Faster than a speeding bullet (train)
I was very interested to see the story that former Harris County judge Robert Eckels is leading a group that wants to bring a bullet train to Texas, backed by Japanese interests. There was a previous effort to bring a bullet train to Texas in 1993. It didn’t come to fruition. The major obstacle to a bullet train is the cost of grade separation. Every time a road crosses the tracks, an overpass is required. The train travels so fast (205 miles per hour) that motorists who attempt to cross the tracks at grade level would be in mortal danger. The train is there and gone in three seconds. So grade separation along the entire route is imperative.
Back in 1993, the idea for the bullet train was that it would serve as a shuttle for American Airlines. Passengers would board in Houston or San Antonio or Austin to get to DFW. They would check their luggage at the point of origin and pick it up at their destination airport. I called American Airlines to see about the feasibility of this plan and was told by a spokeswoman, “Texas doesn’t need a train. It already has one. It’s called Southwest Airlines.” Indeed, Southwest does operate like a train. Passengers get on, they get off, new passengers get on, and every seat is filled.
The bullet train is a distant cousin of the late, unlamented, Trans-Texas corridor. The 1200-foot right-of-way for the Corridor was originally intended to service power lines, pipelines, and high-speed rail. If you thought the Trans-Texas corridor was an intrusion on property rights and raised the spectre of eminent domain battles along the entire route, imagine the fallout from high-speed rail as the train zips through the bucolic pastures of rural Texas. It makes the Keystone pipeline look like a Tinkertoy project.
The original bullet train idea failed because its backers couldn’t get the financing. They were counting on some assistance from the state, but the Legislature and the Texas High-Speed Rail Authority balked. (No surprise there.) The cost of grade separation along the entire right-of-way required $6 billion in bonds, a number that would be considerably higher today. I calculated at the time that trains would have to run at 96 percent of capacity, running virtually around the clock, to pay off the debt in the number of years allotted.
I went to France in 1993 with the lobby team that was seeking to get the franchise for the bullet train. (SNCF, the French national railway, paid for the trip, not the lobbyists.) Here is the first part of the story I wrote:
The little engine that might
Article from: Texas Monthly | April 1, 1993 | Burka, Paul | Copyright
I am living the dream. The bullet train is streaking southbound through the French countryside at 168 miles per hour. It is a misty January morning, and even though we are north of Montreal by latitude, the pastures between Paris and Lyon are as verdant as the Brazos River bottoms in May. I have no sense of traveling at a high velocity–until a jolt of disturbed air portends the coming of a northbound train. The blur is past us in the blink of an eye. Otherwise, we glide along the welded rails without a single lurch, vibration, or clickety-clack. There is ample time to take in the pastoral landscape as it slips by–the placid brook beyond the tracks, spanned here and there by wooden footbridges; the herd of sheep that takes no notice of our intrusion; the steeples on distant hills that are as prominent in rural France as water towers are in rural Texas; the vineyards at Macon, the fog over the river Saone, the medieval abbey at Cluny.
It is so civilized. In front of me, on a table that separates two rows of facing seats, is a plate stacked high with croissants. Another plate has packages of fromage–Montrachet, Gouda, Beaufort, Camembert, and Brie. A disposable coffee dripper is filling my cup. I lean back and extend my legs with no worry of disturbing the person across from me. Is it too early, I wonder, for some vin blanc?
The dream is that the bullet train can be transplanted to Texas, right down to the croissants. By the year 2000, if everything goes according to plan, we will be riding French TGV trains–the initials stand for train a grande vitesse, or “train of great speed”–between Dallas and Houston, with a Dallas-San Antonio leg soon to follow and perhaps a San Antonio-Houston link in the future. The thought is irresistible. No more cramped middle seats on Boeing 737′s, no more long waits in check-in lines, no more pushing and shoving at the gate to be first in your boarding group, no more seat belts, no more peanuts, no more worrying whether Hobby will be fogged in, no more air turbulence, no more banal messages from pilots that you can’t hear anyway because of the engine noise.
But the bullet train has never gotten on the fast track in Texas. Texas TGV, the company that beat out a German-backed rival for the Texas franchise in 1991, is under constant attack: for overstating its ridership projections, for understating its costs, for seeking public subsidies after promising it would not, for missing a deadline to raise $167 million in equity, and for failing to address the fears of Texans along the proposed routes that the fenced railroad right-of-way would amount to a Berlin Wall through rural Texas. In towns like Seguin, Franklin, and Westphalia, opponents of the bullet train have banded together to form DERAIL (Demanding Ethics, Responsibility, and Accountability in Legislation). They are backing a proposal to dismantle the Texas High-Speed Rail Authority and revoke Texas TGV’s franchise.
[end of excerpt]
* * * *
The biggest obstacle to a bullet train in Texas will be the opposition of rural landowners. (The same was true in France.) Farmers and ranchers will have to drive to a place where they can cross the tracks. They will need assurances that their livestock is safe. They will require access to pastures on the other side of the rails. Who is going to pay for that? To these questions one possible response is that it works in France. But Texas landowners are likely to be more outspoken than French landowners. One factor in the train’s favor is that it does not disturb livestock. The technology of the wheels and rails is such (or, at least it was the case in 1993) that the ride is silent and almost frictionless. We were told that the engineer could cut the power 25 kilometers from the station and coast the rest of the way into the station.
Aside from landowners, the biggest source of opposition to the train would likely be Southwest Airlines. Southwest lobbied hard against the bullet train back in the nineties. And by the way, Tx-DoT was no fan of the bullet train either. Transportation money spent on rails is money not spent on roads.
garyfan says:
Having ridden the TGV through France myself, I share your memory of the view, the peacefulness and the comfort. I would like love to be able to take a high speed train from Houston to Austin and back.
But, alas, as you say, in Texas it doesn’t make sense financially or politically.
Reply »
gblatham Reply:
August 17th, 2012 at 3:58 pm
garyfan:
I’m sorry; I must have missed the part where it was effectively explained that “in Texas [high speed trains don't] make sense financially or politically.”
Such a spurious conclusion sounds especially interesting coming from someone who just raved about “the view, …peacefulness and…comfort” of a trip by high-speed passenger train, and how much he’d “love to be able to take” such a journey between Houston and Austin!
The only thing here which doesn’t seem to “make sense” is your response!
Garl B. Latham
Reply »
garyfan Reply:
August 18th, 2012 at 7:37 am
Sorry If I confused you Carl. I was considering Paul’s remarks such as the opposition of rural landowners, Southwest Airlines, and TxDot and the need for extremely high ridership numbers to make this thing pay off. In France, the government subsizes these things. Do you think our tea-party lovin’ legislature will do the same?
Me neither.
Reply »
gblatham Reply:
August 18th, 2012 at 9:22 am
Not a problem, caryfan.
From now on, I’ll try never to confuse a “best” solution with one which is acceptable to our elected officials.
Moreover, I’ll make an honest attempt to remember this basic fact: ANY rail-based transport solution will automatically be held to the strictest of financial “profitability” standards – one which every other mode of transportation has never met and will never achieve.
GBL
garyfan Reply:
August 19th, 2012 at 11:23 am
Good, Carl [SIC]
Remember those things and these discussions will be a whole lot easier.
Don’t get me wrong. I like the idea of high speed rail. But I’m not the one that will confuse “best” with “acceptable” and insist on profitability. But then again I don’t hold any power to make this thing happen or not. Those that do hold the power are the ones that tend to insist on things like acceptable and profitable.
Reality sucks sometimes.
gblatham Reply:
August 21st, 2012 at 12:35 am
Not precisely.
“Those that do hold the power are the ones that tend to” DEFINE “things like ‘acceptable’ and ‘profitable’.”
Ultimately, what is “good” is what benefits THEM…and THAT is what they “insist” upon.
And, THAT is what “sucks”.
GBL
John Johnson says:
Why do you suppose that the Eckels group is pursuing a project that is financially undoable? Who would invest in such a project? There has to be a financial remuneration there somewhere or the plan would not have been resurrected. Surely, they do not expect taxpayers to foot the bill. Never going to happen. The mayors of Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Houston and San Antonio have to love it, but what does it offer all the rest of the state?
Reply »
gblatham Reply:
August 17th, 2012 at 4:11 pm
Careful there, John: “never” is an awfully long time!
