Robert Samuelson Is Dead Wrong About High Speed Rail

[ProSense]

Robert Samuelson Is Dead Wrong About High Speed Rail

by Something the Dog Said

The Washington Post’s Robert J. Samuelson takes the Op-Ed pages of his paper to hammer the president’s high speed rail initiative today. What has Mr. Samuelson’s undies in a twist? Basically a Catch-22 that he constructs by ignoring two of the central fact about rail in the United States.

<...>

Having built up his strawman, Samuelson proceeds to hammer away at the poor creature. He says:

It's a triumph of fancy over fact. Even if ridership increased fifteenfold over Amtrak levels, the effects on congestion, national fuel consumption and emissions would still be trivial. Land-use patterns would change modestly, if at all; cutting 20 minutes off travel times between New York and Philadelphia wouldn't much alter real estate development in either. Nor is high-speed rail a technology where the United States would likely lead; European and Asian firms already dominate the market.

<...>

Rail, high speed or otherwise is so much more fuel efficient that flying it is not even funny. A jet liner averages 48 passenger-miles per gallon; it sounds pretty good until you hear that rail averages 468 passenger-miles per gallon. That is today’s system, and it could be much improved upon by increasing the number of passengers and the speed of the trains.

Finally Mr. Samuelson misses an important part of this program. The 53 billion spent over the next ten years will pump money into construction projects. It means steel, it means heavy equipment, it means people working in many states all of which is going to help create more demand in an economy that has all the supply it can stand (and more) and will help to bring us out of this horrendous economy the views of folks like him have brought us. At the same time it will set the stage for the larger nationwide project that our economic future may very well depend upon.

more

[slackmaster]

1. I read Samuelson's op-ed piece this morning, and I agree with him

Passenger rail projects in California have almost universally ended up being money-losers.

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/article_9bd4797b-9e79-5307-b892-617d36eea652.html

N&U

:nuke:

[ProSense]

2. Why? n/t

[slackmaster]

6. Construction costs and predicted ridership have been severely underestimated,...

...resulting in heavy government subsidies to keep the operation running. A rail system needs to pay for itself, or it's not worth doing.

The Sprinter is a classic case.`

[ProSense]

8. The article is from 2006!

The point is still the same: The argument can't be it hasn't worked in limited isolated cases.

The U.S. can alway wait until oil becomes scarce and then do something about it.

[slackmaster]

11. Ridership on the Sprinter is still nowhere near what was planned for

This stuff isn't very hard to research. The project ran HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars over-budget, and is losing money in operations now.

The Emperor has no clothes. Samuelson is the child pointing out that fact.

[AndyTiedye]

14. Nobody Expects a FREEWAY to Make a Profit, Roads are Heavily Subsidized

Why is it OK to subsidize roads, but railroads that compete with them have to make a profit?

[slackmaster]

19. As Samuelson points out, fuel taxes more than cover federal spending on the highway system

Quoting from his op-ed:

...Rail buffs argue that subsidies for passenger service simply offset the huge government support of highways and airways. The subsidies "level the playing field." Wrong. In 2004, the Transportation Department evaluated federal transportation subsidies from 1990 to 2002. It found passenger rail service had the highest subsidy ($186.35 per thousand passenger-miles) followed by mass transit ($118.26 per thousand miles). By contrast, drivers received no net subsidy; their fuel taxes more than covered federal spending. Subsidies for airline passengers were about $5 per thousand miles traveled. (All figures are in inflation-adjusted year 2000 dollars.)...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/13/AR2011021302203.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[The Wizard]

57. It's about the

energy / national security equation. At some point the internal combustion engine used for individual transportation will have to go in History's dust bin.

[slackmaster]

62. And high-speed, long distance trains use _what_ as their power source?

Internal combustion engines, running petroleum-based fuels.

[Tesha]

95. Are you kidding?

*ALL* of the truly high-speed train systems in the world
are powered electrically and as we know, electricity can be
produced from any number of actual power sources, but
essentially no commercial "big system" electricity is produced
by running internal combustion engines.

Tesha

[WatsonT]

65. To replace cars with rail

would require an unprecedented building project on a national scale that would utilize a tremendous amount of oil (I haven't seen any solar powered construction equipment).

And then once accomplished those trains would still require power from somewhere.

Physics isn't variable depending on good intentions.

[jtuck004]

111. Not to put too fine a point on it, but NOT doing it would also

"utilize a tremendous amount of oil".

Then we run out. And of course they require power, and it is electric, not without its own costs. But that could be provided with the aforementioned "solar panels" - photovoltaics. Add in a lot of money for R&D and we might figure out something else, and create a lot of new companies and work in the process.

