduced a car called the "Five Hundred", and they spelled it out like that. I was completely enthralled by the thing. I thought it was the best effort at building a car the domestic builders had done since Ford introduced the original Taurus in 1986. It was beautifully concieved and executed, well built on a solid platform using excellent materials and durable, proven mechancicals. The Duratec V6 has proven its durability, the platform was an expanded version of the Volvo P2 platform (S60/V70/S80/XC90 of the early 2000s) a very solid design, the CVT was solidly designed, and the availible Haldex AWD system was simplicity itself.
> ...
> 
> In a market that illogical, how can you expect decent products to prevail?


Actually, at my workplace we have a lot of expertise in engineering. My coworkers, who are the type to know every part of a car inside and out down to the calculated heat capacity of threading of individual bolts, had some major criticisms of the Five Hundred's design.

As usual you present this absolute view of the world calling everyone else illogical or stupid when they don't buy into your perception. It's very closed minded and the height of arrogance, and it's an attitude that's all too prevalent in the world today.


----------



## TVRM610 (Oct 15, 2009)

For the Boston Line... was it not also additional costs due to the fact that trains would be running at such high speeds? If trains were never planned to operate faster than say 110, would the costs be as high as on the NEC?


----------



## jis (Oct 15, 2009)

TVRM610 said:


> For the Boston Line... was it not also additional costs due to the fact that trains would be running at such high speeds? If trains were never planned to operate faster than say 110, would the costs be as high as on the NEC?


It is pretty standard Constant Tension catenary. 150mph does not require anything spectacularly more expensive in the catenary beyond that. Just a matter of setting the tension and alignment properly, which should be done anyway even for 110 or 135mph. Also, the total length where the train can ran at 150mph is relatively small as a proportion of the total length of that electrification.


----------



## TVRM610 (Oct 15, 2009)

thanks jls... fair enough!


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 16, 2009)

> Actually, at my workplace we have a lot of expertise in engineering. My coworkers, who are the type to know every part of a car inside and out down to the calculated heat capacity of threading of individual bolts, had some major criticisms of the Five Hundred's design.
> As usual you present this absolute view of the world calling everyone else illogical or stupid when they don't buy into your perception. It's very closed minded and the height of arrogance, and it's an attitude that's all too prevalent in the world today.


So am I, and ignoring a few items that seem to be the case in just about every car today, I can't think of any. So if you have heard of these, list them rather than being vague.


----------



## volkris (Oct 16, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> > Actually, at my workplace we have a lot of expertise in engineering. My coworkers, who are the type to know every part of a car inside and out down to the calculated heat capacity of threading of individual bolts, had some major criticisms of the Five Hundred's design.
> > As usual you present this absolute view of the world calling everyone else illogical or stupid when they don't buy into your perception. It's very closed minded and the height of arrogance, and it's an attitude that's all too prevalent in the world today.
> 
> 
> So am I, and ignoring a few items that seem to be the case in just about every car today, I can't think of any. So if you have heard of these, list them rather than being vague.


Cars aren't my area of expertise, so I only remember the harsh criticism my well-informed coworkers were dishing out at the engineering in the thing.

Point is, you talk as if there's no question that this car is extremely well-engineered (ignoring reasonable criticism) just like you talk about the One True Hamburger (ignoring sanity) and insist that people buying certain types of cars are in the wrong, proposing to "correct" them by instituting your personal opinions and values through the force of law. Your arrogance and selfishness is flat out sickening, and I'm not sure you can even see it for what it is.

We should support expanded rail and expanded electrification because it accomplishes goals IN ADDITION to other goals, particularly the subjective goals of individuals who pursue happiness, and not through punitive taxation seeking to tame the savages who value cars and SUVs. In practical terms, the population will see such attacks for what they are, and I don't think that's going to end well, politically, for Amtrak.

Rail can either be an ally to the large driving public, providing alternatives to congested roads and long distance driving, or it can be an enemy, taking tax dollars away from roads and seeking to "correct" their ways by force.

To be clear, I'm not seeking to hound on GML personally here, but rather to talk about how a certain attitude enters into the talk of expanding electrification. It just happens that GML is generally the extreme example of the attitude, but it's one many here share.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 16, 2009)

volkris said:


> Your arrogance and selfishness is flat out sickening





> To be clear, I'm not seeking to hound on GML personally here


You could have fooled me.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 16, 2009)

volkris said:


> Cars aren't my area of expertise, so I only remember the harsh criticism my well-informed coworkers were dishing out at the engineering in the thing.
> Point is, you talk as if there's no question that this car is extremely well-engineered (ignoring reasonable criticism) just like you talk about the One True Hamburger (ignoring sanity) and insist that people buying certain types of cars are in the wrong, proposing to "correct" them by instituting your personal opinions and values through the force of law. Your arrogance and selfishness is flat out sickening, and I'm not sure you can even see it for what it is.
> 
> We should support expanded rail and expanded electrification because it accomplishes goals IN ADDITION to other goals, particularly the subjective goals of individuals who pursue happiness, and not through punitive taxation seeking to tame the savages who value cars and SUVs. In practical terms, the population will see such attacks for what they are, and I don't think that's going to end well, politically, for Amtrak.
> ...


I'm a socialist. I see people in general as too stupid to know what is best for them over the long term because time and experience have proven it to be so. People want their gratification, and they want it now. People have a right to pursue happiness so long as it does not infringe on other people's right to pursue their own happiness.

By driving a large SUV in pursuit of ones own happiness, one limits the happiness of people around them. Just as it is not right to play a bazooka boom box in the library, it is not right to drive around a large SUV and not pay for all the damages that it causes to everyone and everything. They are noisy. They make our roads less safe since they are less maneuverable and make visibility more difficult. They inflict more damage on other vehicles.

By driving a car at all, people are polluting the world. Not for me. Not for you. For everyone. They are doing this in selfish disregard for me, for my friends, for any descendants I may have, for every living person on earth. There are so many places in this country where I am allowed to discharge a gun. IF, even by accident, I discharge that gun and somebody happens to be between the bullet and the end of its trajectory, I am responsible for manslaughter. Pollution KILLS. It creates smog. It releases carcinogens. It releases molecules unhealthy for humans into the atmosphere.

I honestly don't see much difference between the two. If the imperatives were different... but then, in various places in this country, they aren't. And for most people, driving larger, larger engined vehicles that pollute more is no more imperative then firing off a gun at random. Its a want. Pure and simple. All I ask is that these people are taxed for their responsibilities.

As for your personally attacking my "arrogance and selfishness", I concede to being arrogant. Perhaps I am even sickeningly so. I don't make myself sick with my arrogance, so I wouldn't know. But selfish? I sit around and ask for things that, in my opinion, benefits mankind overall by requiring people to be responsible, in proportion, for the consequences of their own conspicuous consumption. You sit around and demand that you and others should have the right to engage in that conspicuous consumption without regard to the damage it causes.