Our society has successfully undermined our children’s future by insisting upon a “drive-or-fly” approach to passenger transportation, sticking taxpayer’s with the bill from day one and harming our social and physical environment in the process. Our progeny may not appreciate that fact, long term…and might do whatever it takes to change things, as soon as they get a fair chance.
Don’t worry, though. If enough people like you fight alternative modes long enough, we’ll be dead before any of those bad ol’ trains begin operating.
Feel better now, John?
I’m so glad.
Garl B. Latham
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
August 17th, 2012 at 7:13 pm
Mr. Latham, I would dearly love to be able to walk on and off a high speed train in Dallas and Houston. I use Amtrak between Milwaukee and Chicago on business trips. As spartan as the service is , I like it. I use the rail between the St. Louis airport and downtown. Also out to O’Hare from downtown.
In this day and time, the question is how is it going to get paid for? Paul says it would have to run full 24/7 to service debt. We going to subsidize it like Amtrak? The insurance man or rancher in Amarillo going to want to pay for it?
Unless our kids are stupid, or cost considerations change, it won’t be built in their lifetime either.
My humble opinion, of course.
Reply »
gblatham Reply:
August 18th, 2012 at 9:04 am
Mr. Johnson,
In this (or any other) day and time, I presume H.S.R. would be paid for the same way Amtrak covers its own costs: primarily through the fare box (which for that company averages around 80% – one of the best rates for intercity passenger train services, worldwide) with the differential covered by taxpayers, just like every other mode of transportation in existence.
Of course, you might propose making all roadways “toll” facilities (and therefore “profitable”) and all commercial airlines responsible for their own ground infrastructure and traffic control systems (among other things), letting the chips fall where they may. If that’s the case, a renegotiation of fiscal standards may be in order.
Now, that could be a good thing. Personally, I’ve been waiting to see it happen for a LONG time! If we go back in history where a level playing field in transportation truly existed, we’d find it was our RAILROAD industry who, exclusively, made money, paid dividends and faithfully sent taxes to Austin and Washington.
Regrettably, the domestic airline industry is having a real difficult time surviving AT ALL right now, even with the deck stacked in its favour. From most passenger’s perspectives, a truly level playing field for U.S. passenger transportation would do nothing but eliminate the air travel option for all but the wealthiest members of our society.
Oh, well; so be it. Maybe “cheap” oil will always be available, so we can drive our private motor vehicles wherever and whenever we want to go…right?
Regarding the potential stupidity of our descendants, it is human nature to view tomorrow’s “leaders” as somewhat deficient in the brain department, just as they tend to see previous generations as a bit foolish.
Finally, I don’t quite understand your “spartan” comment when referring to Amtrak’s Chicago/Milwaukee line. Perhaps a definition of the word “service” would be in order.
GBL
Tom says:
I took the bullet train from London to Paris, one of the best days of my life. That train goes under the English Channel, which seems to be a bit more of a hurdle than going over highways.
Bring it on.
Reply »
ATTICUS says:
An entertaining idea but you have to wonder how a Texas group led by Eckels could ever accomplish it. My guess is — follow the money. Who stands to profit the most?
Reply »
Joe Biden says:
HOPE AND CHAINS FOLKS! That’s what this race is all about. Me and Barack are givin’ you hope and all them evil Republicans want to do is PUT YOU BACK IN CHAINS! You best be votin’ for Barack or y’all’ll be sorry!
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Was the stupid ass Wright Amendment ever fully repealed? Talk about crony capitalism.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
August 17th, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Nope…come up here to the metroplex and check out DFW airport. AA has a monopoly unlike CO had in Houston, or Delta has in Atlanta. The cost per air mile going in almost any direction is higher than out of Houston, Atlanta or Chicago. AA makes a chunk of money off of DFW business people. They allow a few competing flights to any given destination, but if they get too big for their britches, AA has dropped fares and run them off.
We now have all the carriers consolidating and dividing up the pie. As soon as the AA bankruptcy is completed, and question of whether or not they will merge with USAirways is anwered, watch what the fares are going to do.
If we want to fly on SW, to almost anywhere, we have to have a stop somewhere in between. It is an absolute joke, and SW and AA got just what they wanted…their own little protected areas.
Reply »
Ben to Disneyland says:
As long as we’re dreaming and living in a world where money grows on trees in China, why not build a high-speed monorail.
Reply »
Tim says:
I would love to see the competition that would result from having high-speed rail. Suddenly airlines would have a much greater incentive to make sure connections are made lest their customers get on a train.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
August 17th, 2012 at 1:00 pm
Keep on dreaming.
Reply »
gblatham Reply:
August 17th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
We will, “anonymous”; thanks.
Garl B. Latham
Reply »
Distinguished Gentleman says:
This bullet train proposal reeks of the late (and not so great) Ric Williamson.
Reply »
gblatham Reply:
August 17th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
In what way, “Distinguished”? Ric didn’t like trains.
Rail-based technologies were included as part of the Trans-Texas Corridor only as window-dressing.
Garl B. Latham
Reply »
gblatham Reply:
August 17th, 2012 at 5:04 pm
paulburka:
I’m not sure why your comment regarding Ric Williamson and the T.T.C. ended up where it did…
At any rate, you said:
“When the Trans-Texas Corridor was still just a gleam in [Williamson's] eye, he sat down with me and talked me through it. Rail was a big part of the plan.”
So,
Did Williamson really not know any better? Did he know and simply not care? Was it all just a ruse for the sake of marketing?
The only segment of roadway built (to date) using T.T.C. specs is the Texas 130 toll road (a.k.a. “Pickle Parkway”). There isn’t a railway in the the world, from conventional dual purpose to true high-speed, which could use that alignment for the operation of trains. The route’s engineering is completely wrong!
I repeatedly informed/reminded/accused Tex-DOT officials of things such as this from the earliest days of their T.T.C. hearings and public forums.
Williamson was nobody’s fool. He knew.
Garl B. Latham
Reply »
gblatham Reply:
August 17th, 2012 at 5:25 pm
Another thing, Paul:
If trains were such “a big part of the [T.T.C.] plan,” why did Tex-DOT publicly state there wouldn’t even be any PLANNING done toward the inclusion of those components until the several corridors had already been in operation for at least twenty-five YEARS?!
Garl
Tom says:
High speed trains are already operating at near capacity between Washington D.C., New York City and Boston.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
August 18th, 2012 at 12:28 am
It’s not ‘true’ high-speed, though — Acela uses the existing tracks and can get up to 130 mph, but not in all sections because it has to share trackage with lower-speed regional trains, commuter rail and even some freight lines. Amtrak’s got a meeting scheduled Monday to discuss a real high-speed corridor for the northeast, but some of those plans include fanciful options like a six-mile tunnel under central Philadelphia, because the current twisting rail line though west Philly has at least one section where 30 mph is about the max speed any train can go.
Texas’ problem with the Houston-Dallas corridor isn’t just the ROW, its that the population density that would justify the line doesn’t follow the I-45 route — to make a go of it, it would have to follow I-35 to Waco and then Highway 6 from there to Houston via Bryan-College Station. That gives you the limited number of in-between stops with gaps of about 100 miles that doesn’t negate the justification for the dedicated line, but adds on potential rail passenger traffic in mid-sized cities that Southwest doesn’t touch.
It also allows for shared HSR trackage on 100 or so miles of the I-35 corridor, though the Georgetown-San Antonio segment would be a nightmare to find decent right-of-way. Maybe not as tough as Amtrak finding that between Washington and Boston, but not cheap — and as mentioned above, using the Texas 130 route would cut down on a lot of the speed advantages (I’d be shocked if TxDOT actually is able to follow through on even the 80 mph plans for the southern section, which zig-zags all over the place from south of Austin to Segiun).
Reply »
Gen. Sam Houston says:
The Wright Amendment repeal signed by President Bush is fully effective in 2014. The transition time was part of negotiations, which were complex and multi-faceted. Anyone who thinks undoing an entrenched law — with this many constituencies and often-conflicting policy concerns — is uninformed. E.g., North Dallas doesn’t want a full-blown international airport, and Ft. Worth doesn’t want DFW weakened. It’s a miracle the repeal got done at all.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
August 17th, 2012 at 3:35 pm
I’m not uninformed. I was around when the Wright Amendment got pushed through. It was crap then, and it is crap now.
