America will suffer because of the budget compromise

[Neally]

Thank you for that pointless post. Why is it a boondoggle? Why is it a pork project?

Look no further than Amtrak for the answer. Despite the fact that the majority of trains remain fairly empty, government run Amtrak runs an abundance of trains daily. In fact, Amtrak actually loses money on 41 out of 44 of their train routes. Taxpayers are forced to pay $32 per Amtrak passenger to make up for these losses.

In 2009 Amtrak carried 27.2 million passengers. Amtrak projected in 1976 that its ridership would grow from 17.3 million in 1975 to 32.9 million by 1980. 30 years later, we still haven't hit that number.

If high-speed rails are so “needed”, why not allow the private sector to provide these trains? In the private sector, a train company will go out of business if they fail to provide a quality service. Therefore, private trains have more incentives to treat consumers well and run efficiently.

Most of Japan’s high-speed rail lines are ran by a private company, The Japan Railways Group. In 1987, Japan's railroads were privatized due to the failure of the government run Japanese National Railways. Since then, the privatization of Japanese trains has been a huge success. Under the government ran system, Japan’s railways were losing $50 million a day. Since train privatization, three main companies now earn massive profits, ridership has increased and accidents have decreased by over 50 percent.

You want HSR? Start one yourself or let a private company build and run it.

 

[Kestrel]

Look no further than Amtrak for the answer. Despite the fact that the majority of trains remain fairly empty, government run Amtrak runs an abundance of trains daily. In fact, Amtrak actually loses money on 41 out of 44 of their train routes.

Last time I checked, the profitable Amtrak routes were on the high speed Northeast corridor.

 

[Neally]

Last time I checked, the profitable Amtrak routes were on the high speed Northeast corridor.

Great, let the private sector pick and build the routes they think will be profitable.

 

[Kestrel]

Great, let the private sector pick and build the routes they think will be profitable.

Just like the private sector acquired the land and built all the interstate highways and airports serving our nation?

 

[TraneWreck]

The majority of that portion of transportation cost is already paid for by gasoline taxes. What's more, is that highways, roads and parking lots have to be designed for truck loads. Passenger car loads are typically ignored in the design process as their effect on wear and tear of roads, bridge design forces, etc is insignificant. If you want to break out passenger car costs and compare it to HSR, that's one thing. But what your articles fraudulently did is not accurate for what you want.

The majority of rail cost will be paid for by ticket purchases.

The point is that no matter what infrastructure we build going forward, it will not pay for itself and it will require government to pay to upfront cost so the country can profit in the long run.

For some reason the posters on this board think "inability to pay for itself" is only relevant for train travel.

Talking down to other people is surprisingly arrogant for a person who thinks cars are a fuel subsidy.

Cars aren't a "fuel" subsidy, they're a subsidy of the mode of transportation. The government subsidizes the automotive industry on a number of levels to make cars more affordable. Making cars more affordable makes travel by car more affordable.

SHocking, I know.

What you're talking about is not a subsidy. It's a "total cost of automotive transportation". The total, actual, subsidies, according to your article, is less than 1% of the total cost of automotive transportation. Most of the cost of transportation is the fuel and the car. That's 75%+ of the figures cited in your silly article. And the car is not a subsidy. Everyone pays for the car themselves. Most of the rest are some BS environmental, medical and law enforcement numbers. Which of course makes the actual subsidies of course miniscule, as I've already stated.

Again, the price of automobiles is kept lower than it could be due to government assistance. The automotive industry is subsidized. When factoring the actual cost to the nation of automobile travel, the cost of the vehicles is obviously relevant. That it isn't as large as the fuel subsidies is irrelevant for the purpose of calculating the actual cost.

If everything that was actually a subsidy were lumped back into the fuel price it would go up about $0.50/gallon to fully cover road construction with taxes rather than bonds. But once again that money is being paid mostly by passenger cars, rather than freight trucks which drive up the design loads.