(Maybe oil is the least of our worries. About 27 million people under-employed today. We cannot sustain this country with that much unemployment - the inequality will ruin the economy b4 the end of more or less affordable oil, or will be so tied up with it as to seem inseparable.)

Do you think we won't have a need to move large numbers of people in those corridors in the future? Will life be more virtual, perhaps so much so that it cuts down on travel, other than for getting off the grid, i.e. pleasure\rehabilitation?

If we will need Mag\Lev trains or something like that, it might be best to do it now. And, again, jobs. If we don't need the trains, what is that future going to look like?

[AndyTiedye]

103. Railroads Have to Pay Real Estate Taxes on Every Mile of Track

[StarsInHerHair]

97. I think every decade since the 80s has seen gov bailouts of the airline

industry. I also suspect the nay-saying against railways have forgotten the 30s 40s and 50s.

[CreekDog]

23. is the Amtrak Northeast corridor an acceptable rail project? (DC to Boston)

does it meet your standards?

[slackmaster]

30. Some routes make sense. Most of the country isn't like the Amtrak Northeast corridor.

The Sunset Limited route between New Orleans and Los Angeles, according to one study by the Pew Charitable Trusts (if that's not an acceptable source, please point out an alternative one for hard data), lost about $462 per passenger in 2008. That seems pretty high to me. The system overall costs about $32 per passenger in public funds.

http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/amtrak/

Some rail lines make sense, others do not.

[CreekDog]

31. but you said you didn't think any rail line in the nation met your standard

of self sufficiency.

so the Northeast corridor does?

or is that not your standard anymore (10 minutes later)?

[slackmaster]

33. No, I never said that

...you said you didn't think any rail line in the nation met your standard...

I really don't understand how you could get that from anything I have ever written.

[CreekDog]

39. you said, "A rail system needs to pay for itself, or it's not worth doing."

right here in this thread.

[slackmaster]

44. Yes, and the benefits of a rail system extend beyond receipts from fares

Such as reduced wear-and-tear on the highway system, less congestion at airports, etc.

Some of the costs are intangible, of course. I just want to see the full economic picture.

[AndyTiedye]

67. There is a Benefit in Having a Diversity of Transportation Options

For about a week after 9/11, nobody could fly anywhere in the US.

Much more recently, air travel was greatly curtailed in Europe by ash from a volcano in Iceland
(they expect another eruption soon, btw).

At least in Europe, they have trains going almost everywhere, so they could still get around.

We would have to drive for days.

[StarsInHerHair]

98. maybe look at Japan, and Europe and meditate on what the U.S. could do

with similar railways

[WatsonT]

56. Population desnity is the key

and most of the country just doesn't have a high enough density to make this sort of project work.

A few key areas do. But we have less than a third the population density of the EU and even less than that when compared to China or Japan.

Keep our population the same but shove it all to the east coast and we could have amazingly efficient and profitable rail as a replacement to cars and planes.

Some people may object to being forcibly removed from their homes and most of the country would return to the wild but we could have a cool railway system.

[slackmaster]

60. I love the train system in Japan. The country is like a giant Disneyland.

You can really get from one place to another on it, and quickly. But few localities in the US rival the population density of the whole of Japan.

[WatsonT]

64. On density they're somewhere between Mass. and RI

much higher if you remove the mountainous areas and uninhabited islands.

[StarsInHerHair]

99. is it key for highways too?

I think there would just be fewer stops in sparsely populated areas.

[ProSense]

4. Thanks for the link. So

the basic argument against it is as the OP states at the link:

He presents us with a Chicken or the Egg scenario, since we don’t have high speed rail, we don’t have the tech business here in the United States, unfortunately if we don’t build high speed rail, there is no opportunity to build up that sector.

Forget fuel/energy efficieny, the environment, increasing jobs, updating the country's infrastructure, increasing access and more. High speed rail in its limited capacity cost too much, therefore it shouldn't be expanded.

That's such a bogus argument. The Internet and just about every technology would have been deemed unfeasible if that made a lick of sense.

[slackmaster]

7. The Internet is not a train system

Please read the whole Samuelson piece. IMO he makes several excellent arguments.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/13/AR2011021302203.html

[ProSense]

9. His entire case

is cost based on a limited infrastructure. It's a bogus argument.

[slackmaster]

10. So you're basically saying that the solution to losing money on small projects...

...is to make it up in volume by doing big projects like Amtrak, which is losing money at an ever-increasing rate.

Sure, you can make a vague argument that the $35 billion that it's eaten in subsidies has paid off in intangible benefits, but that's not sound economic policy.