Reply »
gblatham Reply:
August 17th, 2012 at 4:25 pm
I’ve gotta go with “Anonymous” on this one, Gen.
Jim Wright was a representative of the taxpayer, looking after the taxpayer’s investments. Fort Worth feared that a healthy Love Field would undermine the big airport. Period.
My question is pretty simple: if the Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Airport was truly necessary, why did the taxpayer become involved at all? We’re supposed to leave that sort of big-ticket development to private enterprise, right?!
Garl B. Latham
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
August 17th, 2012 at 4:29 pm
Not true re Williamson. When the Trans-Texas Corridor was still just a gleam in his eye, he sat down with me and talked me through it. Rail was a big part of the plan.
Bill51 Reply:
August 20th, 2012 at 12:34 pm
Postal routes, canals, transcontinental railroads, ports, airports and highways were developed with federal participation to develop the national economy. Do we want to undertake new projects (with massive costs) that would compete with existing infrastructure at a time when we don’t provide enough to maintain what we’ve got? Please take a look at the current cost estimates for California HSR and tell me you think it meets a cost/benefit test.
gblatham Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 9:54 pm
Yes, Bill…
And with the exception of the aforementioned railroads, we taxpayers have been on the hook ever since.
So, what’s your point? Because our “leaders” have proven themselves inept, we should simply stop attempting to improve our lot? Because so many Libertarians-by-another-name have hijacked public discourse, we should just sit back and allow the anti-tax drones to unduly influence public policy? Because the U.S. lacks a comprehensive national transportation policy, we must pretend things like multi-modalism (much less true intermodalism) really don’t exist?!
I’ve already attempted to post links to some of my essays – to no avail. I’ve also attempted to contact the moderators in an effort to work around the site restrictions – and have yet to receive a response. Suffice to say I support a “walk-before-you-run” approach to these things…something which would easily pass your “cost/benefit test” with flying colours.
Go to any internet search engine and type in my name, Garl Latham, along with a phrase like high speed rail. You’ll probably get a pretty good idea of my passenger transport desires for Texas – and North America.
Garl B. Latham
Dallas
Gen. Sam Houston Reply:
August 17th, 2012 at 4:42 pm
I’m not saying the Wright Amendment was good policy. I opposed it as well. All I’m saying is that undoing an established law is not easy. It won’t be easy to shut down Obamacare, and it wasn’t easy to repeal Wright.
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
August 19th, 2012 at 2:05 pm
the first thing that should have been done when DFW was built- demolish Love Field. Problem solved.
Bill says:
If they try to build the high-speed rail in Texas, it will end up being as big a boondoggle as the SCSC was in the 90′s. The only difference being that the SCSC was underground and largely invisible. The high-speed rail lines will just sit there and rust out in the open for everyone to see.
Reply »
gblatham Reply:
August 17th, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Congratulations, Bill!
You were the first respondent to use the pejorative “boondoggle”!
Of course, the S.C.S.C. wouldn’t have been a failure, had it been completed – nor is there an H.S.R. project anywhere in the world suffering from rusty rails; but, why let a few measly facts come between a man and his ideology?!
Garl B. Latham
Reply »
Blue Reply:
August 17th, 2012 at 4:56 pm
It was utterly shortsighted for the Feds to kill SCSC.
Reply »
Blackfriar says:
Won’t this fast train scare all the cattle? Will milk cows stop producing milk from these trains passing by so quickly and scaring them? Also, will this mean fewer people driving cars and spending money on gasoline, a major product made here in Texas?
Reply »
Dollars and Sense says:
1) Hourly flights between Dallas and Houston.
2) Any two points nearer each other and driving your own car is the faster option.
3) They better build an interstate between Austin and Houston before wasting money on a train.
4) And maybe one of my favorites… “If you want right of way through my county you better make a stop here,” said rural County Judge Jones and rural County Judge Smith and rural Mayor Brown. Which of course makes a high speed train a very expensive and pokey Amtrak.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Like gbl I think there is a place for rail in the Texas transportation mix but I’ve never understood how a downtown to downtown bullet train with a couple of airport stops fits our situation. The AA comment about how Texas has a train and it’s called SW Airlines seems spot on if that’s the sort of train you’re talking about.
But I can see where you could run a mix of express, limited, and local trains along and in a couple of cases through the Texas Triangle and if you locate the lines and stops properly you could create a lot of wealth and benefit a lot of people along and especially within the Texas Triangle.
Our two mammoth (DFW, Greater Houston) and two large (Austin and San Antonio) metropolitan areas would benefit greatly from running in the Triangle lines in such a way that they could do double duty as regional and local transportation lines. And people in or along the Triangle who are at the very least inconvenienced by having a line running through or along their property may feel differently about the whole enterprise if by driving five to 35 miles or so they could get on a train themselves and go to and to some extent get around in one of the metro areas
Reply »
gblatham says:
Yep,
The ideologues are out in force.
So…
1. Make sure the trains are also designed to directly serve markets airplanes tend to (or must) avoid, such as downtown areas and certain major intermediate points (College Station, anyone?!).
2. What about the proverbial traffic jam? All modes can incur delays, but they happen most frequently in the world of motor vehicles.
3. Of course; how daft of me! Relatively inexpensive petroleum products will always remain available (and to blazes with anyone who doesn’t own an automobile)! Let’s not consider the future; let’s just BUILD MORE ROADS!!
4. Ever hear of a “local”? Railroads are interesting creatures: the same infrastructure that can ably support multiple daily express trains between major population centres can also serve smaller hamlets once or twice a day (presuming Smith and Brown can relay wield that much power).
A panacea does not exist, but by arbitrarily eliminating trains from our passenger transport mix, we’re shortchanging ourselves!
Garl B. Latham
Reply »
Travis Reply:
August 17th, 2012 at 9:15 pm
I live in Austin and rarely go to Dallas. It’s just not worth the traffic and the 18-wheelers. Even going to San Antonio is irritating.
High speed rail would be a huge economic development boost. How come the powers that be can’t see that?
Reply »
Eyeswideopen Reply:
August 18th, 2012 at 7:32 am
Go get on Amtrak.
Reply »
gblatham Reply:
August 18th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
…which many of us do, Eyes.
In fact, the scheduled running time for Amtrak’s current service between San Marcos and Fort Worth is only about one hour longer than a parallel journey along Interstate 35 under ideal circumstances – and with the requisite dining, lounge and first class services offered by the train, there are some (including me) who prefer the rail-based option.
The main problem in using Amtrak for an interstate trip along this corridor is the lack of frequency (only one train each way, daily), followed by the circuitous routes taken through both the San Antonio and Dallas areas.
For less than 10% of what a true high-speed line between San Antonio and Dallas would cost, the existing “Inter-American” route (used by today’s Texas Eagle) could be greatly improved, with approximately 5:30 running times between terminals (including several intermediate stops), multiple daily frequencies, convenient transit and airfield connections, and a wide variety of on-board and station services. Accomplishing these improvements in conjunction with projects like the proposed Lone Star Rail regional service between San Antonio and Georgetown would give us the best bang-for-the-buck.
This endeavour’s overall level of success would give us clear indication as to the way we might proceed regarding true H.S.R.
Garl
John Johnson says:
I see that your compulsion is railroads, Mr. Latham. You’ve made your feelings clear about your unwavering support. The only question you haven’t answered is how HSR is paid for. Forget all the other negatives posed. Just answer this one. Where does the money come from? Drop the sarcasm and answer this question. Come up with something reasonable and thought provoking and you might garner some support and change some minds.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
August 17th, 2012 at 9:05 pm
JJ, this is anonymous at 5:41 PM and I don’t know if in the final analysis there’s a good business case to be made but I’ll try to lay out the approach I’d take a good hard look at. If it turns out the numbers make sense then good; if not then don’t do it.
First, I think this will never work without the government exercising or giving some private entity the power to exercise eminent domain to buy up the right of way. At the very least, the only thing that justifies using eminent domain is if this project is a public good. I think that what makes sense for Texas and would be a public good would be intelligently laid out rail lines with rail stops that can be used by a lot of people for local, regional, and inter urban transportation in and on the Texas Triangle defined by DFW, Greater Houston, and San Antonio. (And if the numbers make sense maybe you can also run packages between cities and agricultural products into the cities at night.)
