Governor Schwarzenegger asks China for money
NOTE: This story from Reuters dated September 13, 2010, indicates the United States government does not have sufficient funds to finance the construction of America's high-speed rail program. Otherwise, Governor Schwarzenegger wouldn't be seeking to borrow from China to build California's project.
Why, if funds are not available, does President Obama go to Milwaukee and Cleveland on Labor Day promising to re-build our rail infrastructure? Every time Obama makes a public appearance lately, he promotes high-speed rail. Apparently this a political ploy designed to garner Democrat voter support in the November elections. It is equally apparent that American voters are being told lies.
Democrat Party redistribution of wealth plans ("redistribution" is a socialist, not capitalist, concept) prevent new job creation and hinder economic recovery. Properly done, high-speed rail would provide two million new jobs within two years -- but "properly done" is defined as a national program, not building rapid transit in a handful of states.
What President Obama and Vice President Biden refer to as "high-speed rail" is really "rapid transit." Yet, estimated construction costs reflect the cost of high-speed rail, not rapid transit. Readers might want to remember that bullet trains (high-speed rail) travel from 150 to 222 miles per hour (mph). The maximum rail speed achieved by the Obama Administration plan is 150 mph.
What's going on? Oh, yes. Political ploy.
SHANGHAI | Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:07am EDT
SHANGHAI (Reuters) - California will seek China's help in financing its high-speed rail system and welcome bids from Chinese firms to help build it, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said on Monday.
Earlier this year, California was awarded $2.25 billion of the $8 billion set aside for high-speed rail projects under the U.S. government's stimulus plan. The state plans to build a high-speed line between Los Angeles and San Francisco.
"We look to China to build our high speed rail, to be part of the bidding process that we are going to go through," Schwarzenegger told a gathering of U.S. businesses in Shanghai.
"Many countries will be bidding to build our high-speed rail, (and we plan) also to look for financing from China," he said.
The $8 billion, part of the $863 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, will introduce high-speed rail to a country that has long relied on a vast interstate highway network and air travel.
Completing high-speed lines will require a mix of federal, state and private investment, experts have said.
California, which has entered into its fiscal year without a budget signed into law, has seen its financial problems crimp its ability to move ahead with projects such as the high-speed rail.
Last year, California temporarily issued IOUs during a lengthy budget impasse.
U.S. government transportation officials have also recently toured China and other Asian countries as the United States embarks on its plans to build more high-speed rail lines.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
The Rush Limbaugh Show on High-Speed Rail
RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW, August 30, 2010, 1:45-2:00 P.M. (EDT)
(Guest Host for Rush, Mark Belling, Comments on High-Speed Rail)
One of the initiatives of the Obama Administration has been high-speed rail. Take existing Amtrak lines and convert them to these 110 to 115 mile an hour trains and put these trains where there isn’t Amtrak service right now. They’re pushing this all over America right now. It’s extremely expensive. All over the country, you’re seeing states you think would support these train lines because they’re getting the trains are objecting. They are objecting on the basis that it costs too much.
(Paragraph about general pork barrel spending omitted here. See below for total pork barrel spending text.)
In my own state of Wisconsin, Obama is pushing a high-speed rail line between the cities of Milwaukee and Madison. They’re only 75 miles apart. When traffic is terrible it’s only a 90 minute drive… when it’s terrible. It’s usually a little bit less than that. It’s an annoying drive, but it’s do-able. He wants to put a high-speed bullet train there – a train that will go 115 miles per hour and maybe you’ll be able to complete the trip in an hour.
The cost for this line – which is a little over 80 miles – is $810 million, paid for by the federal government. The leading Republican candidate for Governor in my state, Scott Walker, is running television ads saying he’ll kill the train if you elect him. Those ads are resonating across Wisconsin. He’s saying, “If you elect me, I’ll kill this pork they’re trying to give us” – and he sees it as a winning political issue.
First of all, he recognizes that our state of Wisconsin will be on the hook for operating costs for this train. He also realizes that those costs will have to be taken out of his own State budget and will mean less money for roads, less money for local busses.
The point that I’m making is that he has a winning issue here, he perceives, by opposing federal money. The Democratic candidate for governor, the Mayor of Milwaukee, is saying; “Well, if we don’t take this money for the train, they’re just going to give it to another State.” People aren’t buying that. They’d rather not have the pork at all than have it wasted in their own area.
This is a fundamental change. I think people are now open to considering that all of this government spending is bad, even if they get it. They look at stimulus. $816 billion that supposedly is being spent. They can’t find any example of it in their own daily lives. They don’t see any jobs being created. They’re turning their noses up at the notion that the government should be spending, and spending, and spending and spending and spending without any consequence at all.
If they’re willing to object to rail, they may be willing to object to a lot more pork. But more importantly, I think it tells you that there is a change in attitude going on in this country.
TOTAL TEXT OF MONOLOGUE, RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW, CLOSE TO 2:00 P.M. (EDT), Guest Host: Mark Belling, on Pork Barrel Spending. Wisconsin high-speed rail project used as an example.
BY MARK BELLING ON RUSH LIMBAUGH:
The media has a way of missing a lot of things because they are blind to them. When you don’t want to see something, you don’t see it.
There’s something going on right now on an issue that I think is really important and it tells you that 2010 is a different year. One of the initiatives of the Obama Administration has been high-speed rail. Take existing Amtrak lines and convert them to these 110 to 115 mile an hour trains and put these trains where there isn’t Amtrak service right now. They’re pushing this all over America right now. It’s extremely expensive. All over the country, you’re seeing states you think would support these train lines because they’re getting the trains are objecting. They are objecting on the basis that it costs too much.