[ProSense]

13. Wait,

when the federal government got involved in airport development, how long did it take for airlines to become profitable and less subsidized?

Government Funding of Airports

In the earliest years of civil aviation, no federal money went to build or operate civil landing fields. Federal money was, however, spent to map and catalog the 980 airfields in the United States that had been built by 1918 with private funds. The government's main financial support for aviation came through the purchase of military aircraft and through the military airfields that the government had constructed, especially during World War I. The government also began airmail service in 1918.

As airmail grew, the U.S. government became more involved with airports. The Post Office began investing in air stations to support the transcontinental air route in the early 1920s. The Air Commerce Act, signed by President Calvin Coolidge on May 20, 1926, made it the duty of the Secretary of Commerce to “promote air commerce.” with provisions for: the licensing, inspection, and operation of aircraft; the licensing of pilots and of mechanics engaged in aircraft work; and the operation and extension of the airways system begun by postal authorities. The Act, however, specifically barred the use of federal money for building or maintaining airports. Despite this limitation, the growth of aviation encouraged by the Act led to more private airport development.

During the Great Depression, the Federal Government began massive funding for civil works as part of its effort to create jobs and stimulate the economy. Many of these projects involved airport construction. The Civil Works Administration and later the Federal Emergency Relief Administration spent $11.5 million by the spring of 1934 on labor for 943 airport projects in small cities that established 585 new airports. Aviation regulatory agencies cooperated with these programs. Use of federal funds for constructing landing areas “reasonably necessary for use in air commerce or in the interests of national defense” continued to be allowed.

more

<...>

In 1936, the airline industry created the Air Transport Association with its associated Air Travel plan and Air Travel Card, first offered by American Airlines. After a $425 deposit, the card allowed travelers to “buy now, pay later” at a 15 percent discount. It was the start of the credit card industry. By the end of the decade, all the major domestic airlines offered similar cards that could be used on 17 different airlines. The association also created a standard airline ticket that, with only minor changes, is still issued as the “paper” air ticket.

Air travel early in the decade was limited mostly to the upper class and to those who had a good reason to fly, such as manufacturers' representatives and those involved in banking. Flying was more expensive than traveling by train and “discretionary” flying was not yet practiced. According to aviation historian Roger Bilstein, a market survey of the 2,500 air fares in 1930 revealed that “85 percent of the passengers came from major businesses and high-income residential areas.” Charles Solberg states that, in 1932, the main reason people flew was speed. Although only 25 people died in an air accident that year, it was perceived as dangerous; a $5,000 insurance policy for a plane trip cost $2 while for a trip by train, the cost was 25 cents. From 1932, the most famous airline passenger of the 1930s was very likely First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, who crisscrossed the country by air.

With the introduction of the Douglas DC-2 in 1934 and the DC-3 in 1936, air travel became much more comfortable and somewhat more commonplace. The DC-2 could fly coast-to-coast faster than any passenger plane before, and the DC-3 had both day and sleeper models, allowing passengers to travel cross-country in comfort. By 1939, at least 75 percent of all air travelers were flying on DC-3s. While the earlier trimotors had been plagued by engines that transmitted noise and vibration back to the passengers, Douglas planes added soundproofing to its cabins, ventilation ducts, and structure. Upholstered seats mounted on rubber and padded arm rests further reduced noise and vibration. The planes could also fly higher, around 20,000 feet, (6,100 meters), reducing, although not eliminating, turbulence, and the spar structure made the cabin roomier and easier to navigate than the contemporary Boeing 247, which had an internal spar that passengers had to step over.

The introduction of these transports of the mid and late 1930s can be credited with increasing the number of air passengers from 474,000 in 1932 to 1,102,000 in 1937 and to 1,176,858 passengers in 1938 (U.S. Department of Commerce statistics). Other statistics state that the number of passenger miles traveled in the United States increased 600 percent from 1936 to 1941, a growth that was very largely due to the DC-3. But even as late as 1939, flying travelers made up just 7.6 percent of the long-distance train market. It would take several years more before the number of passengers traveling by air surpassed the train.

link

Do you think if the government invested in massive rail development and then encouraged rail travel it would be beneficial?

One can't make the argument that it shouldn't be done because one rail line failed. A huge federal commitment will have significant benefits short and long term, which includes creating jobs and saving the environment.

[slackmaster]

17. Maybe

Do you think if the government invested in massive rail development and then encouraged rail travel it would be beneficial?

I insist on seeing a detailed, long-term plan with cost/benefit analysis of every phase before I take a position on that.