I think that would help create a lot of wealth, and some but not all of that wealth would be expressed in the form of higher land prices near the stops. So in addition to granting the power of eminent domain only if the project is undertaken for the public good in a way that would help create a lot of wealth, I’d look at finding a way to capture some of the wealth the project creates by using something like tax increment financing. It might require a state constitutional amendment to do it right.
I’ll use completely arbitrary numbers just to illustrate the idea and have something to talk about. Suppose people who know what they’re doing study the matter and decide that land within five miles of a stop in urban areas, within 15 miles of a stop in the exurbs, and within 25 miles of a stop out in the countryside will very likely have an appreciable increase in value due to the Texas triangle rail project, and that over the next 40 years it will be more than fair to attribute 30% of the increase in land value to the train network. Then I’d look at doing a tax increment financing mechanism where, whatever extra tax revenues local taxing units receive from ad valorem taxes due solely to increased land values, I’d want 30% of the increased taxes due to increased land values from the local taxing authorities over the next 40 years to help finance the project.
So under these arbitrary numbers if a piece of land 20 miles from Columbus, Texas (let’s suppose there’s a stop in Columbus that will get you pretty quickly to the Galleria area, the Texas Medical Center, and downtown Houston going east and to downtown San Antonio, and with a transfer Brackenridge Park, the San Antonio airport, and downtown Austin going west and after the transfer north) is worth $400,000 and the annual local property taxes are $10,000 when the project is announced; and five years later it’s worth $500,000 and the local taxes are $12,500 solely due to the increase in value then I’d take 30% of the $2500 increase in taxes from the local taxing authorities and apply that $750 to the project; and 20 years later if that property is worth $600,000 and the taxes have gone up to $15,000 solely due to the increased value, I’d take 30% of the $5000 increase in taxes from the local taxing authority and apply that $1500 to the project.
I’d issue bonds payable solely from those tax increment revenues. And I’d say to the private sector, here’s your eminent domain authority and your public money contingent on you siting the lines and stops under these strict parameters and operating the system under these not quite as strict parameters as a public good to maximize Texas wealth. Meet the parameters and then your judgment about the market takes over, go forth and make money if you can.
If the numbers make sense and there are any takers, good. If not, don’t do it. I’d be really interested in knowing whether people who know what they’re talking about think that idea would work as a practical and political matter.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
August 18th, 2012 at 7:41 am
Thought provoking, Sir, but the process is so speculative and open to stout rebuttals, I just can’t see it happening. Especially not in this current economic environment.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
August 18th, 2012 at 9:55 am
Personally I think the current political environment is more of a problem than the economic environment. And of course it cannot remain speculative and actually happen. People who want it to happen would have to do a lot of work to figure out whether the numbers make sense. It would take a lot of hard work to make it more than speculation.
gblatham Reply:
August 18th, 2012 at 10:57 am
Dear Mr. Johnson,
I sincerely trust my support of rail-based technology is not based upon a literal “compulsion,” any more than your apparent fixation upon fiscal matters might be viewed as such.
I must say, however, that our starting point can NOT be money (or the presumed lack, thereof).
Instead, we must first decide where we are today, where we’d like to be tomorrow, and the various ways our future-minded goals might be achieved.
The U.S. has never developed a true national transportation policy – not once in 236 years! THAT is out starting point; THAT is where our initial, foundational decisions must be reached!
In fact, I’m absolutely convinced we need something more along the lines of a comprehensive transportation/energy/environmental policy, in place, BEFORE we commit ANY funds toward ANY new projects!
If passenger trains (of any sort) are a bad idea, then even one dollar of taxpayer’s money would be too much to spend in making the idea become reality.
Conversely, if trains ARE a good idea – a NECESSARY idea – then we should make ‘em an integral part of our planning documents, regardless of the cost.
I suppose this is a plea for fiscal logic in addition to policy development! Perhaps fiscally constrained planning is justifiable over a two or five or, perhaps, even a ten year stretch, but NOT over one or two generations of time.
And, honestly, that’s what we’re really discussing here: a seismic, long term shift in the direction Texas (and the U.S.) is heading.
This might sound somewhat fanciful to you, but it is not my desire to garner support OR change minds. Personally, I do NOT favour a true H.S.R. solution, at least not in the beginning.
Moreover, it should be obvious that our existing system is inherently flawed; therefore, it is actually the responsibility of those who remain fixated upon the “drive-or-fly” idea to justify _their_ mindset and explain how that approach might be indefinitely sustainable.
This entire debate revolves around my primary field of study; however, at least in this specific instance, I do not stand to profit financially from any decisions which may be made.
Garl
Reply »
The Mustache That Dare Not Speak Its Name says:
Even if somehow this is funded without government funding or tax subsidies (which I doubt – why bring in a guy like Eckels if you don’t want government favors), there’s no way this can be done without Kelo-style use of eminent domain. The idea that this will be done just via market processes is unlikely. And therefore, this will be hard to justify.
Reply »
longleaf says:
“I’d look at finding a way to capture some of the wealth …”
Wow. I guess it is safe to assume you are not with the Tea Party. Them’s fightin’ words, son.
I predict there will be many heavily-armed landowners who will be sitting there with their snake flags beckoning you to “Come and Take It.”
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
August 18th, 2012 at 9:48 am
They may be fighting words but I’m capable of taking a deep breath and trying to remain calm and saying flat out that public works are themselves wealth and they help create more wealth and they cost money. I’m talking about things like streets and highways, water and wastewater systems, dams that impound floodwater that we use as drinking or irrigation water, and the like. And there are other things that we either publicly own or that we use eminent domain and a lot of government regulation to accomplish, for example things like telephone and cable lines and the transmission and distribution of electricity. Sometimes eminent domain takes private property, sometimes it just grants an easement to go across and use private property.
These things have long been considered public goods. And they’d better be public goods and the process better be fair if you’re going to do things like take private property and have government ownership or a lot of government regulation involved in accomplishing the goal.
I’d rather have this debate than continue down our current path of dysfunctional politics.
And I think in Texas today a rail system for the heavily populated triangle would be a public good and create a lot of wealth and some of that wealth would be in the form of more valuable real property. More valuable land would bring in more taxes under the current tax system at current tax rates, and siphoning off some of those taxes from the local taxing authorities to help pay for the project that helped make the land more valuable seems fair and good to me. And since trains are different than roads, I think it’s madness to take land from people without putting a train stop within some reasonable distance from their land so that they get some continuing benefit from the project. Downtown to downtown bullet trains without trying to benefit the whole triangle makes no sense to me, not for Texas.
Reply »
gblatham Reply:
August 18th, 2012 at 11:08 am
Anonymous,
I’d like to sincerely thank you for your comments. I’m glad to see how much we agree on these issues.
I have had a comment of my own “awaiting moderation” for almost 18 hours, now…perhaps because it includes a couple of U.R.L.s which provide links to essays I’ve written, basically reiterating a few of your own points.
Best wishes,
Garl
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
August 18th, 2012 at 6:44 pm
I’m afraid i still don’t understand how you get Texans to agree to finance high speed between dallas and houston or the more conventional service within the proposed triangle.
Anny compares this project to the financing and building of power lines, dams, highways, etc. Apples to oranges, I say. Power lines, dams, and highways have been constructed from El Paso to Beaumont, from Dumas to Laredo. These rail systems will serve a small geographical portion of our state. How can you ask people in Tyler, Amarillo, El Paso, Harlingen, and Texarkana to help pay for it?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
August 18th, 2012 at 8:05 pm
I do not propose asking people in Tyler, Amarilo, and other parts of the state who are not directly benefitted to help pay for the project. That seems like a political nonstarter to me for the reasons you mention.
I propose exploring a tax increment financing mechanism that would involve (1) fairly determining in advance where property will very probably significantly increase in value because of its proximity to a rail stop; and (2) taking from local taxing authorities for a specified number of years some but not nearly all of the increased taxes on the property due solely to the actual (not estimated) increases in the value of the property (and not due in any way to an increase in tax rates).
