Discussion on:

Amtrak's high-speed rail vision for 2040: New York to Washington in 96 minutes

How long is the payback (where fares from ridership will pay off the construction while maintaining it)?

If it's not *considerably* less than the expected lifetime of the infrastructure, don't waste any more time and kill it now.

...$40 to $300+ per passenger, I'd suggest the payback is "never".

It's incredible that it has taken this long - and that it will now take so much longer - 2040?? - for the major cities of the USA to become connected by high-speed rail. I say this out of a European perspective. But Halleluya that the plan is now in place. I wish it well and hope it completes early!

If you believe the cost estimate we have a road project (the Big Dig) in Boston I'll sell you. It went from $2 billion to $15 billion and rising over 20 years.

Even if this came out on time and on budget, $900 million/yr in profit starting 20+ years will never pay for $117 billion in investment even w/o considering the time value of money. The system could be self-supporting once complete, but the initial outlay is gone forever.

The problem is that unlike most other nations around the
world, our rail infrastructure is centered around moving
freight, not people. As such, the lines are focused on
heavy rolling stock moving at moderate average speeds
while our highways are centered around moving
moderate traffic at high (comparative) speeds. What's
happened is that cars became capable of outrunning
trains between cities up to 300 miles apart and planes
can outrun trains at longer distances. However, our
interstate highway system--which cost untold billions in
today's dollars, weren't designed or built for the numbers
of vehicles on the roads today.

Those billions of dollars could have been spent building
government-owned rail systems that would have been
just as efficient as those others in Europe and Asia. Now
we need to not only maintain the highway system, but we
need to reduce the number of cars on those highways by
building an efficient passenger rail system that
doesn't rely on using revenue freight lines. Those
freight lines all see passenger rail as interfering with their
own operating schedules and honestly, when a passenger
train can run two-, three- or even six times faster than
freight, you can see where they wouldn't like having to
stop so many of their trains every time an intercity
passenger train wants to come through. Rail efficiency for
freight comes from keeping the trains moving, not having
to stop and start every few miles. So literally, passenger
rail needs its own, private right of way. This will
cost money.

Amtrak currently says that the NEC upgrades could show
hundreds of millions of dollars in profits within 30 years.
This may seem like a long time to you, but try to envision
what your commute--your vacation travels--were like 30
years ago and compare them to today. If we don't spend
the money now, it will cost many times more that 30
years from now. Personally, I'd rather be making a profit
rather than just starting the project by then.

Not only could passenger rail make a profit, but by taking
those millions of cars off the road, the people who aren't
directly serviced by the trains will see reduced traffic,
meaning the trains are indirectly servicing those drivers
and reducing their operating costs as well.

It'll work only if they follow the necessary specifications for high
speed rail without cutting corners.

High Speed Rail is basically a Limited Access Expressway for
trains. That means no road/rail same level crossings, either the
rail goes over the road or the road goes over the rail, they can
not meet - ever. It also means the rail line must be fenced the
entire length just like a limited access highway, worse you can't
have any animal crossings at grade, they too must cross over or
under the rail.

Most developed nations have high speed rail. Europe has an integrated high speed rail system that offers efficient, comfortable travel to most countries in Europe. Japan has a high speed rail system that serves the whole country. Yes, Europe and Japan are much smaller, geographically, than the United States. Any attempt to implement a high speed rail system for the entire US would not be practical. But the north east corridor has similarities with other areas of the world that are served by high speed rail systems, which can make the plan both practical and economically sound. Saying that the plan will never repay the capital outlay without having any knowlege of the study reeks of the BIG OIL-AUTO INDUSTRY lobby that has been fighting any mass transit project since the 1950's. A high speed rail system would greatly reduce the congestion and pollution generated by the thousands of cars that are used every day in this transportaion corridor. Similar projects in every urbine area of the US should be considered. Less oil, less pollution, and much less dependance on the oil companies and auto makers for our survival.

That is great. but what about the south and west? The one area of interest that AMtrak should be looking at is generating revenue by connecting to vacation areas? Atlanta to Orlanda to Miami?
NY to Boston to Charleston to Altanta to New Orleans?

How about San Fran to Denver to Minn to Chicago to Nashville to Altanta and make Atlanta a connection hub where the people can go south or east! If they really want to be a serious travel selection, they need to think like business not govt!