[ProSense]

29. Hmmm?

"I insist on seeing a detailed, long-term plan with cost/benefit analysis of every phase before I take a position on that."

Start here (from my previous post)

During the Great Depression, the Federal Government began massive funding for civil works as part of its effort to create jobs and stimulate the economy. Many of these projects involved airport construction. The Civil Works Administration and later the Federal Emergency Relief Administration spent $11.5 million by the spring of 1934 on labor for 943 airport projects in small cities that established 585 new airports. Aviation regulatory agencies cooperated with these programs. Use of federal funds for constructing landing areas “reasonably necessary for use in air commerce or in the interests of national defense” continued to be allowed.

... and here.

Air travel early in the decade was limited mostly to the upper class and to those who had a good reason to fly, such as manufacturers' representatives and those involved in banking.

Massive investment with relatively no passengers and high fares.

Didn't you say this stuff isn't hard to research? Let me know what you find.

[slackmaster]

34. I'm not seeing anything that resembles a cohesive plan

Just bumper-sticker slogans.

[CreekDog]

24. that poster is against government spending in general

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

61. I'm against inefficient use of public money.

Not against government spending by any stretch of the imagination.

I want to see the numbers before I buy into it, and I want project managers held accountable for their cost estimates and delivery commitments.

[StarsInHerHair]

100. then you must be reallyangry how they designed the county budgets so

they HAVE to spend or fritter the money, or next year's budget will be reduced by the amount they saved, if they did.

[Doctor_J]

88. Yes, despite 30 years of evidence to the contrary,

some self-identifying Dems still believe that unbridled, uninhibited, untaxed "private enterprise" is the way to create jobs.

[Doctor_J]

16. Oh, no! Lose money????

Guess what, some things are more important than profits. Like health care, jobs, and education.

Yeesh

[slackmaster]

18. As Samuelson points out, long-term transit subsidies take money away from more important things

Like health care, law enforcement, and education. Jobs come mostly from private-sector innovation.

[CreekDog]

26. New York City Subway? Is that subsidized? And for how long has it been?

what should a ride on the NYC subway cost?

[slackmaster]

36. Is someone planning on building a national subway system with stops every few blocks?

I haven't seen the plan.

[CreekDog]

38. about the New York City subway, should it be subsidized?

or not?

what should the fare be?

[slackmaster]

41. Your question is a Red Herring. Local transit and national transit are not the same issues.

Most of the country is anything not like New York City.

:hi:

[CreekDog]

42. you said that "...long-term transit subsidies take money away from more important things"

in characterizing what Samuelson said and said that you agreed with your paraphrase.

but now...

so i take it, mass transit in urban areas is acceptable to you, with subsidies in a case like NYC.

[slackmaster]

45. Your replies in this thread are argumentative. It's not a "rail is good" vs. "rail is bad" issue

I just want to see a cohesive plan before we go down the road of a national high-speed rail system.

[CreekDog]

52. but you set a standard that is likely not met anywhere

nor is it a good standard (self-sustaining)

one of the reasons government does things is that some things are worth doing even when they are not sustainable.

[slackmaster]

58. Is it "worth" subsidizing the Amtrak line connecting L.A. and New Orleans for more than $400...

...per passenger?

I don't believe so.

[CreekDog]

80. is that what's being proposed for high speed rail?

or are you just trying to score easy political points because you don't like government spending on much of anything?

because your pattern has always been to complain about any area of spending in between posts about too much spending in general, when you criticize without discrimination government spending in general.

[slackmaster]

82. I haven't seen any details on what is being proposed for high-speed rail

Have you?

[CreekDog]

84. then why are you attacking a proposal based on the fact that Amtrak runs New Orleans to LA

as if that's being proposed here for high speed rail.

[slackmaster]

85. I'm criticizing the idea of spending $600 billion over 20 years without a detailed financial plan

I want to see a transparent, specific plan with results that can be audited. I like rail, the idea of fast trains appeals to me emotionally, but I'm not going to become a cheerleader for it until I see the details.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2011/02/08/ST2011020806998.html

[CreekDog]

87. Trying to trick us? There is no plan to spend $600 billion in 20 years

and that's not a reason to oppose $53 billion in competitive funding over the next 6 years.

again, you are just trying to score cheap political points against investing in infrastructure.

first you limit your examination of projects to California and then after excluding the other 49 states decide you don't know enough about them to warrant investing any more money into it.

this is game playing and not a good faith discussion.

when you want to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of real proposals and not knock down ones that haven't been funded, maybe we can have a productive discussion.

[StarsInHerHair]

101. if you saw a plan would you be able to recognize it?

or is it always "no"?