Harlingen and Texarkana would not be involved. The estimated and later the actual revenue would be what it would be. And I’d look into issuing bonds payable solely from the estimated values.
It will take work to determine whether it’s feasible and we won’t be able to solve that problem here.
Anonymous Reply:
August 18th, 2012 at 8:07 pm
Correction – I meant bonds payable solely from the actual (not the estimated) revenues.
gblatham Reply:
August 18th, 2012 at 11:27 pm
Okay…
Why _would_ someone in Dalhart care what happens in Galveston? Should it matter to people from Longview if folks in Fort Davis have a genuine need?
Is THIS the depth to which we’ve descended? Are we honestly that petty, greedy, selfish and self-centred?!
Please; don’t answer that question.
Anyway, that’s actually beside the point.
Improved conventional service along the so-called “Texas Triangle” would be only one part of a comprehensive plan to reach far more Texans with modern trains.
Of the example cities listed by John Johnson, El Paso, Texarkana and Beaumont already enjoy regularly scheduled intercity passenger train service…and Harlingen, Amarillo and Laredo would almost certainly have a role to play in the first wave of serious expansion.
That only leaves Tyler and Dumas out of the early stages; still, both should maintain a reasonable hope for near-term inclusion. [Dumas, for example, sits along one of the two finalist routes for resurrected Texas/Colorado service.]
GBL
longleaf says:
I am guessing you must have just moved here, Anonymous. We are in the process of privatizing everything in this state. Even the developer of this bullet train wants to do this with private financing.
Texans have never believed all that much in the “gubmint” sector unless you were a crony who had bought influence who stood to benefit from contracts.
I’m old enough to remember the administration of Gov. John B. Connally. He’d definitely be derided as a far-left “soshlust” by the Texas Teapublicans of today.
Reply »
gblatham Reply:
August 18th, 2012 at 11:19 am
I don’t know about Anonynmous, longleaf; but I was born and reared in Dallas and am a fifth-generation Texan. It is my considered opinion that our desire to privatise “everything in this state” is a mistake of no small significance.
Actually, it’s quite possible you stand in agreement.
Garl
Reply »
BAA says:
I’m guessing no one who has posted or wrote the article, has ever watched the Eckels group’s presentation, or read their stuff on high speed rail in Texas. American and Southwest support their purposal, because intrastate flights are less profitable than they were in 1983. There is no triangle, they use a SA to DFW line and a Houston to Temple line to cut the amount of land and expense needed. They also have always said they will raise the money, without government assistance. They could be lying, but the last time I checked Eckels still had the reputation as a straight shooter.
Reply »
gblatham Reply:
August 18th, 2012 at 11:22 am
I’ve seen it, BAA.
Eckels may be a straight shooter, but I remain unimpressed with the plan.
It is possible to be both honest and ignorant!
Garl
Reply »
The Mustache That Dare Not Speak Its Name Reply:
August 18th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
They may raise money without government assistance, but there’s no way they get the land and right of ways for the lines without eminent domain, which is a pretty massive form of government assistance and intervention. Maybe that’s not a bad thing, but let’s not call that the free market in action.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
August 18th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
You make a solid point BAA. I posted the Texas Triangle comments and have not yet studied the Eckels goup’s proposal. DFW to San Antonio and Houston to Temple is really interesting.
If they can do this with 100% private money and a light-handed use of eminent domain (by for example co-locating about 95% of the lines next to existing rights of way such as I-35 and existing freight rail lines and Highways 290 and 36) then more power to them. No sarcasm intended, and you can put aside my tendency to think like DeWitt Clinton of Erie Canal fame or Dwight Eisenhower with his Interstate Highway System or maybe even old school Texas Highway Department engineers who did things like put multilane feeders next to freeways to make it easy to develop the areas where the freeways went.
Go with the newer way of thinking if the market and new technology and modern needs make that the way to go. But if their proposal involves a heavy handed use of eminent domain ala the late unlamented TTC plans, I’ll echo The Mustache That Dare Not Speak Its Name’s comments and hold onto my old-fashioned way of looking at internal improvements awhile longer.
It will be very interesting to see how all this plays out. I wonder how much TTC and Kelo has poisoned the well for public involvement with building infrastructure.
Reply »
gblatham Reply:
August 18th, 2012 at 5:40 pm
Anon:
This project has, arguably, already lost its claim to “100% private money,” since the Rail Division of Tex-DOT accepted a federal grant to study H.S.R. between Houston and Dallas (on-going), which will directly benefit Texas Central’s proposal.
I have no problem with that – after all, the Texas Central folks never even _asked_ Austin for planning assistance; but, it indicates how naive it can be to blindly accept the company’s “all private financing” propaganda.
Regarding the railroad’s proposed alignment (about which we can now only speak in the most general of terms), remember what I’ve already said concerning the Texas 130 corridor. Question: if the only stretch of highway built to some semblance of T.T.C. design standards cannot support H.S.R. within its right-of-way, how in the WORLD might we expect other roads to do so?!
Finally, in several interviews, Eckels repeatedly emphasises the ability of his company to successfully run its trains with no _operating_ subsidy. What is being left unsaid might be quite telling, if it wasn’t for the Japanese consortium’s desire to break into the North American market. Dallas/Houston has the right distance, the right population and the right topography. Central Japan Railway has the right expertise.
We’ll see.
In the meantime, Texas would be far better served through reasonable increases in funding for conventional passenger train services.
Garl
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
Great Idea…Of course, we had this once…even somethings called “Inter-Urbans”…but the auto killed all that…
Reply »
gblatham Reply:
August 18th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Pretty much, WUSRPH.
Still, that begs the question: why did our government, using taxpayer’s money (well before “trust funds” were established), create a network of all-weather paved roads running parallel to and competing directly against privately owned-and-operated railroad lines such as the Texas Electric Railway (the largest Interurban company in Texas – one of the largest in the world), as well as numerous general system (a.k.a. “steam road”) carriers?
What gave Austin and Washington the right to use our grandparent’s and great-grandparent’s hard-earned cash, essentially collected under duress, to drive investor-owned, dividend-earning, taxpaying, employee supporting, efficiently operated private transportation enterprises out of business?!
Yes, “the auto killed all that”…but it certainly was not fair!
Do y’all want to know a simple, one-phrase “sound bite” reason why private railroads aren’t in the passenger business anymore? It’s because they eventually realised it was impossible to compete against the people who print the money!
I’ve always wondered where all the anti-tax, anti-government Libertarian/Tea Party folks were back 60 to 90 sum-odd years ago when all of this began occurring with a vengeance!
Garl B. Latham
Reply »
John Johnson says:
Sorry, Mr. Latham. You’re infatuation with everything railroad is now really showing. The public wanted roads to be built because they loved their automobiles. It is called demand in a capitalistic society. I also wouldn’t want you to forget Teddy R’s Square Deal and what precipitated it…the monopolistic railroads screwing Midwestern farmers.
I drive to Houston when I need to go because I need a car when I get there. Getting on a high speed train is not going to change this. I imagine I would still drive.
Reply »
gblatham says:
Mr. Johnson,
If I had to choose, I suppose an “infatuation” would be better than a “compulsion”!
I guess it really doesn’t matter.
At any rate, I’m a student of history. I understand the demand, supposedly emanating from the grass-roots, which called for our government (why not private enterprise?!) to “get the farmers out of the mud.”
The so-called “Good Roads movement” dates back to the Gay ’90s – over 120 years ago – LONG before most U.S. citizens had ever even SEEN an automobile, much less formed any sort of “love affair” with one.
By the time our society entered the Roaring Twenties, every state government then in existence had already developed a nascent “highway department” and a method of underwriting the financial needs of road design, construction and maintenance.
Interestingly, it wasn’t until after World War II that the majority of U.S. citizens owned a private automobile. In fact, that figure didn’t even reach 60% until the early 1950s!
Now, how can we logically reconcile these divergent bits of trivia?
On the one hand, we’re confronted with this pesky little fact: in these United States, prior to the 1940s, automobile owners were in the minority.
On the other hand, there’s been an opinion put forth: the “public wanted roads to be built because they loved their automobiles” – a desire which, supposedly, may date back as far as the early 1890s!
Even if we make that year, say, 1916 to tie in with passage of the Federal Aid Road Act, you can surely see the difficulty here.