We all know what the problem with political pork is: Everybody says they’re against it, but everybody wants their own piece of pork. It’s why Congressmen and Senators of both parties have tried to “deliver the mail” back home. “Well, I know we spend too much money – but I want to make sure that our State gets its fair share.” So we object to everybody’s “Bridge to Nowhere” until we get a “Bridge to Nowhere.” We object to every building named after a Congressman across the United States until that building is in our own area and it’s for something we like. This has been the problem all along. Earmarks occurred and Congressional pork occurred because Congressmen benefited politically by bringing that stuff back home. But now that we are spending ourselves blind and people are truly terrified that we don’t have a way of digging out from under this debt – they understand the numbers; they don’t have to be actuaries, they realize the baby-boomers are aging… that this large group of taxpayers is going to be transitioning to people who are going to be on the dole collecting Medicare and Social Security and not paying as much in taxes – so how are we ever going to pay off this debt? How are we ever going to get an economy that has a balanced budget? How are we ever going to be able survive without paying the entire GDP out in servicing our own debt? And they’re now open to rejecting pork. This isn’t isolated.
In my own state of Wisconsin, Obama is pushing a high-speed rail line between the cities of Milwaukee and Madison. They’re only 75 miles apart. When traffic is terrible it’s only a 90 minute drive… when it’s terrible. It’s usually a little bit less than that. It’s an annoying drive, but it’s do-able. He wants to put a high-speed bullet train there – a train that will go 115 miles per hour and maybe you’ll be able to complete the trip in an hour.
The cost for this line – which is a little over 80 miles – is $810 million, paid for by the federal government. The leading Republican candidate for Governor in my state, Scott Walker, is running television ads saying he’ll kill the train if you elect him. Those ads are resonating across Wisconsin. He’s saying, “If you elect me, I’ll kill this pork they’re trying to give us” – and he sees it as a winning political issue.
First of all, he recognizes that our state of Wisconsin will be on the hook for operating costs for this train. He also realizes that those costs will have to be taken out of his own State budget and will mean less money for roads, less money for local busses.
The point that I’m making is that he has a winning issue here, he perceives, by opposing federal money. The Democratic candidate for governor, the Mayor of Milwaukee, is saying; “Well, if we don’t take this money for the train, they’re just going to give it to another State.” People aren’t buying that. They’d rather not have the pork at all than have it wasted in their own area.
This is a fundamental change. I think people are now open to considering that all of this government spending is bad, even if they get it. They look at stimulus. $816 billion that supposedly is being spent. They can’t find any example of it in their own daily lives. They don’t see any jobs being created. They’re turning their noses up at the notion that the government should be spending, and spending, and spending and spending and spending without any consequence at all.
If they’re willing to object to rail, they may be willing to object to a lot more pork. But more importantly, I think it tells you that there is a change in attitude going on in this country.
The Chicago Tribune - On High-Speed Rail
Critics say current plans don't shoot for real travel improvements
Jon Hilkevitch
Getting Around
August 30, 2010
A revolt is building against what some public officials mistakenly consider high-speed rail.
You can't blame anybody who has experienced riding aboard bullet trains for being completely unimpressed by the current goal to have passenger trains traverse the Midwest at top speeds of 110 mph, up from 79 mph on Amtrak today.
But that's the game plan, at a cost of billions of dollars.
Bullet trains routinely operate at 150 to 220 mph. It's the performance level Illinois should be shooting for, said state Sen. Martin Sandoval, D- Chicago, who is chairman of the Illinois Senate Transportation Committee.
Sandoval sponsored legislation this year creating a commission working to establish world-class bullet trains, and he helped push the administration of Gov. Pat Quinn to seek more than $8 million in federal seed money toward that goal.
Other lawmakers have joined the campaign, urging U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to approve the funding to explore truly fast trains that would bring major cities in the Midwest within three hours of each other via rail. A decision is expected soon.
"We need to get to work on true high-speed rail. The people want it,'' Sandoval said, adding he is frustrated that the process of appointing members to the Illinois and Midwest High Speed Rail Commission is "moving as fast as our current freight trains.''
________________________________________
Do you think the U.S. should spend money on bullet trains? Vote and share your reasons at Trib Nation>>
________________________________________
There is a lot of push-back and inertia coming from various quarters.
Officials at Amtrak, which has minimal expertise in operating high-speed rail, don't see a problem topping out at only 110 mph. An infusion of billions of dollars in federal and state funding will mean better Amtrak service in the Midwest — just don't mistake it for true high-speed trains.
The genuine article, service at up to 220 mph, is being planned in California and Florida. It already exists to a lesser degree on Amtrak Acela Express trains that get up to 150 mph on small portions of the route between Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington.
Meanwhile, the Union Pacific Railroad, which owns the track between Chicago and St. Louis that is set to be the first higher-speed corridor in Illinois, officially supports the 110 mph plan because it provides millions of dollars in government subsidies to upgrade tracks, signals and other infrastructure that freight trains share with Amtrak and Metra trains.
The rail modernization will greatly benefit the freight railroad, even though Union Pacific executives would prefer to have nothing to do with high-speed trains.
Union Pacific agreed to allow 110 mph passenger trains on the tracks being rebuilt mostly with federal stimulus funds between Chicago and St. Louis only because it inherited the obligation when it bought the track along the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1996. An earlier Southern Pacific agreement allowing the Illinois Department of Transportation to run faster trains was part of a grandfather clause.
"If I had a choice, I wouldn't be doing this investment (in high-speed rail),'' Union Pacific Chief Executive Officer James Young told the Bloomberg news agency in July. "We need to focus on freight for our good and for the good of the country.''
Sandoval said Illinois "can't sell the real benefits of investing in freight and Amtrak service on the back of the bullet train.''
"Our current state strategy falls short because it relies on the Union Pacific to deliver to the people more round-trips, more reliability at faster times without any guarantees. This investment in the UP is not the bullet train the people want,'' Sandoval said. "We should be upfront with the people of Illinois.''
He is right about no guarantees. The Union Pacific has not agreed to allow for increases in passenger service once the 110 mph track upgrades are completed on the 284-mile line between Chicago and St. Louis. So a huge investment is being made to operate only a few trains a day?