Is this an April first joke. Fricken 400 miles in 30 years.
Here is a link explaining why I am so pissed
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/29/chinese-super-train-trounces-speed-records/
Please pay attention at the end of an article "8000 miles by 2012"

I'd love to see al of this happen, but I'm not holding my breath. I've lived in the Northeast all my life. and I've seen Amtrak continue to slide downhill. I've also ridden the Shinkansen in Japan, and I am unable to see Amtrak ever developing the level of "insulation" required to run trains continuously at over 200 mph through high population areas. Evertime some drunken bozo gets hit by an Amtrak train outside of Philly, the first thing everyone wants to do is lower the speed limits! You've got to be able to build a corridor over 400 miles long that is virtually impenetrable to humans and vehicles. I don't see that level of commitment to high-speed rail in this country.

In the "challenges" column, shouldn't terrorism be included? How do they keep someone from leaving a bag of quick-dry cement on the tracks? Presumably extra fast trains with lots of passengers would make a great target for terrorists. Perhaps one of you high-speed rail experts could set me straight on this...

gary

30 years to deploy this is way too long. The technology already
exists. To build out this infrastructure just should not take 30 years
and disrupt the whole transportation system during that time. There
has to be a faster and cheaper way to do this. I'd like to see this
done in more like 5-10 years!

"Plan would generate an annual operating surplus (yes, you read that
correctly) of about $900 million."
Well, that's nice. But does it take into account the amortization of the
original capital expense? Or do we throw $117.5B, which will take
Amtrak 130+ years to recoup with their 'operating surplus' of $900
million?

On time: 30 years includes a lot of time to conduct studies. It's not
30 years of construction.

On China: China's government, occasionally dictatorial in nature,
allows them to lock-and-load labor and initiatives without a lot of
time-consuming discussion. And their lack of infrastructure allows
them to lay a lot of track without a lot of hurdles. The difficulty of the
NEC is that there's significant population density, a highly used pre-
existing rail system and a lot of state governments to align.

One annual expense that seems continuously omitted in these discussions of high speed rail development is the $billions dedicated to maintaining air travel every year, not to mention the freeways, interurban rail lines, and subways built and maintained to connect city centers to the outlying airports. Then there's the time and productivity wasted traveling to and from those remote landing sites.
Anti-train wags constantly bring up the supposed subsidies for each AMTRAK passenger trip but conveniently ignore that air travel is EXPENSIVE and highly tax supported from every governmental level, probably more than any other transportation segment save walking.
On another aspect:
If this country weren't wasting 60% of the GNP annually on the bloated Defense Department, none of this would be an issue, and the USA could compete with any other country's high speed rail systems.
Just imagine if the entire expense blown in IRAQ over the last decade had been instead dedicated to our own infrastructure!

Are you kidding?

"Trains Good -- Planes Bad" Whoo Whoo (No Agenda from me)

Ridiculous!! Expensive to build, horrifyingly expensive to maintain, will be outmoded and underutilized even before complete.

The purpose of Government funded "high speed rail" it to let it fail so that private industry (Burlington Northern mostly owned by none other than the already richest man in the world) can take over the roadbeds and run for-profit freight on them.

Does Amtrak have a successful record with any line? Remember to factor in the costs of maintaining the roadbed not just operational.

Let me help you with a fill in the blank test:
Select which one of the choices below the Federal government has implemented both effectively and with cost efficiency:

I am from the Government to help you ___________.

A. deliver the mail
B. provide health care to the elderly and veterans and the poor
C. keep your food and prescription drugs safe
D. educate your children


Give Up? NONE of them ....NONE

So, you think government run Amtrak is going to provide efficient effective low cost transportation? Try on some British health care!

Oh Please.

Its hard to convince US citizens to use the train for 3 major reasons.
A. we're lazy
B. a car is a major status symbol in the US. The more exposure we have for people to see us in our nice cars, the happier we are. Why have that BMW if we don't drive it constantly and have people ask us about it and tell people we own one? If we all took the train then we can't be elitist. We're all evened out.
C. Instant gratification. We always want it right away. No matter what point in time, those in charge will say "what we won't get it for another 20 years, forget it". 20 years later "what we won't get it for another 20 years forget it". We could have had a great rail system in use by now. Even environmentalist shows the same impatience.