[WatsonT]

53. A rail project will give us healthcare, jobs, and education?

Remarkable.

[CreekDog]

22. you're being dishonest, you stated that no passenger rail projects made money anywhere

but here you make it sound like only California.

also why do they need to turn a profit? do highways turn a profit?

how would that work?

[slackmaster]

25. Baloney, CreekDog. I have never said any such thing.

...you're being dishonest, you stated that no passenger rail projects made money anywhere...

This is obviously not accurate. I don't doubt that rail systems can be self-sustaining. I'm sensitive to the issue of financing because of more than one system IN MY STATE that has not lived up to promises and expectations.

I want to see the plan.

[CreekDog]

28. you said, "I don't know of an example, but I'm not sure there aren't any"

when i asked you what rail projects anywhere in the USA meet your standard:

"name 1 rail system in the entire country that's self sustaining

meaning no taxpayer or government support."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=607311&mesg_id=607726

[slackmaster]

35. Saying "I don't know of any" is not the same as saying that none exist

I simply said that I don't know. I'm not an expert on rail transportation.

I do know that the Amtrak system as a whole is not self-sustaining.

[CreekDog]

40. then why did you say "I'm sure there aren't any" (in the same sentence!)

:wtf: :rofl:

if you're going to insist on having such opinions, you could at least not act so ashamed of them.

[slackmaster]

43. RIF - I said "I'm _not_ sure there aren't any" as you quoted me up-thread

Did you see the word "not" in there?

Do you understand what I meant now, in light of the fact that you overlooked that word? It kind of changes the meaning, doesn't it?

[CreekDog]

46. true

my bad on that. :(

[slackmaster]

48. PEACE!

:hi:

[Hello_Kitty]

71. What modes of transportation are self-sustaining? eom

[slackmaster]

72. The US highway system

The government takes in more in fuel taxes than it spends maintaining the system.

[Hello_Kitty]

76. Considering the state of many of our roads and bridges there shouldn't be a surplus.

If there are extra funds it's not self-sustainment, it's non-sustainment.

[Kennah]

89. Anyone remember the I-35 bridge collapse in MN?

[Hello_Kitty]

70. What modes of transportation have been money-makers?

Every mode is subsidized. Every one.

[slackmaster]

73. The US highway system brings in more money than it costs to maintain

Fuel taxes.

[Hello_Kitty]

77. Not this year, apparently

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/25/infrastructure-lahood-idUSN2527689020090625

[slackmaster]

79. Good catch

It seems that management practices could use some work.

[Saturday]

3. Recommend nt

[great white snark]

5. K&R, thank you.

[paulk]

12. I don't think he's "dead wrong", he makes some valid points

I would agree with the poster "slackmaster" that a national high speed rail system is going to lose money for the taxpayer - note I said "national", because there are places where it makes economic sense.

I would still support it, however, for the same reason I support Amtrak - because it will put people to work. I hope that Samuelson is wrong about the subsidies for HSR threatening things like education or law enforcement.

[karynnj]

15. A year ago when I helped a daughter plan a UK train trip, the website

for their rail network had an estimate of the total amount of carbon that could be saved if all short airplane flights were replaced by rail. It was not there, but I did find this article that speaks of the savings that could be had. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/04/high-speed-rail-adonis (My daughter and a friend found the train was great for most of the transportation they needed.

[Yavin4]

20. To Those That Agree with Samuelson

Don't complain when gas goes to $5 (or higher) per gallon. Just pay it and shut up.

[slackmaster]

21. I'm OK with having government continue to not (net) subsidize highway travel

The market will work things out. If fuel becomes too expensive, people will drive more efficient vehicles or drive less.

Having rail fares held artificially low by subsidizing rail travel systems that don't pay for themselves means higher taxes and/or less money for other things that government is supposed to provide.

[Yavin4]

27. Fuel Efficient Vehicles Are Not The Answer to

scarce resources. There's only so much fuel, and the developing world's consumption is increasing exponentially. By creating communities around our nation that are heavily dependent on a car, we have made ourselves and our economy extremely vulnerable to higher gas prices.

People cannot drive less if there is no efficient public transportation.

[slackmaster]

32. Fuel-efficient vehicles are absolutely necessary and will become more important as resources dwindle

Saying they're "not the answer" suggests a false dichotomy.

Frankly I think a lot more people could telecommute, including me. I really only need to be at my office about 1-2 times per week at most, but the bosses insist on having me there all the time.

[Yavin4]

37. Didn't Say They Were Not Necessary

I said that they're not an answer to a rapidly dwindling precious resource.

[slackmaster]

47. No, you said they were not "the" answer

I said that they're not an answer to a rapidly dwindling precious resource.