That depends on where you are. Highways around Houston would need a $2.00+ increase on gas tax/gallon to pay for the roads.

And yes, freight is a massive issue. That's something that could largely be turned over to trains, which would benefit both the rail movement and lower the cost of road reparis.

It's not subsidies! Do you even understand what an actual subsidy is? Do you understand that people who have bought a car don't have to pay an extra $5-6 at the pump for a "car subsidy" because they've already paid for their car elsewhere? Do you understand that cars aren't the controlling factor in highway and road design? In the wise words of Samuel L: English , do you speak it?

This is just silliness. We are trying to judge the amount it costs to travel X miles by train or by car.

For rail, the cost of building the track is included in the calculus. We need to spend $X billion on a rail system, and ticket purchases need to cover this amount, otherwise it's a net loss, the argument goes.

For some reason road costs aren't included when we calculate the amount it costs to drive by car.

If the automotive industry wasn't subsidized, cars would cost more. If fuel wasn't heavily subsidized, gas would cost more. Add in regular maintenance of the vehicle and the total cost of maintaining a car to travel has a certain value.

When that value is compared to expendeture per mile of rail travel, we can analyze the cost difference. There are subsidies hidden in rail construction as well--such as the price of the component parts for the trains and rail--but it isn't nearly as large as with automobile travel.

I find it astonishing that you don't think the cost of cars is relevant to a discussion about the cost of travel by road. Is the cost of the high speed train, itself, irrelevant to the discussion about the price of rail travel?

 

[TraneWreck]

Uh-oh, tyr_13's going to get upset that you're presenting HSR as a substitute for automobiles, he assures me nobody is making this claim and it's a strawman argument if I bring it up...

Boy, you're really struggling. Once again, HSR riders will be made up of some number of people that would drive without HSR and some number that would fly.

There will still be airplanes and cars. But keep flailing around.

And, of course, TraneWreck is assuming that in 20-30 years cars will still be running on gasoline, a shaky assumption at best.

Sure, that would definitely change the equation.

I wonder if there's any cross-over between the groups opposing HSR and the groups battling against fuel efficiency standards, the ability of the EPA to regulate emissions, and other attempts to make vehicles that don't run on gasoline more economically viable.

The same hidden costs that make cars appear more cost effective than trains are what make it almost impossible for electric cars and other technologies to compete on the open market.

Moving away from gas fueled cars will also require government investment, unless you want to eliminate the hidden subsidies and have people pay $6-10 a gallon at the pumps.

 

[Dymanic]

Look no further than Amtrak for the answer. Despite the fact that the majority of trains remain fairly empty, government run Amtrak runs an abundance of trains daily.

As an argument against high speed rail, this falls flat on its face immediately. The only true high speed rail line in the US, the Acela Express, is one of the few Amtrak lines to operate at a profit. The Northeast Regional is busier, but is also slower, makes more stops, and charges less for fares. The two train lines together generate more than half of Amtrak's total revenue.

Thanks for playing, tho.

 

[Neally]

Just like the private sector acquired the land and built all the interstate highways and airports serving our nation?

No, like the government acquires the land via eminent domain and the entire cost is passed to the private company under contract to develop the HSR.

As an argument against high speed rail, this falls flat on its face immediately. The only true high speed rail line in the US, the Acela Express, is one of the few Amtrak lines to operate at a profit. The Northeast Regional is busier, but is also slower, makes more stops, and charges less for fares. The two train lines together generate more than half of Amtrak's total revenue.

So why not let private enterprise fund, build and run it? It's such a big guaranteed, long term money maker, plenty of companies must be willing to step up. The government is spared the risk and cost. The public gets a better run service.

 

[Dymanic]

So why not let private enterprise fund, build and run it?