Personally, I find it impossible to accept any conclusion other than this: the presumed grass-roots effort to have the taxpayer fund better roadways was spearheaded by special interest groups which stood to benefit financially from the growth and development of the motor vehicle and the automotive, petroleum, rubber and ancillary industries. Period.
Today, there are many who seem quite comfortable with the status quo and see no reason to make any substantive changes to our “drive-or-fly” approach to passenger transportation. Sustainability, quality of life, environmental health, energy efficiency…those terms possess no real meaning. They have their cut, thank you very kindly, and everyone else can go kiss a pig.
By the way, I’m also intimately familiar with the history and work of the Interstate Commerce Commission as well as the Hepburn Act, passed during T.R.’s administration, which reined in our railroad industry. Eventually, those reins almost strangled the railroads. I guess they deserved it, though; right? After all, they (the entire industry – down to the very last firm, mind you) screwed those poor ol’ farmers.
Yes, things are certainly becoming clearer!
Unfortunately, there’s still one part of the puzzle I seem unable to grasp. If our “love affair” with automotive technology caused roads to be built by our blessed government, in what way is that an example of “demand in a capitalistic society”?!
Oh, well. Just like “infatuation” versus “compulsion,” I guess it really doesn’t matter.
Have fun on your next road trip.
Garl “I Only Want More Trains To More Places ‘Cause I’m A Railfan And Don’t Have Enough Sense To Love My Car” Latham
Reply »
John Johnson says:
I’m obviously dense. I can’t find an answer anywhere in your response. How are you going to get people in Amarillo to help pay for it? Is the cost to ride going to be so inexpensive thst it will cover cost to rent a car or pay cab fare on the arrival end?All your other “yeah but’s” are superfluous .
Reply »
gblatham Reply:
August 18th, 2012 at 11:46 pm
Nor have I been able to find an explanation of your assertion that a government funded project is a reasonable example of capitalism in action!
So, does that make us even?
Obviously, no one in Amarillo will pay for anything – save, possibly, what will directly benefit them…and even then, there are no assurances, since the anti-tax (and anti everything else) zealots will carp and moan about all the ways their money is being wasted!
Seemingly, we’ve successfully created a society so base and vile that “what’s in it for me?” has become a fair thing to ask, at every turn, for every reason.
I’ll leave you with this question as I close for the night: based upon your argument, why should I be held responsible to pay for your roads?!
GBL
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
August 19th, 2012 at 7:45 am
“moan about money being wasted”? Not wasted, just not benefiting the majority of the people paying out.
“…created a society so base and vile that “what’s in in for me” has become…”. You seem surprised and act like this is an attitude we’ve just developed in the last generation or so. Travel back, Mr. Latham, travel way, way back to find where this attitude originated.
Reply »
gblatham Reply:
August 19th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
So…am I going “way back” to the antediluvian world?
GBL
gblatham Reply:
August 21st, 2012 at 4:43 pm
I’m going to need another hint, Anon., if you expect me to guess your answer!
GBL
John Johnson says:
Maybe I just should have said “demand” drove building of our state roads, and then our national highway system, and left capitalism out of it.
Your argument seems to be that automobile, refined fuel and tire manufacturers manipulated government road building for personal gain. I say that the demand for automobiles by people tired of hitching the buggy up every morning and then the desire to keep their vehicles out of the dust and mud pushed their state government to build roads. Eisenhower’s plan to build an interstate highway system was pushed by automobile manufacturers, but was demanded by drivers and trucking companies, as well ( remember what driving from Texas into Louisiana used to be like?). Eisenhower also felt this system was needed to move troops and equipment during a national emergency. Trains could not handle troop and equipment movement during the buildup to WWII and he remembered it.
To answer your question…it’s all about numbers. If enough of you don’t want roads paid for with tax dollars, chances are they won’t be. If the majority of Texans support a HSR system between major cities with no in between stops or a triangular network in the center of the state, you will see in built. I don’t see that happening anytime soon regardless of how passionate you are about it.
Reply »
gblatham Reply:
August 21st, 2012 at 1:49 am
“Chicken or egg,” eh, John?!
Oh, well. As with most things in life, the truth probably lies somewhere between those two extremes.
I indeed “remember what driving from Texas into Louisiana used to be like”; I also remember what the passenger trains operating between those two states used to be like. It’s too bad that our illustrious, self-absorbed, puffed up “leaders” didn’t even CONSIDER one while actively encouraging the other. I guess their rake-off was much more impressive when supporting roadway construction and use (and the oil consumption which inevitably goes along for the ride…as it were). And yes, I’m accusing the majority of our elected officials of profiting from their “public service.”
According to history, Eisenhower’s belief in a taxpayer-supported network of interstate “super freeways” (and how ridiculously antiquated that term now sounds) grew from his role in the 1919 Motor Transport Corps transcontinental convoy, as well as his personal experience with the German autobahn during the War. It had absolutely nothing to do with any shortcomings – real or presumed – with our railroads.
Trains not only easily handled “troop and equipment movement during the buildup to WWII,” they almost single-handedly carried the home front during the War, itself! Fact: in these United States, during World War II, our railroads carried over 90% of all military freight and over 97% – NINETY SEVEN PERCENT – of all organised military transport! Any excuse ANYone might have given to justify the construction of roadways due to some supposed failure on the part of our railroad industry or its technology to handle the jobs set before it was an excuse built upon LIES!
We most certainly stand in agreement regarding the “numbers” issue. If you remember, it was, in part, my assertion that tomorrow’s generation would be far more amenable to rail-based transportation solutions than this one which started our debate!
Finally, as I’m sure you perceive by now, my “passion” exists independently of external stimuli. However, my belief in the need for railway technologies to play an integral role in our freight and passenger transportation system is soundly based upon logic. As I’ve also said, the “drive-or-fly” culture we’ve so carefully cultivated on this continent is not sustainable – at least not in its present form. In fact, _every_ indication points to its inevitable collapse!
We can either take steps now to prepare for the future while preserving some semblance of normalcy, or we can wait until things implode and then react in sheer panic.
I vote for the former. I fully expect the latter.
Best,
Garl
Reply »
History says:
Actually they did conspire. GM lost a major suit that it illegally undercut electric trolly/trains so that the cities would move to bus service. The lawsuit resulted in a finding of fault, the judge then ordered GM to pay $1 in damages. Look back at history for yourself. Note also I drive and love my car, but I cannot say they were always above board.
Reply »
rw says:
Bad idea.
Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio have horrible mass transit. If you’re going to have a trains, let them serve relatively short distances in those cities first. People could save their cars and their sanity. You can’t even get to the airport without a car!
Houston has one train from downtown to the Med Center. They need to expand to other areas.
California is stupidly building a high-speed train between San Francisco and Bakersfield. What they really need is about a 100 mph+ train between Palmdale and LA. T
Reply »
gblatham Reply:
August 20th, 2012 at 5:47 am
rw:
DART already offers service to both Dallas Love Field and D/FW; it’s just that multiple connections are required, involving transfers to bus shuttles (i.e., the service is not “seamless”).
At any rate, in this instance, if you’re using the train to travel between the cities, why would you be worried about airport connections? If you plan to use commercial airline transportation, why would you be worried about the trains (or local mass transit, for that matter)?
Yes, we need it all…but, if we’re going to wait until everything’s perfect before adding the next piece of the puzzle, we’ll never get ANYWHERE!
By the way, you are right about a conventional L.A. connection – although California H.S.R. will go all the way between both San Diego and Los Angeles on the south end and both San Francisco and Sacramento in the north.
Garl B. Latham
Reply »
gblatham says:
“…I don’t believe the best way to allocate limited capital resources for an improved/expanded North American passenger train network is through the establishment of true high speed railway services. The idea of U.S. H.S.R. is dramatically overplayed and, although I have no doubt it would be successful, spending even the smallest amount of funds toward dedicated, passenger-only rights-of-way and infrastructure without FIRST creating a comprehensive domestic transportation/energy/environmental policy is sheer folly!
“Naturally, some will say that, even without existing political support or national policy in place, H.S.R. should remain a long-term goal, helping to generate jobs and restore the country’s morale. I’m not prepared to argue the case one way or the other (although I’d always prefer that ANY transportation project stand upon its own merits). Still, before we embrace the H.S.R. concept, we should accept the various intermediate steps necessary to make high-speed projects work.