I lose things to myself in many of the things I want for, in my mind, the overall good of society. It comes at cost to me. I'm willing to accept that cost to myself as part of my goals for what I consider to be a better world. If I die penniless, battered and broken, in a world that, in part because of my efforts, is what I consider a better place to live, I will die with my purpose in life met.

I personally think your standpoint is more selfish than mine. However, the very least I will concede to is that we are equally selfish in wanting our personal desires for the world to reach reality, regardless of our reasons.

As for my opinions being magisterial, pfui, sir. They are my opinions. Of course I think my opinions are correct and yours aren't. If I thought otherwise, I wouldn't hold the opinions I hold. I'd agree with you. But I don't. I am not a two-bit diplomat. I'm not going to go ****-footing around carefully reminding people that my opinions are my opinions, based on my personal proclivities and experience, and therefore are not valid facts. If you can't tell that my opinions are, in fact, opinions, you don't belong on a discussion forum.

I'm not going to add to statements such nonsense as, "In my opinion" (Its obvious its my opinion), "I could be wrong," (Of course I could be wrong - I'm not god), "You're entitled to your opinion," (Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion- you hold it, don't you?), or "Do what you like," (of course you are going to do what you like!). I am not going to pretend to not dislike opinions I disagree with. I will argue with them, based upon all the points I can reasonably present in furtherance of my argument. Furthermore, I am not going to pretend I don't dislike people whose opinions indicate they are a kind of person I can't stand- and people that advocate for selfish goals that benefit primarily themselves under the guise of "freedom" are among them.

I don't like you, Volkris. I don't say you're stupid, because you're not. I don't say you're evil, because I don't think you are. I do say you're selfish, because I think you are. I do say you like to spin things to come out your way, because you do. You are well within your rights to do all of this, think all of this, and say all of this, because of the freedoms you cherish and have. You are generally even well within your rights to post them here because we have a fairly open moderating team.

And Volkris, I am not going to BS the whole world and say I'm not being personal. I am being personal. This post is directed at you.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 16, 2009)

Ok, I think a little cooling off is required here, so this topic will be closed for a day.


----------



## volkris (Oct 18, 2009)

I'm sure you don't realize it, GML, but your reply actually supports my points.

This topic was asking how we can garner the political support needed for expanding electrification, and I pointed out that the arrogant attitudes and arguments about taming the unwashed masses probably isn't the best way to get that support. I pointed out that Amtrak and expanded electrification can be presented as a partnership with peoples' lives or as an enemy, "fixing" their ways.

Well, you came in right off the bat labeling most people as stupid... which pretty much sums up the entire situation: there won't be political support for expanded electrification if the proponents spend their time mocking and insulting the citizenry, and yet that's exactly what we see all too often. Even if it's not explicit, the population will get the message as they're punished, through taxation, for their "evil" ways.


----------



## transit54 (Oct 18, 2009)

As much is this is really a deep interest of mine (having majored in economics and having a career in transit), I really don't want to get too much into this, because it's gotten to be a pretty charged conversation.

But I feel the need to relate a story from last night.

Yesterday, I took a roundtrip to Bellows Falls, VT on the Vermonter. There's $12 promotional fares anywhere in the state till the end of the year, so I've been checking out some places I'd otherwise probably never get the chance to visit.

Coming back, a friend of mine got on the train a few stops up the line. She takes the train every weekend from Essex Jct to Windsor, VT. When she first started traveling regularly on that route, she was taking the Greyhound, but I convinced her to give the train a try, especially since it went right to Windsor. Since that time, she's become on a first name basis with all of the Vermonter crews and is a well known frequent rider of the service.

Last night, she sat down next to me and told me that she's thinking of buying a car. Not for local trips, mind you - she's still planning on biking and taking the bus around town, especially because the local university makes the latter free. The car would pretty much be for replacing Amtrak on the Burlington to Windsor commute.

The reason? "I'm spending too much on Amtrak." And that's with $12 promotional fares each way.

How are we going to encourage train ridership in this society when the financial incentives are such that a highly satisfied and regular train rider has to move to driving in a single occupancy vehicle to save money? Even at the gas prices of last summer, the train would have given the car a run for its money. No one wins in this scenario, except auto mechanics, paving companies and perhaps, the oil industry.

I just feel like I'm constantly fighting an impossible struggle to get more people to take the train because of stuff like this. I see this with Amtrak, I see the with the transit system I work for, I see this everywhere. I just don't see how we can see a successful expansion of passenger rail in this country without aligning financial incentives with societal costs.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 18, 2009)

volkris said:


> I'm sure you don't realize it, GML, but your reply actually supports my points.
> This topic was asking how we can garner the political support needed for expanding electrification, and I pointed out that the arrogant attitudes and arguments about taming the unwashed masses probably isn't the best way to get that support. I pointed out that Amtrak and expanded electrification can be presented as a partnership with peoples' lives or as an enemy, "fixing" their ways.
> 
> Well, you came in right off the bat labeling most people as stupid... which pretty much sums up the entire situation: there won't be political support for expanded electrification if the proponents spend their time mocking and insulting the citizenry, and yet that's exactly what we see all too often. Even if it's not explicit, the population will get the message as they're punished, through taxation, for their "evil" ways.


I don't think that GML is trying to convince anyone here that expanded electrification is a good thing. You may have correctly identified his motives for believing that way, but how he goes about doing it is a completely different topic.


----------



## wayman (Oct 18, 2009)

rnizlek said:


> The reason? "I'm spending too much on Amtrak." And that's with $12 promotional fares each way.
> How are we going to encourage train ridership in this society when the financial incentives are such that a highly satisfied and regular train rider has to move to driving in a single occupancy vehicle to save money? Even at the gas prices of last summer, the train would have given the car a run for its money. No one wins in this scenario, except auto mechanics, paving companies and perhaps, the oil industry.


What calculations have convinced her that this will save her money? I don't believe "the financial incentives are such ...". I believe she doesn't understand the actual costs of buying, owning, and driving a car.

Annual cost of a weekend round-trip every weekend (at this promotional fare): $12 x2 x52 = $1248

"The average auto insurance premium for residents in Vermont is $1,329 in 2009." (carinsurance.com)

Highway distance from Essex Junction to Windsor: 100 miles each way. 2x100miles x52 = 10,400 miles/year

Assuming a fuel-efficiency of 30mpg, that's 347 gallons/year. Assuming $2.50/gallon, that's $868 in gas.

PA annual inspection and registration costs about $100 total, assuming nothing's wrong with the car. I'll guess Vermont is comparable.

Toss in a couple oil changes per year at $30 each, plus some other minor maintenance (new wiper blades every now and then), and guess $100/year for that stuff total.