Wouldn't the money be more wisely spent on building track dedicated to 220 mph, electric-powered passenger trains, like California and Florida are doing?
After prodding by true high-speed rail supporters, IDOT begrudgingly asked the Obama administration last year for $5 million to conduct a preliminary study on the feasibility of 220 mph trains along the route from Chicago to St. Louis. The request was submitted during the first round of the high-speed rail funding competition. Illinois' application was denied, although the state did receive $1.23 billion to construct tracks and make other improvements for future 110 mph service.
Now, IDOT is seeking more than $8 million to begin designing a 220 mph bullet train railroad linking Chicago and St. Louis, with stops in downstate Illinois as well as O'Hare International Airport and McCormick Place. The money would be spent on a market study, ridership forecasting, an implementation strategy and a comparison of route options.
The current 5½-hour Amtrak trip between Chicago and St. Louis would be slashed to two hours.
The request is contained in IDOT applications vying for a second round of federal grants to advance Illinois' 110 mph passenger rail program. A decision by the Federal Railroad Administration is expected as early as late September, officials said.
Officials who have recently written to LaHood, the U.S. transportation secretary and a former congressman from Peoria, in support of the $8 million in funding include Sandoval; state Senators John Millner, Toi Hutchinson, Dale Risinger, Michael Bond and David Koehler; state Reps. Ken Dunkin, Sara Feigenholtz, Elaine Nekritz and Dave Winters; U.S. Reps. Phil Hare and Jesse Jackson Jr.; Chicago Ald. Toni Preckwinkle; St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay; Glenn Poshard, president of Southern Illinois University; and Randall Blankenhorn, executive director of the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.
Contact Getting Around at jhilkevitch@tribune.com or c/o the Chicago Tribune, 435 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60611. Read recent columns at chicagotribune.com/gettingaround
Jon Hilkevitch
Getting Around
August 30, 2010
A revolt is building against what some public officials mistakenly consider high-speed rail.
You can't blame anybody who has experienced riding aboard bullet trains for being completely unimpressed by the current goal to have passenger trains traverse the Midwest at top speeds of 110 mph, up from 79 mph on Amtrak today.
But that's the game plan, at a cost of billions of dollars.
Bullet trains routinely operate at 150 to 220 mph. It's the performance level Illinois should be shooting for, said state Sen. Martin Sandoval, D- Chicago, who is chairman of the Illinois Senate Transportation Committee.
Sandoval sponsored legislation this year creating a commission working to establish world-class bullet trains, and he helped push the administration of Gov. Pat Quinn to seek more than $8 million in federal seed money toward that goal.
Other lawmakers have joined the campaign, urging U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to approve the funding to explore truly fast trains that would bring major cities in the Midwest within three hours of each other via rail. A decision is expected soon.
"We need to get to work on true high-speed rail. The people want it,'' Sandoval said, adding he is frustrated that the process of appointing members to the Illinois and Midwest High Speed Rail Commission is "moving as fast as our current freight trains.''
________________________________________
Do you think the U.S. should spend money on bullet trains? Vote and share your reasons at Trib Nation>>
________________________________________
There is a lot of push-back and inertia coming from various quarters.
Officials at Amtrak, which has minimal expertise in operating high-speed rail, don't see a problem topping out at only 110 mph. An infusion of billions of dollars in federal and state funding will mean better Amtrak service in the Midwest — just don't mistake it for true high-speed trains.
The genuine article, service at up to 220 mph, is being planned in California and Florida. It already exists to a lesser degree on Amtrak Acela Express trains that get up to 150 mph on small portions of the route between Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington.
Meanwhile, the Union Pacific Railroad, which owns the track between Chicago and St. Louis that is set to be the first higher-speed corridor in Illinois, officially supports the 110 mph plan because it provides millions of dollars in government subsidies to upgrade tracks, signals and other infrastructure that freight trains share with Amtrak and Metra trains.
The rail modernization will greatly benefit the freight railroad, even though Union Pacific executives would prefer to have nothing to do with high-speed trains.
Union Pacific agreed to allow 110 mph passenger trains on the tracks being rebuilt mostly with federal stimulus funds between Chicago and St. Louis only because it inherited the obligation when it bought the track along the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1996. An earlier Southern Pacific agreement allowing the Illinois Department of Transportation to run faster trains was part of a grandfather clause.
"If I had a choice, I wouldn't be doing this investment (in high-speed rail),'' Union Pacific Chief Executive Officer James Young told the Bloomberg news agency in July. "We need to focus on freight for our good and for the good of the country.''
Sandoval said Illinois "can't sell the real benefits of investing in freight and Amtrak service on the back of the bullet train.''
"Our current state strategy falls short because it relies on the Union Pacific to deliver to the people more round-trips, more reliability at faster times without any guarantees. This investment in the UP is not the bullet train the people want,'' Sandoval said. "We should be upfront with the people of Illinois.''
He is right about no guarantees. The Union Pacific has not agreed to allow for increases in passenger service once the 110 mph track upgrades are completed on the 284-mile line between Chicago and St. Louis. So a huge investment is being made to operate only a few trains a day?
Wouldn't the money be more wisely spent on building track dedicated to 220 mph, electric-powered passenger trains, like California and Florida are doing?
After prodding by true high-speed rail supporters, IDOT begrudgingly asked the Obama administration last year for $5 million to conduct a preliminary study on the feasibility of 220 mph trains along the route from Chicago to St. Louis. The request was submitted during the first round of the high-speed rail funding competition. Illinois' application was denied, although the state did receive $1.23 billion to construct tracks and make other improvements for future 110 mph service.
Now, IDOT is seeking more than $8 million to begin designing a 220 mph bullet train railroad linking Chicago and St. Louis, with stops in downstate Illinois as well as O'Hare International Airport and McCormick Place. The money would be spent on a market study, ridership forecasting, an implementation strategy and a comparison of route options.