I disagree. They are "an" answer and IMO a useful one, just not the only thing that needs to be done.

[Yavin4]

86. Fuel Efficiency Is All Well and Good

But the rate of fuel efficiency cannot withstand the overall global consumption rate. It just cannot.

[Kennah]

90. Greater fuel efficiency is a step towards progress, but not the end game

18 MPG in 1978

27.5 MPG in 1990 (originally was supposed to hit in 1985, IIRC)

Industry fought it tooth and nail.

Hybrids aren't a panacea, but they are a step.

Plugin hybrids aren't a panacea, but they are a bigger step.

EVs aren't a panacea, until massive changes are made to the power grid. However, we don't have to wait for a panacea while we take steps.

[ProSense]

49. Interesting.

"The market will work things out. If fuel becomes too expensive, people will drive more efficient vehicles or drive less."

Rob Samuelson's argument is all about maintaining dependency on oil. He doesn't give a damn about efficiency, the environment, jobs, etc.

Samuelson: The age of petroleum will continue

<...>

Well, two things: decrease oil consumption, preferably by a stiffer gasoline tax; and increase production, preferably by less-hostile regulation.

The Obama administration isn't doing either. Instead, it's touting a goal of 1 million electric hybrid vehicles by 2015.

This is more public relations than policy. The goal is probably unrealistic; first-year sales of the Chevy Volt may reach 25,000.

Even if the 1 million is attained, the oil savings would be tiny - perhaps 40,000 barrels a day, about two-tenths of 1 percent of U.S. consumption of 19 million barrels a day. There are already 240 million cars and light trucks using gasoline.

<...>

[slackmaster]

50. What do long-distance trains run on?

;-)

[ProSense]

51. There are always arguments against

progress, and then there are always valid reasons to pursue it. You've got to start somewhere.

<...>

A press release stated that each locomotive in the existing fleet burns 228,000 gallons of fuel per year, resulting in the release of 241 tons of pollutants.

Officials said the new locomotives will burn about 36,500 fewer gallons while generating more horsepower. The energy savings will be about $78,000 a year per locomotive.

In June 2010, the MassDOT Board of Directors approved the purchase of an additional 20 new diesel-electric locomotives from Motive Power Inc. of Boise, Idaho, at a cost of $114 million. The 20 new locomotives will be brought into service in 2013 to replace the 20 oldest units in the fleet.

link

As the OP points out:

Rail, high speed or otherwise is so much more fuel efficient that flying it is not even funny. A jet liner averages 48 passenger-miles per gallon; it sounds pretty good until you hear that rail averages 468 passenger-miles per gallon. That is today’s system, and it could be much improved upon by increasing the number of passengers and the speed of the trains.

[slackmaster]

55. Let's compare apples to apples. Amtrak claims 28% higher fuel efficiency than passenger vehicles.

...According to U.S. Department of Energy data, Amtrak is almost 20 percent more efficient than domestic airline travel and 28 percent more efficient than auto travel on a per-passenger-mile basis.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=WSArticlePage&pagename=WhistleStop%2FWSArticlePage%2FBlank_Template&cid=1153323727125

The claim in the OP of 468 passenger-miles per gallon isn't sourced, and I find it hard to believe unless it assumes some very high figure for ridership. (A Wikipedia article cites the figure as the result of a test of a particular system with the assumption of every seat being filled, but the source document is not found - See footnote 31 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation ).

People are light as cargo goes. An empty passenger train burns just about as much fuel as a full one. Rail is certainly efficient at moving heavy cargo, but you don't see many empty rail cars crossing the country. Non-expiring subsidies for rail transport take away the incentive to continually assess which lines are pulling their weight financially and which are not, like Amtrak's Los Angeles to New Orleans line. Taxpayers carry the burden of under-utilized Amtrak routes.

It's an undeniable fact of physics that the effects of air friction become exponentially worse the faster you go. If all other factors are equal, a faster train is always going to be less efficient than a slower one.

Using Amtrak's real-world figures as a guidepost, we could achieve the same fuel savings without spending a dime of public money by using tax incentives or penalties to force vehicle makers to improve the efficiency of the nation's passenger vehicle fleet by 28%.

I love trains, but "progress" for its own sake isn't really beneficial.

[ProSense]

63. So

you're arguing that being more efficient is bad?

"...According to U.S. Department of Energy data, Amtrak is almost 20 percent more efficient than domestic airline travel and 28 percent more efficient than auto travel on a per-passenger-mile basis."