Been there, done that:

"By 1930, the railroad companies had constructed, with private funding, a vast and relatively efficient transportation network, but when the federal government began to construct the National Highway System, the railroads found themselves faced with unprecedented competition for passengers and freight with automobiles, buses, trucks, and aircraft, all of which were heavily subsidized by the government road and airport building programs. At the same time the railroads were subject to property and other taxes".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak#Pre-Amtrak

When we collectively decide that a thing holds potential benefits to our society, we can (provided that the policy-making process has not been completely co-opted by special interests) craft government policies that will support it, whether that support extends to fully funding the thing with public money or is more a matter of clearing obstacles for a particular type of private enterprise. Conversely, when we collectively decide that a thing has outlived its usefulness to our society, or has the potential for detriment, we can craft policies that will make it more difficult for a particular type of private enterprise to thrive.

The central question is not one of whether HSR can be operated at a profit, or whether it is the government or private enterprise that should either gain from the profits or bear the losses. It is whether HSR would benefit our society. Your claim that the majority of trains remain fairly empty fails because you used this apples-to-oranges comparison in an attempt to support a prediction: that not enough people would use a high speed rail system to justify building it. The observation that the only existing high speed line in the country experiences ridership sufficient to enable it to operate at a profit is more about the ridership than the profit.

 

[Ziggurat]

Every specific proposed rail plan in the country could be a bad one, and that still wouldn't mean HSR was a bad idea.

But it would mean that killing HSR funding in the current budget isn't the mistake that Travis claimed it was. Or did you forget what the original topic of the thread was?

I never said that HSR was necessarily a bad idea. But it takes time to develop a good project. I know of no good HSR projects for the US right now. Killing HSR funding in the current budget seems pretty damned sensible. If someone can come back to the table with an HSR plan that ISN'T a cluster ****, then we can think about funding it. But I don't think that's happened yet. And you have never actually tried to argue that it has. Instead, you seem to have argued that because it's possible that HSR could, maybe, under the right set of conditions, be a good thing, that we should be funding it even though the actual projects which would be funded might be complete wastes.

THe states that are most closely aligned with your political and economic ideology require welfare support from the states that are least aligned with your political and economic ideology.

I would find that troubling, were I you.

I don't think you actually know what my political and economic ideology is, nor do I think you actually know what I would think about changes to that situation.

As for the specific source of funding, I have no conceptual issue with California footing the bill. Were this 1998, I would probably argue that they should.

But given the current economic climate, federal projects are exactly what we need.

Why is California borrowing money to fund this any different, in terms of economic stimulus, from the federal government borrowing money to fund this?

The HSR has the secondary (at this time) benefit of being a quality allocation of resources

Not the California system. It's a crap allocation of resources. It's a money pit.

The Federal government pays for the upkeep of the Grand Canyon. Explain the value of that expenditure of federal dollars to states that are not Arizona under your economic theory.

I don't think there is much positive return on investment from the national parks in a purely economic sense. They have non-economic value which I'm satisfied with. But I haven't, and wouldn't, argue for their funding based on the idea that they're generating a positive return. So this is a rather absurd strawman.

But then, you never can seem to resist strawmen whenever you argue.

 

[Kestrel]

No, like the government acquires the land via eminent domain and the entire cost is passed to the private company under contract to develop the HSR.

So why not let private enterprise fund, build and run it? It's such a big guaranteed, long term money maker, plenty of companies must be willing to step up. The government is spared the risk and cost. The public gets a better run service.

It's not a guaranteed money maker, it's a public resource. Not all airports make money, few highways run at a profit. It's a public infrastructure investment. The benefits are to the entire society, much like our highway system.

If we don't move some of the short haul traffic away from airports, the airports serving many of our large cities will need to be expanded. Do you have any idea what it would cost to expand or replace Chicago's airport?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Nuclear power isn't a money-maker either, yet the GOP loves to support it.

 

[Ziggurat]

A high-speed rail trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles will save 324 pounds of CO2 over the same trip by car. The same trip from San Jose to Los Angeles will generate 288 pounds less CO2.

http://www.bayeconfor.org/media/files/pdf/CaliforniaHigh-SpeedRailOct2008Web.pdf

I frankly don't believe that number.