The current 5½-hour Amtrak trip between Chicago and St. Louis would be slashed to two hours.
The request is contained in IDOT applications vying for a second round of federal grants to advance Illinois' 110 mph passenger rail program. A decision by the Federal Railroad Administration is expected as early as late September, officials said.
Officials who have recently written to LaHood, the U.S. transportation secretary and a former congressman from Peoria, in support of the $8 million in funding include Sandoval; state Senators John Millner, Toi Hutchinson, Dale Risinger, Michael Bond and David Koehler; state Reps. Ken Dunkin, Sara Feigenholtz, Elaine Nekritz and Dave Winters; U.S. Reps. Phil Hare and Jesse Jackson Jr.; Chicago Ald. Toni Preckwinkle; St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay; Glenn Poshard, president of Southern Illinois University; and Randall Blankenhorn, executive director of the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.
Contact Getting Around at jhilkevitch@tribune.com or c/o the Chicago Tribune, 435 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60611. Read recent columns at chicagotribune.com/gettingaround
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
The Chuck Wilder Show Radio Interview, 2/16/10
CHUCK WILDER: WHY SHOULD AMERICA DO HIGH-SPEED RAIL?
It’s not a “should do” thing – it’s a MUST DO. First, because HSR will increase employment, and career opportunities will increase dramatically; economic recovery would stabilize nationally – and very quickly. I should probably qualify that and say “if it’s done properly and is a national project rather than an Obama Administration 85-mile route in Florida,” economic recovery will stabilize nationally.
Local, State and Federal tax revenues would stop their drop into oblivion. Is there a city or town that didn’t think the gravy train would go on forever – and are suffering mightily from their over-spending and lack of saving for economic downturns?
Second, we MUST do it because the rest of the world is passing America by in the world of transportation. This isn’t about winning a competition, it’s about increasing our capacity to produce and compete with other nations effectively.
Japan implemented its first HSR train in the mid-1960s. On any given day in France, more than 450 high-speed rail trains are running. Another 40 are in use between the U.K. and the Continent. In China, they have opened – or are set to open – 42 high-speed rail lines. Numerous lines have already been opened.
What does Obama give us? An 85-mile route that links Tampa with Orlando – and that isn’t high-speed rail, at all. Instead, it’s rapid transit. Are Obama and Biden so uninformed that they don’t know the definition of “high-speed rail”? Or, are they telling us they want to spend money we don’t have on high-speed rail that isn’t really high-speed rail? Every day we lose is costing us money. Thanks to the irresponsible monetary policies of the Federal Reserve System, inflation will make it twice as costly to do high-speed rail in the future. We’re uninformed by the mainstream media and that’s why talk radio is so important.
COST
People talk about the cost of high-speed rail, but it is tens of billions less costly than the alternative – expanding highways and airports to accommodate population growth. And, the environmental advantages to HSR ARE PHENOMENAL – far better than jets, buses and cars. People who think it’s costly to build a high-speed rail train need to check with Boeing to find out the cost of building planes (that carry far fewer people) for the airline industry. Of course, the government doesn't own the airlines – yet – but wants to own high-speed rail.
WHAT IS HIGH-SPEED RAIL?
It’s important for listeners to know this because if they don’t, when Barack Obama or Joe Biden say “high-speed rail” but provide an 85- or 90-mile train route which, in reality, is “rapid transit,” no one will understand they are being had – that Joe and Barack really aren’t talking about high-speed rail. They say they’ll build high-speed rail – which is more costly so they need more money – but instead plan to build less-costly rapid transit. They’re promising one thing and doing another. Rapid transit – the Obama/Biden plan – does nothing to make America more competitive with rail systems in China, Japan, France and Germany.
OTHER IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES.
1. The newest HSR trains don’t rely on locomotives pulling or pushing them. Power is distributed throughout the undersides of the train cars. Again, a total difference between rapid transit and traditional rail.
2. In addition to track beds and rails and fences and signals and new train depots that need to be built, we will need a new electrical grid – a system with substations (nuclear/non-nuclear). Can the government afford that? I don’t think so! That’s why it requires a private investor who is experienced in the field and knows what he’s doing. If Obama and Biden can’t even define high-speed rail properly, how in the world can we expect them to build it?
3. That’s why so many new jobs will be created if high-speed rail is constructed nationally. You don’t get those jobs by building an 85-mile long rapid transit route in Florida and calling it high-speed rail.
JOBS:
One thing I like about the AmeriRail HSR plan is that the company will hire and train our veterans who are returning from the Middle East. Here’s what their statistics say about job creation:
That sounds like a lot of jobs, but in China, 110,000 jobs were created for one 820-mile high-speed rail route from Shanghai to Beijing. Another plan, created by the State of Florida (not by Joe Biden or Barack Obama or the federal government) for its high-speed rail system, created 40,000 new jobs for that State, alone. Multiply that by 50. The jobs are in construction, manufacturing, operations, maintenance, etc. The AmeriRail plans call for coast-to-coast construction, East/West and North/South. A copy of the company’s map is available at my blog: http://hsr-marilyn.blogspot.com.
HISTORY OF HSR USAGE:
At peak times, more than 1,000 people leave Paris every 30 minutes for Lyon – and those trains are full. Why? Because for every 621,000 miles HSR trains travel, there are only FIVE MINUTES of delays. Those statistics came from the French.
SAFETY:
In the almost 50 year history of high-speed rail, not a single death has occurred. The technology is so great, the precautions taken so specifically defined, there have been no deaths.
If a train gets close to another train ahead of it, it slows down automatically – or it shuts down altogether if it gets too close.