You: "Using Amtrak's real-world figures as a guidepost, we could achieve the same fuel savings without spending a dime of public money by using tax incentives or penalties to force vehicle makers to improve the efficiency of the nation's passenger vehicle fleet by 28%.

I love trains, but "progress" for its own sake isn't really beneficial."

How exactly does this refute the point here?

"we could achieve the same fuel savings without spending a dime of public money by using tax incentives"

I wasn't aware that "tax incentives" weren't public money? Does that mean oil subsidies aren't public money?

What you are proposing doesn't address the full picture: the economy, jobs, infratructure, etc.

[slackmaster]

69. My replies 21, 32, and 47 are all clearly supportive of fuel efficiency

..you're arguing that being more efficient is bad?

Only in some bizarre Through The Looking Glass intentional misinterpretation of everything I have ever written in my life on the subject of transportation.

I wasn't aware that "tax incentives" weren't public money?

Perhaps my point would be harder to misunderstand if I had used the term "tax penalties", but I was trying to use diplomatic language.

Does that mean oil subsidies aren't public money?

That's a different subject, but for the record I am generally opposed to oil subsidies. I'd like to see the price of oil-derived products rise naturally to the point where it offsets the real cost of producing them.

What you are proposing doesn't address the full picture: the economy, jobs, infratructure, etc.

I haven't proposed anything here other than forcing vehicle manufacturers to make more efficient vehicles, and you can add ending oil subsidies if you insist.

[ProSense]

75. "Perhaps my point would be harder to misunderstand if I had used the term "tax penalties" Well,

thanks for clarifying, but what's a tax penalty, and how does it differ from public money?

You're arguing everything away with "I meant to say" and "I haven't proposed anything"

The big picture: economy, jobs, infrastructure, peak oil, etc.

Samuelson is wrong.

[WatsonT]

54. Water and pixie dust

duh.

[slackmaster]

59. Too late to edit, I realized a better title would be "Trains: How Do They Work?"

[StarsInHerHair]

102. no "the market" has never been honest, they lie about expiration dares on

meats, they deceive and fight against 'Country of Origin' labels, they refuse to label genetic modified food.....perhaps you've forgotten that the U.S. Government is supposed to be the Great Equalizer and support projects for the long term. If only short term goals are considered........well that's plain stupid

[golfguru]

66. Amtrak is a financial disaster requiring massive tax payer subsidies

No thanks, no more government bureaucrats deciding what is good for us.

If high speed rail is such a good idea, private money would be breaking down doors
to get on the bandwagon, as they do in every possible profit potential venture.

[ProSense]

68. "No thanks, no more government bureaucrats deciding what is good for us."

Yeah, government sucks, right?

[golfguru]

92. Post Office, Amtrak are never profitable

You can't argue with facts.

[ProSense]

104. Post office isn't suppose to make a profit

It's suppose to be revenue neutral.

[Hello_Kitty]

74. If we always waited until the private sector thought things were profitable

There are a LOT of innovations we would not have today. The computer and internet you're typing on, just to name a couple.

[slackmaster]

78. Just a couple of data points here...

Electronic computing machines were originally developed for the purpose of producing ballistic tables for artillery.

The Internet was designed during the Cold War as a military communications system that would be resistant to disruption by nuclear attacks on cities and military bases.

Computers are in widespread use today because people found practical commercial uses for the technology.

[Hello_Kitty]

81. They were government investments that private companies found practical uses for

Would they necessarily be here if the government hadn't made the initial investment?

[slackmaster]

83. They would not necessarily have ever been developed had government not started them

:hi:

[golfguru]

91. Telephone, Transistor, Airplanes, Steam Locomotive,

Wireless Radio, digital computers, Cell phones, Automatic Transmissions, Heart transplants,
99% of miracle drugs, Polio Vaccine & other vaccines.....on and on and on
were all developed by the private sector without tax payer subsidies.

[ProSense]

105. Nice products

What does those have to do with the government funding significant research and development?

Are you going to claim medical breakthroughs as a result of the space program are insignificant.

While private funding was involved, the Polio vaccine was the result of a massive campaign by a sitting President and efforts undertaken at a research university.

In 1947, Salk accepted an appointment to the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. In 1948, he undertook a project funded by the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis to determine the number of different types of polio virus.

link

It was founded by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1938 as the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis to defeat the epidemic disease poliomyelitis, commonly known as polio, which Roosevelt may have contracted at the age of 39.

link

Are you saying drug companies and research aren't subsidized?

[golfguru]

106. As opposed to you, I actually worked in a government funded

research lab for over 10 years. The money we wasted will make you puke.
The point is, if you throw buckets of money on anything, a few slivers
of useful products will pop out. The return on investment in such government
funded entities is abysmal at best.