So far we're at $2397/year ... already almost double the cost of the train ... and that's _without calculating the cost of actually buying a car_. Say she buys a used car with 80,000 miles for $5000, and given its odometer and maintenance record, with her estimated 10,400 miles/year, she expects to get 10 years out of it. She pays cash, so as to avoid the additional costs of a loan. $5000/year over 10 years would be $500/year.

She'll probably need to buy tires at least once in these ten years (over 100,000 miles). That'll cost at least $400, possibly more if she needs all-weather tires which might run more like $600. But let's be generous and say $400, amortized over 10 years for $40/year.

And at some point, she'll need a major repair like a new radiator, one of those unpredictable things you have to budget for. Better budget at least $500 over 10 years for that, or $50/year, to be safe.

Now we're at $2987/year. The train is $1248/year, less than half the cost of driving!!!!! And that's assuming she gets a good deal on a well-maintained used car which gets great mileage and that she doesn't need a loan. Oh, and that's assuming gas is $2.50/gallon for the next ten years.

Say train fare doubles after this promotional $12 fare expires. The train is still cheaper, by nearly $500/year.

Train fare may also increase over the ten year period. But will it increase more than the rising costs of gasoline? By so much that the cost of taking the train exceeds the cost of buying, owning, and driving a car?

That's how I do the math. How does she do the math? If she's the betting type, let me know. I'll put a lot of money on this.


----------



## Tim_Metra (Oct 18, 2009)

wayman said:


> rnizlek said:
> 
> 
> > The reason? "I'm spending too much on Amtrak." And that's with $12 promotional fares each way.
> ...


The real solution is that we need to raise the cost of driving and flying to reflect their true costs. I propose that we raise the gasoline tax and jet fuel tax to a level that it pays 1/2 of our military budget. Let's not kid yourselves; our military is now being used to ensure our access to petroleum world wide. These tax increases would reflect the "true cost" of driving and flying. Do this and we would have nation wide electrification in a decade in addtion to full Amtrak funding!


----------



## wayman (Oct 18, 2009)

wayman said:


> Say train fare doubles after this promotional $12 fare expires. The train is still cheaper, by nearly $500/year.


I don't know what the non-promotional fares here tend to be, but this fare revenue plan from 2003 suggests $.25/mile is a typical fare. That would suggest about $25 as the non-promotional fare. So, by this, even with regular fares the train is still about $450-500 cheaper per year....



> The real solution is that we need to raise the cost of driving and flying to reflect their true costs. (Tim Metra)


While I don't object to that plan, I think we really just need to raise _awareness_ of the _current costs of driving_.

Have a look at the comments to this Lynchburg newspaper editorial on the new Regional train. Those who are anti-train think that it costs $50 to drive from Lynchburg to Washington, DC and back (or, at or just under the round-trip train fare for 1 person), because they only think of the cost of gasoline. Those who make arguments for the train quote figures around $200-250 for driving (round-trip train fare for 4), which are far more accurate. Until you can get the detractors to see _what it actually costs them to drive_ they just won't get it.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 18, 2009)

wayman said:


> rnizlek said:
> 
> 
> > The reason? "I'm spending too much on Amtrak." And that's with $12 promotional fares each way.
> ...


According to the IRS, your numbers are way low. The IRS calculates and allows a deduction of 53 cents per mile under the correct circumstances. They believe that with insurance, gas, maintenance, wear and tear, and other expenses that it costs you 53 cents per mile to drive your car. Multiply that by 10,400 miles and driving the car will cost her $5,512 a year.

And I for one would never argue with the IRS.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 18, 2009)

Tim_Metra said:


> The real solution is that we need to raise the cost of driving and flying to reflect their true costs. I propose that we raise the gasoline tax and jet fuel tax to a level that it pays 1/2 of our military budget. Let's not kid yourselves; our military is now being used to ensure our access to petroleum world wide. These tax increases would reflect the "true cost" of driving and flying. Do this and we would have nation wide electrification in a decade in addtion to full Amtrak funding!


Forget the military, we need to raise the fuel taxes simply because we're not paying fully for our roads at any level. I won't go into the state and city levels, but just at the Federal level for the Interstate Highway System we missed paying for things last year by $8 Billion. Already this year we've dumped $7 Billion from the general budget into the HTF to cover shortfalls, and it's expected to need another $2B to $3B before year's end.

That's on top of teh $28.53 Billion dumped into the DOT by the Stimulus package. And that barely makes a dent in the more than $200 Billion estimated to be needed to actually return all bridges and roads back to a state of good repair.

Most states and cities aren't in any better shape when it comes to local roads that don't qualify for Federal assistance.


----------



## transit54 (Oct 21, 2009)

Sorry I haven't had a chance to reply to this thread...she told me that she was being quoted at $42 a month for insurance by Progressive. Granted, I'm sure that's bare-bones coverage, but that was what she was working off of. So that's $504 for the year for coverage, plus the $868 in gas. I don't believe there's any taxes on vehicles in VT (I wouldn't know, I carshare) and I'm not sure what an annual emissions inspection costs. Additionally, the car can be used for other things - there are times that she might need to leave the area well covered by our transit service, or she might need to move objects not easily carried on a bus, etc. While the car costs more, it also has a lot more versatility.

Now, she's riding Amtrak through the end of the promotion, but after that train fare goes back to about $40 RT. And yes, there will be maintenance costs and things of that nature, as well as the depreciation of the vehicle itself. She admits that she'd be paying more, but not significantly more for the added convenience of being able to leave Burlington/Windsor when she wants, rather than having to work around a train with one departure a day. It's not that the train isn't cheaper (with normal fares) but that it isn't cheap enough to justify having such a fixed schedule. If there was a larger difference, she'd likely go back to taking the train. Of course, if the train offered multiple departures a day, she'd likely just stick to taking it. If transportation isn't competitive on convenience, it at least needs to be competitive on price. In my experience, systems that are very convenient (i.e. the NEC) can get away with charging a substantial premium over services that are not.

However, I think her case is a poor example from which to base this discussion. That vast majority of people I know own cars and won't consider getting rid of them anytime soon, if ever. To them the fixed costs of owning a car are sunk, so they only compare the variable costs per trip. That's where a fuel tax really comes into play.


----------



## volkris (Oct 21, 2009)

Before the punitive fuel tax, why not start by doing a better job of informing the public of the true operational costs of a car compared to rail?

Let's heavily advertise statistics and web calculators like google maps includes (or has included, anyway) showing how much that ride to the next town costs over and above gas, including the costs of oil changes, insurance, legitimately predicted repair costs, etc. Sometimes that number is surprisingly--even shockingly--high.

That alone might exponentially increase support for expanded rail, do it through honesty and without forcing peoples' hands.