THE POLITICS OF IT ALL:
The airlines are poorly run and, as a result, are in financial trouble. Add a bad economy to that scenario and they are in a lot of financial trouble. Their lobbyists must be fighting hard against high-speed rail because it will cut into their already hurting cash flow. Experience around the world proves that consumers choose high-speed rail, not airplanes, for trips of three-hours, or less. There go the flights between Chicago/ Cincinnati/St. Louis/Minneapolis and between Denver/Salt Lake City/Phoenix, etc. Actually, high-speed rail would allow the airlines to go back to what they were intended to do: Carry passengers on long flights and stop socking it to people who need only travel short distances but must pay an arm and a leg for a 300 or 400 mile trip.
Too, the Federal Rail Administration just doesn’t have a clue when it comes to high-speed rail. In my Canada Free Press article, I refer to the terrible “Business Plan” created for high-speed rail by that agency. I mention that the Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, focused on safety to a point that makes it impossible to build an American high-speed rail system. In a June 2009 New York Times article, those affiliated with European high speed rail are quoted as saying: “The FRA has largely focused on requiring trains to demonstrate crash worthiness, whereas in Europe and Asia the emphasis is on avoiding crashes.” Maybe that’s why in the almost 50 year history of high-speed rail there has not been a death caused by an accident.
And, bottom line, that’s why private investors who know what they’re doing need to build high-speed rail: They know what they’re doing.
It’s not a “should do” thing – it’s a MUST DO. First, because HSR will increase employment, and career opportunities will increase dramatically; economic recovery would stabilize nationally – and very quickly. I should probably qualify that and say “if it’s done properly and is a national project rather than an Obama Administration 85-mile route in Florida,” economic recovery will stabilize nationally.
Local, State and Federal tax revenues would stop their drop into oblivion. Is there a city or town that didn’t think the gravy train would go on forever – and are suffering mightily from their over-spending and lack of saving for economic downturns?
Second, we MUST do it because the rest of the world is passing America by in the world of transportation. This isn’t about winning a competition, it’s about increasing our capacity to produce and compete with other nations effectively.
Japan implemented its first HSR train in the mid-1960s. On any given day in France, more than 450 high-speed rail trains are running. Another 40 are in use between the U.K. and the Continent. In China, they have opened – or are set to open – 42 high-speed rail lines. Numerous lines have already been opened.
What does Obama give us? An 85-mile route that links Tampa with Orlando – and that isn’t high-speed rail, at all. Instead, it’s rapid transit. Are Obama and Biden so uninformed that they don’t know the definition of “high-speed rail”? Or, are they telling us they want to spend money we don’t have on high-speed rail that isn’t really high-speed rail? Every day we lose is costing us money. Thanks to the irresponsible monetary policies of the Federal Reserve System, inflation will make it twice as costly to do high-speed rail in the future. We’re uninformed by the mainstream media and that’s why talk radio is so important.
COST
People talk about the cost of high-speed rail, but it is tens of billions less costly than the alternative – expanding highways and airports to accommodate population growth. And, the environmental advantages to HSR ARE PHENOMENAL – far better than jets, buses and cars. People who think it’s costly to build a high-speed rail train need to check with Boeing to find out the cost of building planes (that carry far fewer people) for the airline industry. Of course, the government doesn't own the airlines – yet – but wants to own high-speed rail.
WHAT IS HIGH-SPEED RAIL?
A. High-speed rail trains exceed 150 m.p.h. China’s newest trains average 222 m.p.h.
B. Rapid transit trains average between 75/100 to 150 m.p.h.
C. Traditional Rail – or, Amtrak – travels from zero to 75/100 m.p.h.
It’s important for listeners to know this because if they don’t, when Barack Obama or Joe Biden say “high-speed rail” but provide an 85- or 90-mile train route which, in reality, is “rapid transit,” no one will understand they are being had – that Joe and Barack really aren’t talking about high-speed rail. They say they’ll build high-speed rail – which is more costly so they need more money – but instead plan to build less-costly rapid transit. They’re promising one thing and doing another. Rapid transit – the Obama/Biden plan – does nothing to make America more competitive with rail systems in China, Japan, France and Germany.
OTHER IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES.
1. The newest HSR trains don’t rely on locomotives pulling or pushing them. Power is distributed throughout the undersides of the train cars. Again, a total difference between rapid transit and traditional rail.
2. In addition to track beds and rails and fences and signals and new train depots that need to be built, we will need a new electrical grid – a system with substations (nuclear/non-nuclear). Can the government afford that? I don’t think so! That’s why it requires a private investor who is experienced in the field and knows what he’s doing. If Obama and Biden can’t even define high-speed rail properly, how in the world can we expect them to build it?
3. That’s why so many new jobs will be created if high-speed rail is constructed nationally. You don’t get those jobs by building an 85-mile long rapid transit route in Florida and calling it high-speed rail.
JOBS:
One thing I like about the AmeriRail HSR plan is that the company will hire and train our veterans who are returning from the Middle East. Here’s what their statistics say about job creation:
1. Within 60 days: 100,000 new career employees;
2. Within 120 days: 300,000 additional new career employees;
3. Within 180 days: 600,000 additional, new career employees;
4. Within 270 days: 200,000 additional, new career employees;
5. Within 365 days: 300,000 additional, new career employees;
6. Within 18 months: 500,000 additional new career employees.
The AmeriRail plan results in two million new career employees for at least five years – that’s Private Sector, not government/public sector jobs.
That sounds like a lot of jobs, but in China, 110,000 jobs were created for one 820-mile high-speed rail route from Shanghai to Beijing. Another plan, created by the State of Florida (not by Joe Biden or Barack Obama or the federal government) for its high-speed rail system, created 40,000 new jobs for that State, alone. Multiply that by 50. The jobs are in construction, manufacturing, operations, maintenance, etc. The AmeriRail plans call for coast-to-coast construction, East/West and North/South. A copy of the company’s map is available at my blog: http://hsr-marilyn.blogspot.com.
HISTORY OF HSR USAGE:
At peak times, more than 1,000 people leave Paris every 30 minutes for Lyon – and those trains are full. Why? Because for every 621,000 miles HSR trains travel, there are only FIVE MINUTES of delays. Those statistics came from the French.