IN response to the comment about the subsidized cost of Amtrak - most people forget that the roadways are also subsidized - drivers don't pay toll on the vast majority of the roads in the US - all that road work going on is funded through taxes, and represent a subsidy to drivers. That subsidy is much greater than the Amtrak subsidy (I don't remember the exact numbers, but I'm sure you could look it up).

Another fine article brought to you by Hill & Knowlton...

"Trains Good, Planes Baaaaad. WHOO WHOO!!"
No Agenda...Needed!

This will never happen....for one thing, they will be bankrupt by then anyway, so why even bother....and cost? It's going to cost one Northern Virginia county over 4 billion dollars to build an above-ground metro rail 8 miles to Dulles Airport!...and that's above the original 3.6 billion that they *THOUGHT* it would cost...and that was only a few months ago! Look...we have trillions of dollars to pump into the middle east in the form of wars, but we certainly can do that *AND* build a world-class mass transit rail system!

1. We at one time had dedicated passenger rail service connecting most US cities. It mostly was scrapped in the 50s and 60s due to underutilization. I don't see it changing.

2. I do love the idea. Some major cities have in recent years reinstalled interurban commuter systems (Dallas comes to mind). They are expensive, but the bill has been mostly footed by the communities that would benefit. I have never seen one of their trains running empty. They are heavily utilized.

3. The amount of high paying union jobs that would be created and maintained during and after construction would be a huge boon to the local economies, especially if local contracts are bidded for the corridors (keeps the money local).

4. Good God... please don't let the govt run the project. They ruin enough already. Trust me, I work for them.

5. ALL your major railroads in the US were built by the companies that ran them. They had to come up with the money, not have it handed to them by the govt.

They make the decision to do it and go. No years or decades of
analysis paralysis.

Concerns of locally affected parties are not an issue. The central
government has the power and they don't care what the locals
think.

No decade or more of environmental reviews.

Land acquisition is simple. They just take it and "relocate"
(dump) the previous inhabitants somewhere else. No expensive
and drawn out eminent domain court battles.

Tom Friedman is right in that the Chinese have a lot of
advantages over us. But then again, we're not that kind of
country either, nor do I think we want to be.

Oh, and dAVErSF, yes, other forms of travel are subsidized as
well. But NONE of them is subsidized to the degree that Amtrak
is, to the tune of $30 to $400 per passenger per trip!

Why is it that the U.S. is so far behind Europe, Japan and China other than very poor government and labor union interference. China alone will double its high speed rail system, alrady with something like 2,400 miles of high speed railway, in the next 3 years (yes 3 years) while it will take the U.S. 30 years for a (gasp) few hundred miles. Three guesses concerning airlines and airplane industry payoffs to our representatives in Washington. If you don't think they are against rail travel cutting into their profits you have your head in the sand. Thier lobby groups (hundreds of them) beat the congressional doors down every day.

I think it was pretty clear.

Not much of a "vision" here, I agree with most of the previous commentators.
Quantum changes in perception, planning, sourcing and initial ownership of a project of this magnitude need to be achieved and spelled out before undertaking a generations-spanning and benefiting activity.
Point taken from commentator about 8 miles of above-ground rail at 8 billions current dollars translates into well over 400 billions for this project. (But this is within existing bottlenecks of planning and execution)
Another point brought up here, the disparity of using two service models on the same rail, i.e. freight versus passenger (using narrow rail curves planned originally for slower moving freight do not adapt to passenger requirements) is taken well.
And then the argument (rightfully so for all current practices), that all passenger rail services can only run on heavy subsidies: That is true for Europe as well and might as well be just one way for governments to justify their presence and taxing authority!
After posting the above caveats; Now here it comes:
1) Foremost has to be a re-thinking of passenger rail transportation. It has to be way lighter and more energy efficient than previous models:
A pod-like train configuration comes to mind. Only as needed the train gets added modules; all of which are made of high impact new carbon reinforced plastics. Seating and luggage allowance to mimic air travel.
Forget about Locomotives the old way, way too heavy! Either distribute propelling energy over the whole train or devise new lightweight pulling/pushing engines.
2) To accommodate the extra speed, lets follow federal highway lanes. Put up a second level above those streets-, no new land-gobbling schemes needed!
The mono-rail-type bridge-structures required will be less capital-intensive because of advancements put into place to lighten rail traffic as above mentioned.
3) Ownership during this transition phase should be with the US Government. Buy out the existing private ownership interests just like a bank bailout. Then do the job with ease because you are the Government, then sell those shares at a profit and let private interests do the running of these entities.
Looking forward to comments of my approach!(simplistic, naive, never done before, etc).