On the other hand a privately funded program will not exist for long if
marketable products are not being created. So the waste is minimum, if any.

[ProSense]

107. "The money we wasted will make you puke."

Private companies don't waste money?

You mean parties for executives' mistresses, six-figure shower curtains, $100,000 belt buckles, $20,000 hotel rooms are prudent?

Still, that misses the point.

[golfguru]

108. Private companies have to produce PROFITS

It does not matter what lavish perks are given out, the REAL OWNERS
(stock holders) demand profits.

Government has no such sword hanging on their heads. They can just
take from the tax payers. Good examples are AMTRAK & POST-OFFICE.
Losing money by buckets. And still in business!

Private corporation with such dismal results would be in bankruptcy
and in oblivion long ago.

[ProSense]

110. And they still waste money

"It does not matter what lavish perks are given out, the REAL OWNERS
(stock holders) demand profits."

Profit isn't an indication that there isn't waste nor is it a measure of value. The reason a lot of companies ship jobs overseas is because they claim it's too costly to make their products and deliver some services here. Quality often suffers as a result.

So they profit and deliver crappy products and shitty service.

The Post Office is valuable to the entire country. Amtrak is valuable to nearly 30 million communters.

[golfguru]

112. Profits are the surest indicator that the product or service

being produced has a higher market value than all the waste in
the corporation. Which is why Apple stock is in stratosphere.
People are willing to pay $500 for an Ipad which costs Apple
$50 to produce. Apple can afford to waste $400 per Ipad and still
make profit.

The government OTOH is producing services which are not in high demand
for various reasons. I use UPS to ship items 10 times more than USPS.
UPS gives me tremendously accurate tracking and never fails to deliver
on time promised. USPS tracking is a joke.

[golfguru]

109. Private companies have to produce PROFITS

It does not matter what lavish perks are given out, the REAL OWNERS
(stock holders) demand profits.

Government has no such sword hanging on their heads. They can just
take from the tax payers. Good examples are AMTRAK & POST-OFFICE.
Losing money by buckets. And still in business!

Private corporation with such dismal results would be in bankruptcy
and in oblivion long ago.

[golfguru]

94. Incorrect

The first functional computer "ENIAC" was developed using military funding.
However that machine weighed 30 Tons = 60,000 lbs and occupied 1800 SQ-FT.

http://inventors.about.com/od/estartinventions/a/Eniac.htm

Computers you and I use today would be impossible with an ENIAC based design
because it used vacuum tubes which required lot of electrical power and none
of us have houses big enough to accommodate that monster.

The REAL COMPUTER AGE began with the discovery of the transistor, which was
not tax payer funded project.

http://www.cedmagic.com/history/transistor-1947.html

[Common Sense Party]

93. Yeah, let's see them link Salt Lake to Denver via high speed rail.

Accomplish that, under-budget, on-time, and with a ticket price under $800...and then I'll agree that it's a good investment.

[AndyTiedye]

96. Its Good to Have More Options for Travel

Air travel got really disrupted in Europe after that volcano erupted in Iceland and filled the air with volcanic ash. Planes don't work so well in that stuff.
Lucky for them they have all those trains.

And now they think Mt. St. Helens might be getting ready…
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4734598

And who can forget air travel being shut down for a week after 9/11.

[lovefreedomfairness]

113. Priorities

nothing against rail infact they may be neat especially if you can go out back and get fresh air but I think theres so many things that are better

like spending money to make us more energy efficient because:

imagine if the whole country or at least 50% got their power from solar
that would mean lower electric bills by thousands per household every year boosting our economy
helping people with their budgets

- it would make the environment cleaner

- it would make us more independant and less susceptible to price inflation when prices for oil sky rocket or when the enrons of the world get thier hands on decision making apperatuses which honestly they probably want to again with the cap and trade system and wall street also does by trading via derivitives for energy; thats why California is in the state it is now it never recovered from enron and since that was so succesful there are interests that want to do that to the whole country (just like how sucessful the massachusets health care is) - fun huh
and we wouldnt have to worry about higher electric bills if we were energy independant

- it would create jobs that would pay it self back in the long run

- high speed rail may create jobs but once it's built not enough will use it and it will have deficeits every year
and may bankrupt us as opposed to solar which will not only pay itself in the future it will also stimulate the economy for years to come if every house hold has about $1000 in their pockets year after year after year after year after year etc

- it will also decrease demand for oil and may help lower the prices

- theres a lot of other things that could be done also - just my opinion high speed rail should be low on the list of priorities, as far as how much we will get in return for the investment