SAFETY:
In the almost 50 year history of high-speed rail, not a single death has occurred. The technology is so great, the precautions taken so specifically defined, there have been no deaths.
If a train gets close to another train ahead of it, it slows down automatically – or it shuts down altogether if it gets too close.
THE POLITICS OF IT ALL:
The airlines are poorly run and, as a result, are in financial trouble. Add a bad economy to that scenario and they are in a lot of financial trouble. Their lobbyists must be fighting hard against high-speed rail because it will cut into their already hurting cash flow. Experience around the world proves that consumers choose high-speed rail, not airplanes, for trips of three-hours, or less. There go the flights between Chicago/ Cincinnati/St. Louis/Minneapolis and between Denver/Salt Lake City/Phoenix, etc. Actually, high-speed rail would allow the airlines to go back to what they were intended to do: Carry passengers on long flights and stop socking it to people who need only travel short distances but must pay an arm and a leg for a 300 or 400 mile trip.
Too, the Federal Rail Administration just doesn’t have a clue when it comes to high-speed rail. In my Canada Free Press article, I refer to the terrible “Business Plan” created for high-speed rail by that agency. I mention that the Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, focused on safety to a point that makes it impossible to build an American high-speed rail system. In a June 2009 New York Times article, those affiliated with European high speed rail are quoted as saying: “The FRA has largely focused on requiring trains to demonstrate crash worthiness, whereas in Europe and Asia the emphasis is on avoiding crashes.” Maybe that’s why in the almost 50 year history of high-speed rail there has not been a death caused by an accident.
And, bottom line, that’s why private investors who know what they’re doing need to build high-speed rail: They know what they’re doing.
Monday, February 15, 2010
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF HSR JOBS CREATED
IMPORTANT AND URGENT MESSAGE
UPDATED AND CONFIRMING ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
WITHOUT ANY US GOVERNMENT AND TAXPAYER DOLLARS
MEMORANDUM
1. WITHIN 60 DAYS; 100,000 NEW CAREER EMPLOYEES,
2. WITHIN 120 DAYS; 300,000 NEW CAREER EMPLOYEES,
3. WITHIN 180 DAYS; 600,000 NEW CAREER EMPLOYEES,
4. WITHIN 270 DAYS; 200,000 NEW CAREER EMPLOYEES,
5. WITHIN 365 DAYS; 300,000 NEW CAREER EMPLOYEES,
6. WITHIN 18 MONTHS; 500,000 NEW CAREER EMPLOYEES
THUS, A MINIMUM OF TWO (2) MILLION NEW CAREER EMPLOYEES FOR AT LEAST ..... FIVE [ 5 ] YEARS .....
A. NEW AND IMMEDIATE STATE AND FEDERAL TAX REVENUES,
B. THREE [3] NEW ELECTRICAL FACILITIES; WEST COAST, MIDWEST AND EAST COAST ZONES,
C. DOMESTIC EMERGENCY EVACUATION ROAD AND RAIL CORRIDORS ADJACENT TO ALL INTER-CONNECTED HSR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS_ AS PROPOSED IN WRITING TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE CLINTON-GORE-RUBIN ADMINISTRATION_SINCE 1995, REFERENCING THE WANTA ALABAMA TOLLWAY - RAIL CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM - FLORIDA-GEORGIA-TENNESSEE-TEXAS-REDSTONE ARSENAL CORRIDORS, AMONG OTHER VITAL PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION AND NATIONAL SECURITY/DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SYSTEM LINKS,
D. NATIONAL SECURITY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY PROFERRED SINCE 1995.
E. I AM ALWAYS READY ----- HOW ABOUT YOUR OBAMA ADMINISTRATION !!
UPDATED AND CONFIRMING ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
WITHOUT ANY US GOVERNMENT AND TAXPAYER DOLLARS
MEMORANDUM
1. WITHIN 60 DAYS; 100,000 NEW CAREER EMPLOYEES,
2. WITHIN 120 DAYS; 300,000 NEW CAREER EMPLOYEES,
3. WITHIN 180 DAYS; 600,000 NEW CAREER EMPLOYEES,
4. WITHIN 270 DAYS; 200,000 NEW CAREER EMPLOYEES,
5. WITHIN 365 DAYS; 300,000 NEW CAREER EMPLOYEES,
6. WITHIN 18 MONTHS; 500,000 NEW CAREER EMPLOYEES
THUS, A MINIMUM OF TWO (2) MILLION NEW CAREER EMPLOYEES FOR AT LEAST ..... FIVE [ 5 ] YEARS .....
A. NEW AND IMMEDIATE STATE AND FEDERAL TAX REVENUES,
B. THREE [3] NEW ELECTRICAL FACILITIES; WEST COAST, MIDWEST AND EAST COAST ZONES,
C. DOMESTIC EMERGENCY EVACUATION ROAD AND RAIL CORRIDORS ADJACENT TO ALL INTER-CONNECTED HSR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS_ AS PROPOSED IN WRITING TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE CLINTON-GORE-RUBIN ADMINISTRATION_SINCE 1995, REFERENCING THE WANTA ALABAMA TOLLWAY - RAIL CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM - FLORIDA-GEORGIA-TENNESSEE-TEXAS-REDSTONE ARSENAL CORRIDORS, AMONG OTHER VITAL PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION AND NATIONAL SECURITY/DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SYSTEM LINKS,
D. NATIONAL SECURITY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY PROFERRED SINCE 1995.
E. I AM ALWAYS READY ----- HOW ABOUT YOUR OBAMA ADMINISTRATION !!
Barnewall: “La Mauvaise Vie?” Is the Story Over?