----------



## DET63 (Oct 22, 2009)

I don't think that punitive taxes or showing people how much owning a car costs will do much to get people out of cars and into public transportation, be it trains or buses. Most people know how much a car costs; they pay for gas, maintenance and repair, licenses and registration, insurance, parking, tolls, traffic tickets and all the rest. If fuel prices go up, they'll curtail optional trips or skimp on registration, insurance, etc., as much as they can. Many trips that are made by car simply cannot be made by train or bus; people without cars will simply not make those trips, rather than buying a bus or train ticket. If they already have cars for those trips, they'll probably also use their cars for those other trips where alternatives are available.

I do think that, in some cases, the increase in passenger traffic would justify operating additional services (say a daily morning and afternoon departure in each direction) on some LD or currently infrequent short-haul services (like the Vermont services), but there would probably have to be some experimentation to determine which services would so benefit. When times are tough, and budgets are being cut, experimentation is often the last thing to make it on the table (and the first thing taken off).


----------



## AlanB (Oct 22, 2009)

DET63 said:


> I don't think that punitive taxes or showing people how much owning a car costs will do much to get people out of cars and into public transportation, be it trains or buses. Most people know how much a car costs; they pay for gas, maintenance and repair, licenses and registration, insurance, parking, tolls, traffic tickets and all the rest. If fuel prices go up, they'll curtail optional trips or skimp on registration, insurance, etc., as much as they can. Many trips that are made by car simply cannot be made by train or bus; people without cars will simply not make those trips, rather than buying a bus or train ticket. If they already have cars for those trips, they'll probably also use their cars for those other trips where alternatives are available.


First, I totally disagree with your first statement. Far too many people have no clue what it really costs them. I can't tell you how many people I've seen post in various newspaper forums that it costs them $20 bucks to do a trip in their car, because they're only thinking about the gas in the tank. Additionally, most American's actually believe that they fully pay for the roads and highways via the fuel taxes levied and license/registration fees. They couldn't be more wrong, but they do indeed believe it.

Second, while there are areas of this country where it simply is not possible at present to live without a car, it is indeed possible to do so. I've done it. Granted, I did it in the easiest US city to do it, but it is possible. I went for almost 2 years without a car, before I finally had enough money to get one after my old died. And that was before Zipcar came along.

Now I'm not suggesting that we should force people out of their cars either. I won't go that far, but it does gall me when I see people complain about spending say $500 Million to restore the 3C's service in Ohio, while living in ignorant bliss about the fact that they had their highway ride subsidized too. And they bemoan leaving that $500 M debt for future generations, while somehow not noticing that this year alone so far, we've added $35.53 Billion just at the Federal level to debt for our highways.

I'm reminded of the little Dutch boy sticking his finger in the dike trying to hold back the flood.

Yet another common misconception by many is the fact that buses can do anything that light rail can do for less money. They come to that conclusion because all they ever see in the news is how much it's costing to build the latest LRT line. But they never stop to do the math to see that it takes 2 to 3 buses to move the same number of people as an LRT car. They never stop to figure out that the average rail car lasts 30 to 40 years, while the average bus lasts 10 to 12 years, meaning that you need to buy three sets of buses to achieve the same results.

And they never stop to learn that rail is always cheaper to operate. One analysis that I did using numbers from Portland Oregon showed that basically after about 5 years of operations at their current levels, the city started saving $134 Million each year running LRT instead of using buses to perform the same task. The first 5 years, were spent negating the difference in captial costs between the buses and the LRT.


----------



## DET63 (Oct 22, 2009)

New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, and a few other large cities may have public transportation services that are adequate to allow people to do without cars. But most other cities, including some of the largest, have either bus-only systems, bus systems supplemented by one or two subway or light-rail lines, or bus and rail systems that serve the downtown pretty well, but are much less useful for people living in the suburbs.

Take Portland, Oregon, for example. It has an extensive bus system that serves the city center pretty well. It has an expanding light-rail system as well as a streetcar, serving several parts of the city, and eventually serving others. It has a commuter-rail system consisting of one line that connects two suburban areas, but does not go directly into the core area. If you lived in Portland, you might think you'd be able to do well without a car. But what if you want to go skiing or hiking on Mt. Hood? What if you want to go down to the Oregon Coast? You either have to rent a car, get a ride with friends, or hitchhike. There is relatively little and infrequent service (once or twice a day, at most) to outlying areas. If you want to get out of town every weekend, or at least two or three times a month, is it going to make more sense to own or rent a car? If you have have a family that has to be taken to soccer practice, school events, etc., even Portland's vaunted public-transit system will probably not be adequate for your needs. Your car may cost you money, but the alternatives are not going to be practical.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 22, 2009)

Exactly. And the discrimination that has arisen against those who do not or can not own a car must be stopped.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 22, 2009)

DET63 said:


> Take Portland, Oregon, for example. It has an extensive bus system that serves the city center pretty well. It has an expanding light-rail system as well as a streetcar, serving several parts of the city, and eventually serving others. It has a commuter-rail system consisting of one line that connects two suburban areas, but does not go directly into the core area. If you lived in Portland, you might think you'd be able to do well without a car. But what if you want to go skiing or hiking on Mt. Hood? What if you want to go down to the Oregon Coast? You either have to rent a car, get a ride with friends, or hitchhike. There is relatively little and infrequent service (once or twice a day, at most) to outlying areas. If you want to get out of town every weekend, or at least two or three times a month, is it going to make more sense to own or rent a car? If you have have a family that has to be taken to soccer practice, school events, etc., even Portland's vaunted public-transit system will probably not be adequate for your needs. Your car may cost you money, but the alternatives are not going to be practical.


Actually you couldn't have picked a worse city for your argument. Portland, even before the newest light rail line opened last month and before the commuter rail opened, actually has one of the most balanced systems around. Balanced in the sense that they move almost as many people by bus as they do by train. In 2007, last year for data from the National Transit Database, Tri-Met moved 223,265,805 passenger miles by bus and 186,540,535 passenger miles by light rail. I've no doubt that the two new lines will at a minimum fully balance things, if not give LRT the edge.

Now all that said, while I will admit that in my case I can indeed take a train (several in fact) to reach the coast. But I can't take a train to go skiing, technically. (I could ride Amtrak, but that's not a city service.) And we're talking about luxuries here, not necessities. In Portland's case, I've no doubt that people can indeed survive via their transit system.

If we were talking about some small town our on the plains, then yes, a car is a necessity. Heck, even where my mother lives in semi-rural eastern PA, a car is needed. I've already allowed for that. And I can tell you right now that I wouldn't want to give up my car, despite my options here in NYC. But that doesn't change the fact that many people can and do survive without a car, or with using it only minimally, and that many more people in this country can do so and should do so. It also doesn't change the fact that we should be working with all possible speed and fervor to give many more people that same option in our cities that currently either don't have any rail transit or enough rail transit.


----------



## DET63 (Oct 23, 2009)

> Actually you couldn't have picked a worse city for your argument.


BS. I used to live there. I have family there. I went to college there. I know what it's like.