“First and foremost, we must realise that there is not a single location in the world where true high-speed train transportation has been developed prior to the buildout and maximisation of its conventional railway network. Not one! In order for H.S.R. to be successful, passengers must have access to local transit, commuter and regional services, and a healthy intercity system, so their trips may be completed in an efficient and timely fashion.
“Many people are preaching some sort of 21st century passenger ‘intermodalism’, where the primary purpose of H.S.R. would be to serve short- to medium-haul markets formerly covered by commercial airlines. After all, there are many examples worldwide where high-speed trains have overtaken airlines in such markets – Amtrak’s N.E.C. being among them. The British government has recently gone so far as to make that a national policy goal: the formal replacement of all short-haul domestic airline services with true H.S.R.!
“Here in America, considering the complete absence of a national policy, that will be quite difficult. [Anyone care to find an elected official who'd be willing to suggest it?!] Besides, even if we did take that approach to intermodalism, it would place our new passenger train services in a ridiculously inferior position. Intermodalism has worked in the freight world because, without coercion, several relatively healthy modes joined forces and, recognising each others strengths and weaknesses, pooled their resources to make it happen. Conversely, in the domestic passenger world, trains are the lowly, unwanted stepchild. If we begin making our H.S.R. investments by concentrating upon the needs of the commercial airline industry, serving only end-point markets and creating little ‘planes-on-the-ground’, that’s all we’ll ever have!
“H.S.R. would end up exclusively operating to and from existing airfields, totally eschewing central city depots. This would eventually force railroad passengers, due to the location of their trains’ station facilities, to be subjected to all the ‘security’ requirements of their airline-based cousins.
“I suppose all of this makes sense (in some weird and twisted way) to many members of a drive-or-fly society; however, by taking this approach, we’re completely ignoring the need to address the United States’ auto-centrism: the unhealthy and ultimately unsustainable over-dependence upon motor vehicle transportation.
“True H.S.R. will end up competing with airways, not highways! High-speed railway networks will not offer any real alternative to the family car which is not already available by air. H.S.R. will not improve intra- and inter-urban rail-based transport; rather, the construction and operation of high-speed trains could easily consume all available capital, making even the smallest investments in other rail-based initiatives – things that are not very ‘sexy’, but extremely vital in the scheme of things – even harder to come by.
“A dedicated high-speed network of passenger trains would do absolutely NOTHING to improve service to the vast majority of destinations currently (or potentially) available to railroad travelers. In fact, it would not directly benefit existing railroad properties, whatsoever; therefore, by definition, it would do nothing to increase U.S. freight handling capacity – something which is far more important to the national economy. Any publicly funded improvements to railroad freight service would end up being a separate budget item derived from a separate set of plans and come to fruition through a completely separate infrastructure, increasing the cost to taxpayers and (presumably) making the entire programme politically unsupportable.
“Without shared infrastructure, future-minded plans such as the electrification of railway main lines would be that much harder to accomplish and, in a way, even more difficult to justify, at least in the near term.
“My point is not that U.S. H.S.R. should never happen. I’ve seen all the ill founded, unlearned arguments against it. None of them will stand against facts!
“The lack of density is supposedly a serious drawback – until one realises that high-speed trains traverse a great deal of open countryside, overseas. Some will wail, ‘we can’t afford it!’ – but will seemingly support anything in their attempts to uphold auto-mobility. Others enthusiastically remind us that ‘the United states isn’t Europe’ – even though most current projects are state-centred and many U.S. states are comparable in size to European countries. [Of course, that's not what many people mean when they say we're 'not Europe', as if human nature isn't a universal constant, or the way we spend our tax money is inherently superior to the way they spend theirs!]
“‘Government boondoggle’ is a typical refrain, requiring a leap of faith to hurdle. Yet, since faith is ultimately based upon evidence (Hebrews 11:1), we gain assurance by seeing the myriad success stories, worldwide.
“No, the question isn’t if H.S.R. should have a role in U.S. society, but when. One learns to walk before he can run!
“People are actively looking for alternatives TODAY! The sort of improvements which can be achieved through serious investment in our domestic railroad system can bear fruit in a relatively short period of time, and can prove to the skeptic that U.S. citizens will not only be willing to ride trains when gasoline is costly and traffic horrific, but will choose to ride trains simply because they’re efficient, relaxing and fun!
“The use of railroad technologies as political pawns may be predictable, but that doesn’t make it justifiable. The longer it’s allowed to continue unchecked, the longer we’ll be forced to wait before any substantive improvements are made regarding U.S. passenger train service.
“Certainly, High Speed Rail has its place; but, it CANNOT be our starting point!”
From: “High Speed Rail is not the starting point”
Garl B. Latham / Progressive Railroading
Reply »
gblatham says:
“Passenger trains in these United States – the sort of which, today, would be considered ‘corridor’ runs – were operating at ‘higher-speeds’ during the 1930s! Furthermore, the first passenger train to exceed 100 miles-per-hour set its record in 1893! [I understand and accept the various issues surrounding the NYC&HR's claim. Still, it's fascinating that Locomotive #999 and the Empire State Express supposedly reached 112 1/2 miles-per-hour almost 120 YEARS ago - and that its speed EXCEEDS the threshold of today's so-called 'high[er]-speed rail’!]
…
“Let us consider names like Zephyr and Hiawatha and Rocket and what they mean – then, these matters can be honestly discussed. My gracious; I have ridden Santa Fe’s Super Chief at speeds exceeding the century mark…and I’m not THAT old!
“[Well, maybe I am; but, that's not the point!]
“Here in Dallas, our service to Houston was once quite enviable…[with] multiple daily trains – safe, dependable, comfortable – each operating on an approximate four hour carding. Even now, such timing would be competitive with the always difficult and sometimes excruciating drive along Interstate 45. Offer such trains to an iPod and MP3 crowd, along with the current-day equivalent of traditional on-board amenities such as dining, club-lounge and parlor observation cars, and you probably couldn’t schedule enough daily departures to satisfy the demand!
“[Please note my use of the phrase 'modern day equivalent'. A secretary/stenographer might be a needless extravagance, but computer 'Wi-Fi' could be immensely popular.]
“Now, of course, we can only busy ourselves studying shiny ‘T-Bone’ brochures and reading the latest government proposals, while those who would patronise the railroads find that Amtrak doesn’t even offer one train at any speed between the two cities.
“So, are we simply awaiting an incremental approach? Surely, I would love to see it! Someday, though, we must stop trying to take that idea too far.
“‘Incremental high speed rail’ can be a fabulous marketing term. Alas, it carries no practical weight. Most people, seeing that phrase used in context, rightfully presume the investments they’re being asked to make involve services which, given enough capital over a long enough period of time, will eventually reach the level of service and dependability as the ‘bullet trains’ of overseas. This is not the case. No matter how much cash is poured into the infrastructure, you’ll still be operating on rights-of-way originally surveyed and engineered for steam-era traffic. In fact, the vast majority of these alignments – with their curves, inner-city paths and crossings at grade – can never be made to serve as true high-speed routes (Amtrak’s N.E.C. being the sole exception to date). Instead, such investments can go a long way toward proving the pubic’s desire for further improvements on other alignments, including (but not limited to) full-bore H.S.R. – something I’ve been preaching for quite some time.
“Well, what is the best solution? Understanding the danger of oversimplification (as well as planning without a budget!), my advice would be a return to what once was. Presuming the passenger train is restored as an integral part of the U.S. transportation network, the best approach I can imagine would be to reestablish as many of the main line routes and services as possible, based upon my Grid and Gateway concept (more on that later), creating what might be compared to an Interstate Highway system-style national railway network.
“It won’t take 110 mile-per-hour top speeds to make all this work, either. Witness the successes in places like North Carolina, Illinois, California and the Pacific Northwest! Concentrate upon removing the worst bottlenecks (slow speed areas, delay-prone interlocking plants, inadequate terminal facilities) and you’ll find a far more reasonable approach to trip time efficiency. After all, Amtrak’s Acela, with a top speed of 150 m/h, is greatly hampered by such slow spots – to the point where its best average terminal-to-terminal speed is but 86 m/h.