We have high speed railnow and it's use sucks. save the moneyto build and operate it.

A cost of $383 for every man, woman, and child in America.

The operating surplus likely doesn't include the repayment of the
capital to build it.

Rail is very noisy.

A much better alternative would be to install a permanent magnet
maglev Levx system www.levx.com, which costs between $1-2
million per mile for the track, is very fast and extremely quiet, has
much lower maintenance costs than rail, requires much less
energy to run than rail, can incline up to 45% and make sharper
turns so it can avoid infrastructure damage, and is US invented
and made.

The justification numbers by Amtrak are pie-in-the-sky estimates
that won't be realized, and the 'Big Dig' costs will soar.
Telecommuting dramatically reduces the needs to travel by high
speed rail. When the taxpayers had to subsidize Washington
State's 'high speed rail' by $500 million, it only will raise the
speed by 4mph to an average 52mph. And the added speed
was found to create TOO MUCH NOISE for some neighborhoods,
so they spray oil on the wheels when on that section of track.
Let's just say that the lobbyists and contractors took the taxpayer
for a ride on a system that only operates because of subsidies.


(And Popular Mechanics tells us that flying cars are just around
the corner! So I'll wait for that)

How are they going to do this when the train stops every 15 minutes?

NY to Washington DC? It would be like flushing more money down the toilet. The last thing we need is a faster way for congressmen to get away from DC where they are supposed to be working.

I say shut down the airport and interstates serving DC until the economy has fully recovered and the number of EMPLOYED US citizens is 75% of the adult population.

Wake me up when Amtrak figures out how to have reliable a network of MODERATE speed rail to replace airline travel within the US.

How much money do we have to waste on passenger trains
before people figure out they're a complete waste of money.
Forty-five million people live along this corridor; only 30,000
people per day ride the current train. People don't ride trains.
People only want trains because they think they will get you off
the road and out of their way. If passenger trains were a good
idea a private company would be doing it. Taxpayers should not
have to put billions into subsidizing ticket prices on a losing idea.
I hope the republicans will keep as much money as possible
away from these boondoggles.

Been Long overdue and laughable. Each year drag-on, the more it costs. Too much bureaucratic bs. and keep on postpone, talk the talk but nothing happen is what i think.

By the way, 354 km/h speed is pale by comparison to current avail top speed almost near 600km/h. What on earth was Amtrak thinking?

I take the Acela every other week, DC to Newark, NJ, about 2.5
hours. Regional is 30 minutes longer. Cut out some of the dinkier
stops and it'd far faster, but also less able to pick-up / drop-off
passengers and less relevant to some of its ridership. I am dead set
against pouring HSR money down a hole.

Wow, speed @220mph and ready by 2040.... Why not invite the French to built this, and
have it cheaper, faster and finished by 2020?

Hmmm, why not invite those horrible French to built this, and have it ready in 2020,
travel faster, more comfortable and cheaper too?

Let me see if I got this straight...

The NEC ridership is currently 9 million (per year I assume). so, per day they transport 25,000. So we intend to spend $117 billion or $4.7 million per commuter to cut their commute time in half? Even if they double their ridership, we are talking more than $2 million per daily commuter -- just to save them an hour or two.

This is why Amtrack and the U.S.A. is bankrupt. They are both stupid.

Commuters decide they want to commute, so why are we subsidizing their decision? I say, increase the ticket prices to cover the costs and let the people doing the commuting pay the bill or they should move closer to their workplaces.

Those 25,000 folks could cover the costs over 10 years for a paltry $1,330.00 round trip ticket. And that price would decrease as more riders scrambled to save an hour or two on their commute!

This same logic worked for the SST, that other great Euro adventure, where commuters were also not willing to pay a lot more money to save some time.