Canada Free Press, October 26, 2009
There are no national initiatives to bring back U.S. industry or to retain existing businesses
By Marilyn Barnewall Monday, October 26, 2009
One of my favorite newsletters comes from a Canadian writer, Jim Willie. His projections about the North American economy have been right far more often than they have been wrong. He is seldom wrong, in fact. He says America’s story as the leader of the world is over. In his recent newsletter titled “The Golden Jackass“, Willie had this to say:
“It is my contention that the US financial structures broke without any remote potential for repair and revival in the summer of 2007… The system has broken, but the syndicate in control wishes to keep the music going, keep the machinery turning, keep the money flowing, so that they can continue the racket, bury the bond frauds, process the bad paper into USGovt coffers, continue to corner the printing press operations, and continue to con the USCongress into granting more funds. Nobody seeks justice and prosecution for over $1 trillion in mortgage bond fraud. Nobody seeks to remove key Wall Street firms from their command posts within USGovt finance ministries.”
His article continues, pointing out that there are no national initiatives to bring back U.S. industry or to retain existing businesses through reduced taxation and regulatory burdens – which would stimulate start-up businesses.
I agree with Willie that our nation’s financial structures broke in 2007. He may be right that it can’t be fixed. But I believe the big guys have given us a synthetic, imaginary Constitution and Bill of Rights. They synthesized and derivatized our freedoms, our financial markets, and our Rule of Law. They leveraged them many times over and sold them to all takers like ripe Wall Street apples. What those who abused their power created is not reality, though. The phony Wall Street and the too big to jail banks that cannot be brought back to life are what have no potential for repair. They are dying – and they need to get on with it so the real America can be resurrected.
It will be difficult to stimulate industry. There are ways – meaningful ways – to do it. It will take private capital, however, not government money that only piles more debt on the backs of American citizens (some of which have yet to be born).
We need to make clear the forward direction the nation intends to go. One way to do that is to implement a high-speed rail system (HSR). It shouts to the world that we are not only recovering, we are moving forward. It says we welcome the future because we are the future.
HSR can, properly implemented, stimulate several industries. Steel for rails is needed. A new electrical grid is needed. Stations and depots must be built. Since American industry knows nothing about building high-speed rail cars, one of the world’s HSR rail car experts needs to be enticed into opening a plant here, to hire and train American workers.
Following is a list of things that need immediate attention if high-speed rail is to become a reality. It was created by a private company that has been offering since 1995 to build America’s high-speed rail system with zero tax dollars. I know it’s unfamiliar territory for bureaucrats, but “private capital” translates to “zero tax dollars” – which is about what the government currently has in its coffers.
1. Right of Way and Roadbed planning and construction;
2. Roadbed equipment and engineering; with vehicular traffic tunnels;
3. Hi-Speed Train engines and passenger railcars,
4. Civil engineering studies and FDA/USArmy approvals/modifications;
5. Real Estate and Land procurement;
6. Electrical Power Stations;
a. Westinghouse
b. General Electric
c. Other alternatives
7. Hotel, Depot and Maintenance Facilities: design and construction;
8. Rail Track Assembly Plants (20 buildings, minimum);
9. Electrical Power Stations/Plants (Non-nuclear/Nuclear);
10. Human resources;
11. Vehicle procurement;
12. Metal Tower fabrication and wiring;
13. Overall safety and security programs;
14. Underground electrical, water, gas piping between corridors;
15. Parallel two way emergency and evacuation vehicle roadways;
16. Food Management Services;
17. Emergency Health and Safety Services
The above list provides insight into the minimum one million (that’s 1,000,000) jobs that a privately managed HSR system can create through 2014. Add to that at least 50,000 permanent employees needed to run the system.
Why is government determined to maintain control of HSR development? Anyone who doesn’t understand the government is broke isn’t paying attention. They do not have an extra trillion dollars sitting around to implement a project of this size. Yet they hold out to governors of the States that they are working diligently to move HSR forward. They call meetings and more meetings… and apparently never come to any conclusions.
America’s economic and financial alternatives are extremely limited right now. The objective of government must be survival. Are they smart enough to see that more fraud, more special deals, and certainly more tax dollars aren’t in the cards? Jim Willie is right. If the dolts in DC don’t pull their heads out of – the sand – and realize it’s all tumbling down around their ears while they fiddle, America will, indeed, tumble down a rabbit hole into third world status.
For all of the above reasons, I was interested to read the Federal Rail Administration’s (FRA) “Preliminary National Rail Plan” when I received notice of it last week.
According to a January 17, 2009 article, AlterNet says our Secretary of Transportation is “a conservative Republican with little transportation expertise and almost no experience”
The Plan recently released by the Department of Transportation sure makes me want to go back and re-read that article. Talk about being disappointed. This is not a plan. It could find better placement in a book of Grimm’s Fairy Tales with Hansel and Gretl leaving crumbs to lead the way out of the National Rail Plan forest. No decisions about anything have been made and nothing firm has been put in place.
A “Plan?” It could be termed a “Compendium of Hopes and Dreams,” or maybe “HSR Through the Looking Glass.” But a business plan or an executive overview it is not. If government can’t write a plan, how can it implement one? I’ve read and written a lot of business plans in my career and they just aren’t that hard to do – if you know what you’re doing.
Never in the history of the United States has critical thinking been more important to the recovery of our economic well being. The economy sits on the brink of disaster, the housing market can’t find a bottom, and unemployment keeps going up as the tax base goes down. And what do we get from government bureaucrats? A “Plan” announcing the FRA hasn’t got a clue about what needs to be done to implement HSR or how to do it.
The Obama Administration announced HSR as a priority in the rebuilding of America’s infrastructure. As someone keenly interested in the economy, I wanted to read the FRA’s Plan. Page three says the Plan will give me “Groundwork for Developing Policies to Improve the United States Transportation System.” It later says: “Although this Preliminary Plan does not generally offer specific recommendations, it identifies a number of issues this agency believes should be considered in formulating the National Rail Plan.” Bureaucratic doublespeak! It identifies issues?