“Want to attract business? Sensible speeds and frequencies combined with ‘set your watch by it’ reliability will do it, every time!”
From: “The myth of ‘Higher Speed Rail’”
Garl B. Latham / Progressive Railroading
Reply »
gblatham says:
“There are several fallacious arguments related to the (re)development of domestic passenger service that just won’t go away. And, to be fair, perhaps they shouldn’t. After all, ideas like high density development and congestion mitigation and airline-competitive scheduling certainly have merit on some level.
“Problem is, a lot of folks want to end the debate at that point, eschewing all other possibilities and, in the process, any alternative approaches to the above-mentioned trio.
“One of the reasons the Pennsylvania Railroad (The Standard Railroad of the World) was able to do so much with their New York/Philadelphia/Washington main line (today’s Northeast Corridor) stems form the fact that, as a private company, they fully understood the concept of ‘good enough’.
“For the company’s shareholders (beneficiaries of Wall Street’s longest running dividend record), the Pennsy’s penchant for serving northeastern cities with long, heavy trains at high speeds (but not true ‘high speeds’) paid quite well. It was only when the High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965 was enacted (followed in short order by the creation of the U.S. Department of Transportation) that what we now know as the Northeast Corridor came into being, complete with Metroliners and Turbotrains.
“Billions of taxpayer’s dollars later (over $4 billion in direct federal funding under the Northeast Corridor Improvement Project alone), Amtrak emphasises speed and frequency (which is fine, if your primary target audience is the commercial airline traveler), leaving congestion relief to the local commutation authorities (and the intercity motor coach – which is another topic, altogether).
“Even at that, overall terminal-to-terminal running times really aren’t that spectacular. According to Amtrak’s current timetable, the fastest Acela carding between New York’s Penn Station and Washington, D.C. is 2:42. This unfavourably compares with the advertised two-and-a-half hour non-stop run of the first Metroliners some 43 years ago. [Granted, both PC and AMTK consistently found literal 'non-stop' corridor trains to be far less profitable than those willing to call on Newark and Philadelphia and Baltimore.] Even the Congressional of 1935 behind the venerable GG-1 locomotive made the trip, with several stops en route, in 3:35.
“The former NYNH&H shore line between New York and Boston has seen greater improvement in running times, but that’s due as much to the completion of electrification beyond New Haven (and the corresponding elimination of the required engine change) as it is to top speeds. The Merchant’s Limited of 1949 made the trip in 4 hours, flat. The new Turboliner of ’69 (still serving Grand Central) took 3:44. The best Acela time in 2012 is 3:25.
“Although such an outlook is really too simplistic, one could hardly be blamed for believing that a lion’s share of the multi-billion-dollar price tag did nothing but buy us 19 minutes of time.
“So, if U.S.-style corridor construction and operation tends to offer negligible benefit when balanced against a project’s sheer expense, what alternative(s) do we have?
“The PRR approach to high density ‘corridors’, with long trains operating at sufficiently fast speeds to handle express traffic, is certainly one way. But, today’s N.E.C. is a unique situation, serving a market which has been in existence for a long time, supported by infrastructure which no contemporary government body would try to justify duplicating.
“At least I can’t imagine it.
“No, we need to honestly look at the various ways moderately busy corridors, connecting city pairs of moderately large size, can be served along the rights-of-way already in place. One might safely presume that additional trackage, newer signaling systems, improved (or eliminated) junctions and the like must needs be budgeted; still, our starting point involves the conventional ‘steam road’ plant. We don’t build from nothing, we build from where we are.
“That being said…outside of the Megalopolis, what would the railroads do (or, more precisely, what did they do)?
“Let’s go back to visit the Pennsylvania for a moment. Oddly enough, I think of them (and the Central, for that matter) every time I see the proposed Midwest High Speed Rail map (a.k.a. the Chicago Hub Network). With the exception of a route indicated from Cincinnati to Cleveland via Columbus (for which ‘starter’ funding was shot down by Ohio Governor John Kasich), the entire system is just as the name intimates: a hub-and-spoke arrangement, with Chicago at the centre.
“Years ago, I had reason to travel between St. Louis and Indianapolis upon occasion. Naturally (knowing me), I always took the train. Both the PRR and the NYC offered direct, multiple daily departures via long haul services. The Pennsylvania route survived the Penn Central merger and, to the end, advertised four hour running times. Some of the trains continued east out of Indianapolis to Pittsburgh and others to Cleveland. All of them, operating at conventional speeds, made the direct run faster than anything but a true Shinkansen-type H.S.R. train could ever do if traveling by way of Chicago.
“The Santa Fe effectively owned the Chicago/Kansas City market. That Railway offered a wide variety of choices well into the 1960s, averaging one train every three hours, ’round the clock. Even as late as the day before Amtrak was born, the AT&SF carded 5 services (with two usually combined into one train) – all of them sporting modern equipment, hot food, cold drink and easy riding. One run went to Texas, the remainder to the west coast (via two different routes). All were long haul trains; all covered several vitally important intermediate ‘corridors’.
“Today, California has become quite the success story. Of the top 5 Amtrak corridors (after the N.E.C.), three are located in California: the Pacific Surfliner (San Diego/Los Angeles/San Luis Obispo), the Capital corridor (San Francisco Bay/Sacramento) and the San Joaquin Valley service. None exceed 79 miles-per-hour, save for some 90 m.p.h. running in Orange and San Diego counties. Furthermore, the entire Capitals route and the Surfliner north of L.A. are part of established long haul (‘national network’) lines. They’ve made a sizeable dent in the market (and numerous fans) by fielding clean, comfortable, frequent trains, supported by connecting motor coaches.
“It is postulated by some that the best way to generate political support for passenger train service – a vital necessity in our current age – would be to concentrate investment upon large cities and congested markets. There may be some truth to that idea; but, such an approach would also be the most expensive and time consuming, replete with NIMBYs and BANANAs, and burdened with myriad arbitrary limitations regarding the passenger train’s ultimate role.
“Let’s not attempt to decorate the branches before the trunk has been established! A national network of even modest size could act as the foundation for comprehensive growth, enabling all the needed corridors to develop while offering some semblance of service to the continent as a whole.
“Some people are drawn to the promise of ‘new-and-improved’ as a moth is to a flame (or as a child, mesmerised by a TeleVision screen, is drawn into a vacuous world where imagination and critical thinking skills prove unnecessary).
“If we allow ourselves to be swayed by CorridorVision, we’ll have lost sight of what’s best in terms of our budget, the logic of true incremental growth, the needs of multimodalism (yes, and true intermodalism) and the things which will make our railroad industry become the willing, cooperative partner it must be – presuming any of this is going to happen in the first place!
“The Pennsy was right. So was the Santa Fe.
“There’s a lot we might learn, if only we’d allow history to teach us.”
“CorridorVision”
Garl B. Latham / Progressive Railroading
Reply »
gblatham says:
I thank you all, in advance, for your patience and understanding regarding the previous three posts.
I know many of you will chafe at the idea of reading such a large volume of work; still, for those who might be curious as to what rail-based passenger options exist, my essays may give you a fair idea.
The H.S.R. plan as outlined in Paul Burka’s original piece has already benefited from Tex-DOT’s ongoing Houston/Dallas high speed train study (which I’ve previously mentioned) and from that agency’s opinion of the passenger train’s future. Furthermore, whatever time and effort Tex-DOT and its federal counterpart spend upon high speed trains is that much energy they canNOT apply to more practical, timely and, ultimately, beneficial projects revolving around conventional passenger train services.
I know that some well-meaning individuals, like John Johnson, have very real concerns regarding the source of capital for ANY new government projects. I respect that.
I reiterate, however, that such concerns can distract us from the two primary questions at hand:
1. Do we honestly believe that our drive-or-fly culture, primarily based upon autocentrism, is ultimately sustainable? If so, why? If not, in what way(s) are we preparing for the future?
2. If autocentrism (et al.) IS doomed to fail, might certain rail-based technologies be in a position to address future needs? Do we need any passenger train services at ALL, of ANY sort? If so, why and of what type? If not, why not?
Only once these matters are adequately addressed should we begin to concern ourselves with the money. After all, if we really don’t need passenger trains around, why must we fret over their cost?
Garl B. Latham
Reply »