It's 380 miles from LA to Los Angeles. I've driven this route plenty of times. My car gets about 35 miles per gallon (Honda Civic) on the freeway, so that's about 11 gallons of gasoline. It's about 19.4 lbs of CO2 emissions from a gallon of gas, so that's about 213 lbs of CO2 emissions per trip. That's less than the value they're claiming is saved.

Maybe they mean for a round trip (though they don't say that). Except I've almost never taken that trip alone. It's generally been two or more people per car, so per-passenger we can't get that number even with a round trip (which, again, they don't say, so it probably isn't). And for intercity travel, per-vehicle occupancy really is a lot closer to 2 than to 1. But, you might object, my car is very fuel efficient. Well, yes: right now it is. But in 2020, it probably won't be. Hybrids will be a lot more common. Even 30 mpg SUV's will exist.

Those numbers just don't add up. They don't explain how they calculate them, but whatever they're doing, I don't think it's an accurate reflection of what would really happen.

 

[Dymanic]

I never said that HSR was necessarily a bad idea. But it takes time to develop a good project. I know of no good HSR projects for the US right now.

What sorts of changes would have to be made to, say, the SF<=>LA project that would make it more palatable to you? I've said that I'm not necessarily in love with HSR, maybe you have some ideas that would make both of us like it more.

 

[TraneWreck]

But it would mean that killing HSR funding in the current budget isn't the mistake that Travis claimed it was. Or did you forget what the original topic of the thread was?

I never said that HSR was necessarily a bad idea. But it takes time to develop a good project. I know of no good HSR projects for the US right now. Killing HSR funding in the current budget seems pretty damned sensible. If someone can come back to the table with an HSR plan that ISN'T a cluster ****, then we can think about funding it. But I don't think that's happened yet. And you have never actually tried to argue that it has. Instead, you seem to have argued that because it's possible that HSR could, maybe, under the right set of conditions, be a good thing, that we should be funding it even though the actual projects which would be funded might be complete wastes.

Fair enough. I do, however, disagree with your assessment of the California plan. You've provided one study by a notorious anti-rail lobbyist that is rife with sloppy calculations and improper assumptions.

I don't think you actually know what my political and economic ideology is, nor do I think you actually know what I would think about changes to that situation.

Sure, maybe your the sort of guy who believes the deficit is a huge scary problem and we need to engage in austerity measures without dealing with unemployment, lack of growth, and the crash in aggregate demand, and somehow doesn't buy into the false economic ideology of the right.

Hell, it's possible I've confused your stance with others', my apologies if I have so done. I'm curious then, are you a believer in immediate budget cuts?

Why is California borrowing money to fund this any different, in terms of economic stimulus, from the federal government borrowing money to fund this?

There are a number of reasons from California's uniquely awful budget situation to the clunky referendum system, but the main issue is that the Federal Government can make guarantees that states cannot, and a sum of money that is enormous for a state, even one as large as California, is much more manageable for the Fed.

The primary benefit of taking on more investment right now is the insanely low bond rates. Those rates are low because America is the best source of investment in the world right now. The rates for California, alone, are not the same.

I don't think there is much positive return on investment from the national parks in a purely economic sense. They have non-economic value which I'm satisfied with. But I haven't, and wouldn't, argue for their funding based on the idea that they're generating a positive return. So this is a rather absurd strawman.

I agree with part of that: the Parks don't need to generate profit to be justified.

As of 2004 in 2001 dollars, tourists spent $660 million annually in Arizona from visiting the Grand Canyon. The National Park Service's entire budget for 2011 is $3.1 billion. Without updating the numbers for inflation, more than 20% of the NPS's entire budget is spent in Arizona businesses alone.
http://www.nau.edu/hrm/ahrrc/reports/Grand Canyon Comprehensive Final Report.pdf
http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/budget.htm

Now, there is clearly a loss for the federal government, the NPS only takes in about $190 million through tickets and other passes, but like the highways and rail systems, that loss is more than compensated by the economic activity that federal expendeture generates.