If all you want to do is get around Portland, the bus and rail systems are probably adequate (though they do shut down at night). If you want to get out of town, the system largely isn't there. I grew up in a town 45 miles from Portland. At one time, there was twice-daily Greyhound bus service. Then, the service was trimmed to once a day, then, after a number of years, eliminated altogether. Other, larger communities around Portland have either limited intercity bus service or no bus service at all. Other communities similar distances from Portland have never had bus service, at least in my lifetime. (Meanwhile, rail service—where it even existed in the first place—had been eliminated from many towns as far back as the '40s and '50s.

But even (or should I say, "Therefore"?) most people who live in Portland and use TriMet to get around town still own a car. They may work in areas not served by TriMet buses, MAX light rail, or streetcar. Or they may work in areas where the service is provided, but still requires transfers from one bus to another (or bus to rail, or rail to bus), not a pleasant consideration given Portland's weather—especially during the fall, winter, and spring, when it rains . . . and rains . . . and rains. They have families or friends in areas that are not (and probably never will be) served by any consistent (more than once or twice a day) public transportation.

ODOT and other public agencies does provide bus (or van) transportation to some communities formerly served by Greyhound, but how much will the citizenry be willing to pay the taxes necessary to subsidize such services? My guess is not very.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 23, 2009)

Det63, you're thinking too globally. Yes, 45 miles out from Portland, Tri-Met is useless to you. You're not even in Tri-Met's service area. But for those that do live within Tri-Met's service area; most people can perform day to day functions without a car. Heck, most people 45 miles out from NYC can’t survive without a car. They may be able to use a train to commute to work, but that’s about it and they have to drive to the train in the first place.

Returning however to Portland, yes, they aren't going to the mountains or to the beach, but those aren't daily activities and that's not something that a public transit system was designed to handle. And yes, I'm more than willing to bet that there are many people out there who find it far more convenient to take their car to buy groceries.

But like it or not, it would be possible to survive in Portland without a car if one had to do so. That is the bottom line here. The system as it exists right now cannot be everything to everyone, but that is why Portland continues to grow their system and why they serve as a role model for how to get it done. Do I wish that they were doing it a bit faster? Sure. But they have been plugging along steadily and in the last 25 years, have more than doubled transit ridership and most of that is on LRT. The buses have seen minimal increases in passenger miles. In fact over the last 10 years, the buses have actually lost about 5 million passenger miles. That's insignificant against the greater whole, but the reality is that Portland now moves twice as many people by public transit than it did 25 years ago. That is significant.

And by the way most people don't run out to buy a car because they want to go to the beach or go skiing. They might pick a 4 wheel drive car if they are skiers, but they don't buy the car for just that purpose. We don't build transit systems for that purpose either. Those are luxuries and not something that is needed for survival.

So again, I stand by my statement that one can survive in Portland, assuming that one lives within the Tri-Met service area, without a car. Life will be nicer if you have a car for those things that aren't conducive to transit, but again you can survive and still maintain a decent standard of living.

As for your final question, maybe if the citizens actually understood that they are subsidizing the roads, and at a much greater cost, they might just decide to live with a small tax increase now so as to be able to reduce the Billions being dumped into the roads.


----------



## wayman (Oct 23, 2009)

AlanB said:


> But like it or not, it would be possible to survive in Portland without a car if one had to do so. That is the bottom line here.


As someone who spent a month last year living in Southwest, commuting seven days a week by two buses each way to an office in Southeast, and spent most of my days on assignments in a wide variety of places in Southeast, Northeast and Gresham, I wholeheartedly agree with Alan on this one. There were days it was great to have use of a company car. But I would never say it was necessary, and I went a lot of places (probably a lot of neighborhoods most Portlanders and certainly most visitors never go, for that matter).

Tri-Met was one of the best public transit services I have ever used, and I used it extensively. I can't even begin to calculate how good a value my passes were, I can't laud their fare system and transfer system highly enough (Portland and Seattle absolutely put Philadelphia to shame here), I was astonished every day at how clean every vehicle was, and at how comfortable and quiet the rides were, and I was quite pleased by the service frequencies most of the time.

The bit where the buses stop running for the most part around 11:30pm or so, that was the only downside; on the other hand, it was sort of an up-side for the staff, because it meant we had a decent excuse to close the Portland office at 11:00pm or so each night and actually go home!

So, all that said, would I want a car if I were to move to Portland? It would depend largely on the nature of my job and where I was able to live. I can't say "absolutely not!". But I would strive to engineer things so my job didn't require me to have a car and my commute worked well by Tri-Met, and knowing what I know of the city, I wouldn't feel like I needed a car for daily life.


----------



## Neil_M (Oct 23, 2009)

You are never going to get rid of all cars, remote communities are highly unlikely to be plugged into to public transport that you could not get by without a car.

Cites are the easiest hit to improve public transport so you can exist without a car, and is more likely to reduce the overall number of car journeys anyway. Ease of connections, frequency and easy to work out fare systems all help.

Even the Swiss yearly transport pass, which covers just about every form of rail, boat and bus transport in the country and all the public transit systems in the larger cities for less than $300 a month offers a 30% reduction on car hire.....


----------



## AlanB (Oct 23, 2009)

DET63 said:


> > Actually you couldn't have picked a worse city for your argument.
> 
> 
> BS. I used to live there. I have family there. I went to college there. I know what it's like.


By the way, the main reason for my statement above was the fact that you opened your post by talking about how many trains NY, Chicago, San Fran, and Boston have. Then you went on to talk about how most other cities rely largely on buses with a few trains thrown in and held Portland up as an example. Since I know the Portland numbers quite well, and as I then pointed out that Portland moves almost as many people by rail as they do by bus, that is what prompted my statement of Portland being a bad example.

Twenty years ago Portland would have been a good example, but not today. Today as I said above, it is a model city of what to do and how to do it. Even their method of funding transit is rather unique, at least here in the US (although NYC just copied their idea).


----------



## AlanB (Oct 23, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> You are never going to get rid of all cars, remote communities are highly unlikely to be plugged into to public transport that you could not get by without a car.Cites are the easiest hit to improve public transport so you can exist without a car, and is more likely to reduce the overall number of car journeys anyway. Ease of connections, frequency and easy to work out fare systems all help.


I couldn't agree more. Transit can never be everything to everyone. It's simply not possible. But it can be so much more to so many more, if only the US would work harder and faster at restoring what used to be a significant rail system 50 years ago. But somehow we've gotten hung up on the idea that the rails should make a profit. People have forgotten that it's called public transit because it needs the public's help to survive, not because it moves the public.



Neil_M said:


> Even the Swiss yearly transport pass, which covers just about every form of rail, boat and bus transport in the country and all the public transit systems in the larger cities for less than $300 a month offers a 30% reduction on car hire.....


That's an interesting idea Neil, the discount on car hires. Question though, do you mean renting a car? Or do you mean taxis, which some people refer to as hiring a car?