Once again, the point is that federal expenditures often benefit one region more than others. Because the states' economies are linked, however (as is evidenced by the welfare to the red states), increased economic output in one area benefits the entire nation, though not as much nor as directly as the specific locale.

Building a dam on the Colorado River, for example, directly benefits California and to a lesser degree, Nevada, but the amount of economic activity the Hoover Dam as enabled massively benefits the nation as a whole.

But then, you never can seem to resist strawmen whenever you argue.

I have no idea what you're calling a strawman. I'm arguing against the notion that a federal spending project need to have direct benefit outside of a given state to benefit the nation as a whole.

 

[TraneWreck]

I frankly don't believe that number.

[...]

Those numbers just don't add up. They don't explain how they calculate them, but whatever they're doing, I don't think it's an accurate reflection of what would really happen.

I'm going off of the math from this NY Times piece:

Cars average 22 miles a gallon, and contain an average of 1.63 people. Each gallon of gas is associated with 19.56 pounds of carbon dioxide. That comes to 0.545 pounds of carbon dioxide for each passenger mile, but I’ll increase that by 20 percent to reflect emissions from refining and delivering the gas.

All told, a 240-mile car trip produces 157 pounds of carbon dioxide.

So first, you're driving a car that gets 150% better gas mileage than average.

Using the NY Times numbers, the average car driving 380 miles will use 17.27 gallons of gas. Each gallon of gas releases 19.56 pounds of CO2, or a total of 337.85 lbs of CO2 in one direction.

The NY Times gives a number of 13.37lbs of CO2 for 100miles of rail travel, or 0.1337/mile. Thus, a one way trip will emit 51lbs of CO2.

337.85 - 51=286.85. So the study was clearly embellishing.

I would stand by you proudly to argue for better fuel efficiency in cars, but we've been moving in the opposite direction as of late. In order for hybrids and better technologies to compete on the open market, they will either require similar government subsidies to internal combustion engines (which will all revolve around oil, obvious the paid-for roads are constant) or the cancelation of those subsidies.

Even using your car, the HSR would save 160lbs of CO2 on that trip.

 

[Ziggurat]

So first, you're driving a car that gets 150% better gas mileage than average.

Right now, sure. But those numbers were projected for 2020. Average mileage will increase by then.

Using the NY Times numbers, the average car driving 380 miles will use 17.27 gallons of gas. Each gallon of gas releases 19.56 pounds of CO2, or a total of 337.85 lbs of CO2 in one direction.

The NY Times gives a number of 13.37lbs of CO2 for 100miles of rail travel, or 0.1337/mile. Thus, a one way trip will emit 51lbs of CO2.

337.85 - 51=286.85. So the study was clearly embellishing.

You also left out vehicle occupancy. And I believe 1.63 is the overall average. The average for intercity travel is higher than the overall average.

I would stand by you proudly to argue for better fuel efficiency in cars, but we've been moving in the opposite direction as of late. In order for hybrids and better technologies to compete on the open market, they will either require similar government subsidies to internal combustion engines (which will all revolve around oil, obvious the paid-for roads are constant) or the cancelation of those subsidies.

Hybrids already receive considerable subsidies. Even aside from the direct tax credits. And as long as car manufacturers have fleet mileage requirements, they will continue to receive subsidies. As for the idea that oil receives subsidies, well, a large part of the "numbers" backing up your claim come from the costs of roads and parking. Those costs subsidize hybrids and electrics just as much as conventional cars. Much more so, in fact, since they pay less in gasoline taxes, a situation Massachusetts has considered changing.

Even using your car, the HSR would save 160lbs of CO2 on that trip.

No, it would have saved 110 lbs. My trips had about 2 passengers per trip. That's 55 lbs per passenger saved.