----------



## goodnightjohnwayne (Oct 23, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Exactly. And the discrimination that has arisen against those who do not or can not own a car must be stopped.


What "discrimination?"

Is it "discrimination" not to allow jogging on an interstate highway?

You bandy around words indiscriminately without applying standard definitions. There are many people in our society who have been victims of "discrimination," and your flippant use of the word is highly offensive. I would advise you use a dictionary.


----------



## delvyrails (Oct 23, 2009)

This Portland discussion is nice, but what does it really have to do with electrification?


----------



## AAARGH! (Oct 23, 2009)

delvyrails said:


> This Portland discussion is nice, but what does it really have to do with electrification?


The discussion went off track (excuse the pun). But what else is new! :huh:

It's common on this board.

Actually, it is relevant in the context of expanding public transportation (expanded electrification). Portland is a good example (or bad depending with whom you agree) of this.


----------



## wayman (Oct 23, 2009)

goodnightjohnwayne said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. And the discrimination that has arisen against those who do not or can not own a car must be stopped.
> ...


"Discrimination" is a term with a lot of meanings, not limited to racial discrimination, sex discrimination, class discrimination, and the other major categories you're referring to, one of which I suspect is discrimination against the disabled. There are many people who _cannot_ drive, whether because of a mobility impairment, a vision impairment, or a neurological impairment (such as epilepsy). And the way our society's infrastructure has developed, and the way it has dismissed many alternative forms of transportation, marginalizes and harms those people. That's discrimination. That's what the ADA was enacted to combat, though the ADA only addresses some of the problems with transportation that such people face.

I suspect you also include religious discrimination among your standard definitions. There are also people who _cannot_ drive for religious reasons. The Amish, for instance, and strictly observant Muslim women. Their right to practice and observe is protected Constitutionally, and while there is no Constitutional right to alternative transportation it can easily be argued that they are marginalized by society's disregard for their needs. That is discrimination -- it's not necessarily the same legally-defined discrimination, but the word's definition is hardly restricted to its legal usages.

And yes, there are also many people who _prefer_ not to drive. Some support public transportation for its economic benefits, others for its environmental benefits, and still others for how comprehensive public transportation reduces discrimination against the above classes of people. You may feel that it is inappropriate to consider these people "discriminated" against, and here I agree it is not a word usage I would have chosen myself, as I feel the word is most strongly associated with the long, difficult struggles faced by many groups in recent American history -- it's a very "loaded" word. But I don't agree that it is an inappropriate word, as far as its "dictionary definition". It has an extremely broad dictionary definition (here I cite Merriam-Webster). I think GML was well within this definition in what he said.



> Main Entry: dis·crim·i·na·tionPronunciation: \dis-ˌkri-mə-ˈnā-shən\
> 
> Function: noun
> 
> ...


----------



## AAARGH! (Oct 23, 2009)

wayman said:


> "Discrimination" is a term with a lot of meanings, not limited to racial discrimination, sex discrimination, class discrimination, and the other major categories you're referring to, one of which I suspect is discrimination against the disabled. There are many people who _cannot_ drive, whether because of a mobility impairment, a vision impairment, or a neurological impairment (such as epilepsy). And the way our society's infrastructure has developed, and the way it has dismissed many alternative forms of transportation, marginalizes and harms those people. That's discrimination. That's what the ADA was enacted to combat, though the ADA only addresses some of the problems with transportation that such people face.
> I suspect you also include religious discrimination among your standard definitions. There are also people who _cannot_ drive for religious reasons. The Amish, for instance, and strictly observant Muslim women. Their right to practice and observe is protected Constitutionally, and while there is no Constitutional right to alternative transportation it can easily be argued that they are marginalized by society's disregard for their needs. That is discrimination -- it's not necessarily the same legally-defined discrimination, but the word's definition is hardly restricted to its legal usages.
> 
> And yes, there are also many people who _prefer_ not to drive. Some support public transportation for its economic benefits, others for its environmental benefits, and still others for how comprehensive public transportation reduces discrimination against the above classes of people. You may feel that it is inappropriate to consider these people "discriminated" against, and here I agree it is not a word usage I would have chosen myself, as I feel the word is most strongly associated with the long, difficult struggles faced by many groups in recent American history -- it's a very "loaded" word. But I don't agree that it is an inappropriate word, as far as its "dictionary definition". It has an extremely broad dictionary definition (here I cite Merriam-Webster). I think GML was well within this definition in what he said.
> ...


+1!


----------



## goodnightjohnwayne (Oct 23, 2009)

AlanB said:


> First, I totally disagree with your first statement. Far too many people have no clue what it really costs them. I can't tell you how many people I've seen post in various newspaper forums that it costs them $20 bucks to do a trip in their car, because they're only thinking about the gas in the tank. Additionally, most American's actually believe that they fully pay for the roads and highways via the fuel taxes levied and license/registration fees. They couldn't be more wrong, but they do indeed believe it.


I've often said that fuel one of the is one of the least significant expenses associated with vehicle ownership, compared to depreciation/acquisition costs, insurance premiums and maintenance/repair expenses.

However, people owns cars because they offer convenience, and frequently pay for themselves by opening up job markets and reducing the cost of living. If you own a car, you can pay less for groceries and clothing, while spending less time acquiring those necessities. If you own a car, you can often take a higher paying job, while having more leisure time. Obviously, there are urban centers where the benefits are offset by other costs. If you have to pay thousand per month to park your car in a garage in Manhattan, the equation might shift, depending on the means of the individual.



AlanB said:


> Second, while there are areas of this country where it simply is not possible at present to live without a car, it is indeed possible to do so. I've done it. Granted, I did it in the easiest US city to do it, but it is possible. I went for almost 2 years without a car, before I finally had enough money to get one after my old died. And that was before Zipcar came along.


It all depends on where you are living and what your personal means are. I know people who own cars and live in the Upper West Side of Manhattan, the one place in the world where automotive ownership is the most expensive and inconvenient. For these people, the value of a car is in being able to access recreational properties in rural areas.



AlanB said:


> Now I'm not suggesting that we should force people out of their cars either. I won't go that far, but it does gall me when I see people complain about spending say $500 Million to restore the 3C's service in Ohio, while living in ignorant bliss about the fact that they had their highway ride subsidized too. And they bemoan leaving that $500 M debt for future generations, while somehow not noticing that this year alone so far, we've added $35.53 Billion just at the Federal level to debt for our highways.
> I'm reminded of the little Dutch boy sticking his finger in the dike trying to hold back the flood.


I don't support wasteful passenger rail projects, like 3C, but I also don't support wasteful highway projects, although in past decades there have been precious few expansions of the interstate highway system, with most funds going to upkeep of existing infrastructure.