 

[Neally]

When we collectively decide that a thing holds potential benefits to our society, we can (provided that the policy-making process has not been completely co-opted by special interests) craft government policies that will support it, whether that support extends to fully funding the thing with public money or is more a matter of clearing obstacles for a particular type of private enterprise.

Well I guess we can agree that HSR has potential benefits, it's just that we don't know if those potential benefits will materialize and thus we are talking about billions of funds at risk to find the answer. Therefore let private enterprise take the risk if they feel the potential reward justifies it.

The central question is not one of whether HSR can be operated at a profit, or whether it is the government or private enterprise that should either gain from the profits or bear the losses. It is whether HSR would benefit our society.

No. A lot of things might benefit society. That doesn't mean they're worth the cost.

It's not a guaranteed money maker, it's a public resource. Not all airports make money, few highways run at a profit. It's a public infrastructure investment. The benefits are to the entire society, much like our highway system.

Sorry, the justification for any new billion dollar public works project can't just be it's a "benefit" or it creates jobs, and when you talk about a "infrastructure investment" you have to talk about the return on that investment. You still haven't said why private enterprise shouldn't pursue it if there is such a need and demand.

 

[leftysergeant]

Well I guess we can agree that HSR has potential benefits, it's just that we don't know if those potential benefits will materialize and thus we are talking about billions of funds at risk to find the answer. Therefore let private enterprise take the risk if they feel the potential reward justifies it.

Private enterprise does nothing which does not put money in their own pockets. Government can and should do that which reduces the cost to society of structural or environmental problems. It makes more money for private enterpise to build more roads and open new areas of farmland to residential development. Since HSR cannot be developed without condemning private property, and private enterprise is notorious for not wanting to pay a fair price for that property, giving it over to private enterprise makes no ecconomic sense.

There is just so much less environmental impact from a rail line than from a freeway that that alone should be a good argument for building HSR instead of more roads.

No. A lot of things might benefit society. That doesn't mean they're worth the cost.

Worth the cost to whom? Whiney babies who think they are self-made men and shouldn't have to bear any of the burden of having to maintain the infrastructure?

 

[TraneWreck]

Right now, sure. But those numbers were projected for 2020. Average mileage will increase by then.

Maybe.

It's also worth noting that the electricity needed to run trains could also eliminate a sizeable percentage of the carbon emited during its creation.

Or we could all die in a nuclear Holocaust.

Right now lobbyists and the GOP are doing everything they can to destroy both emissions standards and the EPA's ability to enforce them. I see no reason to be Pollyannaish about gas mileage in the future. It seems almost equally as likely that the economic recovery will lead to more purchases of large, gas guzzling cars.

Or it could lead to the purchase of newer, more efficient cars. We'll have to wait and see, and much of it will depend on the regulations that are in place.

You also left out vehicle occupancy. And I believe 1.63 is the overall average. The average for intercity travel is higher than the overall average.

Say it's 2. Now trains only save 144lbs of carbon per trip.

Hybrids already receive considerable subsidies. Even aside from the direct tax credits. And as long as car manufacturers have fleet mileage requirements, they will continue to receive subsidies. As for the idea that oil receives subsidies, well, a large part of the "numbers" backing up your claim come from the costs of roads and parking. Those costs subsidize hybrids and electrics just as much as conventional cars. Much more so, in fact, since they pay less in gasoline taxes, a situation Massachusetts has considered changing.

Yes, a large part do have to do with the roads. I mentioned that very fact in my post. That subsidy is constant. Hybrids also benefit from the fuel subsidies and additional subsidies, as you mentioned.

It's the non-gasoline based technologies that are struggling to compete on the open market due to oil subsidies. It makes gasoline look much cheaper than it is. Not nearly as much as in the train v. car debate, but it still limits competition on the open market.

No, it would have saved 110 lbs. My trips had about 2 passengers per trip. That's 55 lbs per passenger saved.

Yes, I should have known how many people were in your car. My bad. I'll snoop around on google Earth next time.