Looking at the inextricable economic collapse in the rustbelt state of Ohio, I'm perplexed by projects such as 3C and the proposed Cincinnati light rail project that has even drawn criticism from civil rights leaders. These projects obviously aren't popular, aren't affordable and aren't likely to succeed in drawing sustainable patronage.



AlanB said:


> Yet another common misconception by many is the fact that buses can do anything that light rail can do for less money. They come to that conclusion because all they ever see in the news is how much it's costing to build the latest LRT line. But they never stop to do the math to see that it takes 2 to 3 buses to move the same number of people as an LRT car. They never stop to figure out that the average rail car lasts 30 to 40 years, while the average bus lasts 10 to 12 years, meaning that you need to buy three sets of buses to achieve the same results.
> And they never stop to learn that rail is always cheaper to operate. One analysis that I did using numbers from Portland Oregon showed that basically after about 5 years of operations at their current levels, the city started saving $134 Million each year running LRT instead of using buses to perform the same task. The first 5 years, were spent negating the difference in captial costs between the buses and the LRT.


First of all, Portland is not a typical example and light rail expansion there is more a function of politics than economic or practical considerations. There are a number of people in that city that subscribe to a revisionist theory of light rail, claiming that the interurbans and trolley of yesteryear offered some sort of pre-automotive utopia, when the opposite was true. The people who actually lived through the electric traction bubble generally had very negative views of street cars and preferred personal use automobiles. As a federal taxpayer, I don't support the sort of false, revisionist and misleading agendas that squander my taxpayer money on vanity rail projects in places like Portland.

I do believe there is a time and a place for LRT systems, but I don't entirely trust the distorted example of Portland. When the local economy of Portland reaches a breaking point due to the high costs of living and doing business in that city, we'll just see how the taxpayers shoulder the burden of an overbuilt public transit infrastructure.


----------



## Neil_M (Oct 23, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> > Even the Swiss yearly transport pass, which covers just about every form of rail, boat and bus transport in the country and all the public transit systems in the larger cities for less than $300 a month offers a 30% reduction on car hire.....
> ...


Yeah, car rental. Even the Swiss don't give reductions for taxis!


----------



## goodnightjohnwayne (Oct 23, 2009)

wayman said:


> goodnightjohnwayne said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


First of all, the ADA ensures accessibility in public transportation, not the availability of public transportation itself. To put it another way, no interpretation of the ADA, no matter how extreme, can possibly dictate that a municipality institutes a form of public transportation, or increases the level of service. However, the ADA does dictate access. If there's a bus or train, it has to be accessible.

Second of all, freedom of religion has no bearing on the issue of public transportation. The Amish have the same free use of public highways and streets that any other equestrians would have. Of course, I also don't see the Amish do ride in private automobiles, and other forms of motorized transport. I won't address any other religious issues, except to say that in the United States that women were early adopters of automotive technology, and there were actually more female than male licensed drivers in some locales at the beginning of the automotive area. Commuter rail stations typically had only limited parking until recent decades because it was customary for suburban housewives to drop their husbands of at the station in the morning and pick them up in the evening. I hope I've just killed a couple of false gender related stereotypes.

Last, it's a matter of personal choice as to whether an individual operates an automobile. Obviously we all live within physical and practical constraints. Having an anti-automobile personal agenda doesn't entitle an individual to special consideration. If anything, such extremist views undermine the argument for passenger rail and public transportation in general.


----------



## wayman (Oct 23, 2009)

goodnightjohnwayne said:


> First of all, the ADA ensures accessibility in public transportation, not the availability of public transportation itself. To put it another way, no interpretation of the ADA, no matter how extreme, can possibly dictate that a municipality institutes a form of public transportation, or increases the level of service. However, the ADA does dictate access. If there's a bus or train, it has to be accessible.


I never claimed the ADA itself required public transportation. I'm claiming that the lack of transportation options is discrimination against those who cannot drive.



> I won't address any other religious issues, except to say that in the United States that women were early adopters of automotive technology,


This is a religious issue? Or a gender stereotype?



> Last, it's a matter of personal choice as to whether an individual operates an automobile.


Please explain to me how it's a personal choice as to whether my friend P, largely confined to a wheelchair; my friend B, who has cerebral palsy and has limited mobility; my friend K, who is blind; and my friend E, who has epilepsy, operate an automobile or not. P used to drive, until her muscular disorder became severe enough that it was too difficult and painful to operate an automobile; fortunately, she now lives in New York City. B has never bothered to try to get a license, because she knows her reflexes are such that it would be tremendously unsafe even if she could pass a driving test; she relies on public bus systems and walking. K used to drive, until her vision deteriorated to near-blindness; there's no way she will ever pass the Massachusetts vision test for driving (or any other state's for that matter); fortunately, she lives near Boston and also has a spouse who can drive. And E used to drive, but was legally required to turn in his drivers license to the state of Maryland after a doctor's diagnosis of epilepsy following a grand mal seizure (and later found that California would not let him drive either); he too relies on public transportation and friends. Each of these friends would love to know how they can choose to operate an automobile! It would radically change their lives. Can you help them?


----------



## DET63 (Oct 23, 2009)

Well, this thread is going off in several different directions, so I won't pursue my arguments about Portland any further, except to say that, for people who live or work in downtown, and can use buses or one of the rail systems to get there, it's probably an excellent system. I've read posts by bloggers and commentators who claim the system is in fact a mess, but not having lived there since the early '90s, I can't testify as to whether their opinions are based in fact or are simply inflammatory political propaganda.

I'm just saying that for people who want to get out of Portland regularly, a car is necessary. (They could, of course, stay in town—especially if they *want*, rather than *need*, to get away—in which case they may not need a car.) If they're getting a car anyway, then whether to use it instead of public transportation for trips within the city may be more a matter of comfort and convenience than one of cost.


----------



## Neil_M (Oct 23, 2009)

delvyrails said:


> This Portland discussion is nice, but what does it really have to do with electrification?


Nothing possibly. Thread drift happens round these parts, other boards with a more restricted outlook are available.


----------



## goodnightjohnwayne (Oct 23, 2009)

wayman said:


> I'm claiming that the lack of transportation options is discrimination against those who cannot drive.


There is no legal basis to that claim.



wayman said:


> goodnightjohnwayne said:
> 
> 
> > Last, it's a matter of personal choice as to whether an individual operates an automobile.
> ...


You obviously didn't read the next sentence:



goodnightjohnwayne said:


> Obviously we all live within physical and practical constraints.


In other words, we all have limitations, whether they are physical, mental or financial.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 23, 2009)

goodnightjohnwayne said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Now I'm not suggesting that we should force people out of their cars either. I won't go that far, but it does gall me when I see people complain about spending say $500 Million to restore the 3C's service in Ohio, while living in ignorant bliss about the fact that they had their highway ride subsidized too. And they bemoan leaving that $500 M debt for future generations, while somehow not noticing that this year alone so far, we've added $35.53 Billion just at the Federal level to debt for our highways.
> ...


With respect, you need to keep better track of highway projects if you think that there haven't been many expansions of the interstate highway system, unless you mean by adding new roads that didn't even exist 20 years ago. But there are expansions going on all over, expansions in terms of adding more lanes. And there have indeed even been some totally new roads built, as well as others proposed.

Normally I would at this point direct you to this interesting link from Taxpayers for Common Sense, which details 10 of the most wasteful projects of the last few years. Unfortunately for some reason that link isn't currently working, I'm not sure if they're having server problems or if they are reorganizing their site.

One of the worst is the expansion of the beltway around Seattle, which is costing some $11 Billion just to add 60 lane miles.

As for whether or not a rail project is popular, I consider that irrelevant. Many people in Phoenix are unhappy with that city's new light rail system. But that doesn't stop 30,000+ people from riding it each day, more than was ever projected to ride it.



goodnightjohnwayne said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Yet another common misconception by many is the fact that buses can do anything that light rail can do for less money. They come to that conclusion because all they ever see in the news is how much it's costing to build the latest LRT line. But they never stop to do the math to see that it takes 2 to 3 buses to move the same number of people as an LRT car. They never stop to figure out that the average rail car lasts 30 to 40 years, while the average bus lasts 10 to 12 years, meaning that you need to buy three sets of buses to achieve the same results.
> ...


I'm sorry, but any system that double transit ridership is doing something right.

As for your Federal dollars being squandered, you couldn't be more wrong. Moving people 184 million miles a year is not a waste of money, especially when you're doing it for less money than it would have cost to move them by bus.

And that also applies to your final point, if they ever do reach the breaking point, they'll be happy that they do have light rail. You'll be seeing the cuts to the more expensive buses if that day comes, not to the cheaper light rail.


----------



## wayman (Oct 23, 2009)

goodnightjohnwayne said:


> Last, it's a matter of personal choice as to whether an individual operates an automobile.





goodnightjohnwayne said:


> Obviously we all live within physical and practical constraints.
> In other words, we all have limitations, whether they are physical, mental or financial.


I read both sentences. And they are completely contradictory statements.

For people with certain limitations, it is _not_ "a matter of personal choice".


----------



## goodnightjohnwayne (Oct 23, 2009)

wayman said:


> goodnightjohnwayne said:
> 
> 
> > Last, it's a matter of personal choice as to whether an individual operates an automobile.
> ...


Actually, the second sentence qualifies the first. Obviously, the operation and/or ownership of a personal automobile is both a personal choice and subject to the physical and practical limitations of of the individual. In Japan, you have to prove that you have an off-street parking space to buy most vehicles (except for Kei cars). That is an example of a practical limitation. I personally can't drive many sports cars because I'm simply too tall. That's an example of a physical limitation. We all have limitations, whether they are innate or imposed. The secret is to learn to live with those limitations.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 23, 2009)

AlanB said:


> As for your Federal dollars being squandered, you couldn't be more wrong. Moving people 184 million miles a year is not a waste of money, especially when you're doing it for less money than it would have cost to move them by bus.


Expanding further on this point (money not being squandered and higher bus costs) now that I've got a few extra minutes, here are some facts from the National Transit Database regarding Portland's Tri-Met system from 2007.

First, those capital costs that you're lamenting. This comes from Tri-Met's Fact Sheet. Tri-Met spent $1.652 Billion building the light rail system that existed prior to last month's opening of the new Green line. That also does not include the new commuter rail line, which may or may not have been fully justified and well planned. But I'm just dealing with LRT here, in large part because numbers aren't yet available for those two new lines anyhow.

And remember as I pointed out in a prior post, that Portland moved 223.3 million passenger miles by bus in 2007 and 186.5 million passenger miles by LRT. That's about a 20% difference or about 35 million passenger miles less by LRT. To move those passengers requires 532 buses and only 81 rail cars.

So if Portland were to decide tomorrow to maintain the same LRT service levels with buses, basically they would need to run out and buy 532 buses. At an average cost of $650,000 for a new 60 foot hybrid bus, that's $345.8 Million in capital expenses. But we're not done yet. The average life of an LRT car is 30 to 40 years; the average life of a bus is 10 to 12 years. So to achieve the same longevity we need to buy three rounds of buses. That brings our total to $1.037 Billion in capital costs.

That's before adding in the costs of new parking lots, bus shelters, and new maintenance facilities. I'll throw in what I believe to be a very conservative $100M estimate for that. So already, we've spent $1.137 Billion in capital dollars, only a bit over $500 Million less than what was spent on LRT. I won't even try to factor in inflation increases to the prices of the second and third rounds of bus orders.

Now, we turn to operating costs. To move those passengers in 2007, Tri-Met spent $207,701,265 running the buses and $73,656,174 operating LRT. That's a difference of $134 million. So after 5 years, the difference in Capital costs will be negated. Over the next 25 years, Portland will have saved more than $3.35 Billion dollars. That's double the amount of money that you claim was squandered on the LRT system. I for one fail to understand how saving more than $3 Billion is squandering taxpayer monies. Not building the LRT would have squandered the taxpayers’ monies.

By the way, those operating costs for LRT are all in. They include tracks, wires, power, cars, salaries, and overhead. For the buses, it does include salaries, fuel, maintenance, and overhead. However, what it does not include is fixing the damage that all those buses cause to the roads and highways. And they don't pay fuel taxes, so that entire burden also falls directly onto the backs of the taxpayer.

Now I will admit that I'm presenting a bit of a pristine analysis here, as no one is going to run out and buy 500 buses all at once. But the fact remains that Portland is saving tax payer monies each and every day it runs those LRT trains instead of buses. It costs them 93 cents in operating costs to move one passenger one mile on a bus. It costs them 39 cents to do the same thing on an LRT train.

Finally, let me also mention that the LRT recovers 39.83% of its operating costs from the fare box. Buses only recover 21.55% of their operating costs from the fare box. So not only does LRT cost less to operate, it's also recovering more of its expenses from the fare box.


----------



## volkris (Oct 24, 2009)

Discrimination is a hard thing. Why, just the other day McDonalds refused to give me a Big Mac just because I didn't want to pay. This discrimination against non-payers must be stopped!

EDIT: snarkiness aside, the point is that this sort of discrimination, meaning the literal notion of some having opportunities others don't have, is just a part of life and a consequence of the choices we make and, in the larger sense, reality. It's just a fact of life that often the world isn't going to be ideal for everyone. I don't believe the right solution is to punish everyone in an effort to make it equal, but that's precisely what's proposed when a person talks about taking away cars so that mass transit has more resources to work with.

We all have our faults and our challenges, and we all should do the best with what we have. All too many people give up and start whining before getting to the limit of what they could accomplish if they just hunkered down and dealt with the lot life dealt them.


----------