HSR has been around since the 1960s. If it has the priority the Obama Administration says it does, the FRA would have long ago identified “a number of issues this agency believes should be considered…”
The non-Plan put forth by the FRA clearly shouts the reasons the private sector and not government should control this important project. For example, LaHood’s “Plan” identifies safety as the number one issue. Safety’s good – once you have a rail line planned and ready to build so you have something about which to be “safe.”
Reading through the entire report, I find there is no definition of “High-Speed Rail.” Nor is there any definition of “Rapid Transit Rail” (RTR) or “Traditional Rail” (TR). They are all quite different. Yet, the various announcements made to governors around the country use the words “high-speed rail” when the words “rapid transit rail” should be used. In short, they do not know what they’re doing!
The average speed of HSR trains is between 150 and 250 mph. It takes a rather long distance for the high-speed train to achieve top speed, so you don’t want it to stop every 50 miles. RTR averages between 100 and 150 mph and traditional rail averages from zero to 100 mph. HSR moves people across the country very quickly. RTR takes people from a central HSR depot to a variety of locations. Generally, RTR is built and managed by locally-owned independent contractors (some of whom may currently own rail lines and provide only freight service). RTR picks up the people moving job where HSR leaves off.
America’s railroads saw their finest hours and provided the best quality passenger service almost a hundred years ago. Why? Because that was the way the rail system was structured. A major rail line was built across the country – private capital was used, not tax dollars – and a bunch of small railroad companies built rail lines to take people to specific destinations.
I agree that the synthetic, imaginary, phony economy and political system under which America has been living for many years can’t be fixed. The real thing can. The problem is, Washington’s bureaucrats have been living with their imaginary creation for so long they no longer recognize the real thing. The people, however, do.
Luke 14:28: “Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it?”
Who Should Build Our High-Speed Rail System?
News With Views, June 28, 2009
By Marilyn M. Barnewall
June 28, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
Why is high speed rail important to economic recovery? Why should you care about it? There is one primary reason and a large number of secondary ones.
The primary reason: High speed rail service in America will either be built by experts who have ownership positions to protect and the expertise to implement intelligent programs; or, it will be built by government.
For example, California’s projected costs for high speed rail are from $33 to $37 billion. Californians, already living in a bankrupt state, need to know that costs of recent rail projects in Denver and Seattle are running 60 to 100 percent above projections. That happens when government builds such projects rather than the private sector.
When government funds projects, for some reason politicians throw good money after bad to pay for cost over-runs. When completed, such projects are often turned over to private investors or government-sponsored entities. They keep the profits. Taxpayers get stuck with original project costs and potential losses. We can all spell Amtrak.
Americans know our rail system has made few – if any – improvements in decades. In fact, Amtrak has regressed. In 1938, a Life Magazine article points with pride to the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe which provided service between Chicago and Los Angeles. “Nothing faster” the magazine headline says. The ATSF Railroad made the run (including all depot stops) in 40 hours.
That train was pulled by two 1,800-h.p. Diesel-electric units geared to travel 117 mph and the average speed (including depot stops) was 43.68 mph.
In today’s “modern” America, the Texas Eagle departs Chicago at 1:45 p.m. and arrives in Los Angeles at 9:40 a.m. – three days later. It is 1,747 miles from Chicago to L.A., as the crow flies, -- and we know train tracks take a longer route than crows. The trip requires about 44 hours. The Texas Eagle (at best) averages 39.70 mph. That’s how we can expect government-sponsored projects to run.
Ask yourself how the Interstate Highway system, begun by President Dwight Eisenhower, opened up America for interstate and intrastate trade and travel. Taxes for the treasury increased, too. All of those rest stops, gasoline, food and gift shop purchases, poured tax dollars into State and Federal coffers.
Properly done, high speed rail will do the same for America. Trains traveling up to 200 mph will provide thousands of new jobs and give Americans some much-needed confidence in their country.
The State of Florida bills itself as having “the Most Advanced High Speed Rail Express System Plan in the Country.” Their plan says from 25,000 to 42,000 new jobs will be created. The analysis was done in 2002 by the center for economic forecasting at Florida State University.
In Europe, Japan and China, great progress in rail travel has, in many instances, made trains more popular than air travel… reducing the carbon footprint of air travel.
In Japan, Bullet Trains achieve 200 mph (the record speed is 277 mph… the best average speed which includes stops at depots along the way is 164 mph).
In Japan, you can leave Tokyo on a Shinkansen (translated “New Trunk Line”) Bullet Train, travel an average of 131 mph and arrive at Aomori in three hours and five minutes. The distance between Tokyo and Aomori by rail is about 670 km – or, 402 miles. In America, to go from Chicago, IL to Omaha, NE (431 miles or 694 km) takes 14 hours… an average of 28.71 mph.
The Bullet Trains were implemented by Japan in the mid-1960s and today, using the above example, garner a 67% market share of travel between Tokyo and Aomori. The airlines serve only 33 percent of travel between these two cities.
Speed is important – and construction largely determines the ability to achieve the maximum speed available. In France, when the TGV high-speed operation from Paris to Marseille shortened travel time between the two cities from just over 4 hours to 3 hours, market share jumped to approximately 60%. Prior to that, it carried only 40 percent market share. To gain public support for rail travel and resultant market share, the quality of high speed rail construction is critical.
Under the government plan, stimulus funds for the construction of a regional network of “faster passenger rail lines” will have its hub in Chicago. Big surprise there – hometown boy makes good… and shares the success with political cohorts and cronies. Obama’s words “faster passenger rail lines,” however, are misleading. “Faster passenger rail lines” do not equate to “high speed rail.” If all the Obama administration wants to achieve is make trains faster, it can do what the Atchison, Topeka and the Santa Fe did in 1938: Put two engines on the train and remove the wooden crossties that hold the tracks together and replace them with cement crossties designed to handle faster trains.
Here’s a link to the map provided by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood who has requested stimulus funds to begin high speed rail development.
Because Chicago is home to the man in the White House, we may now define “fly-over country” differently than before. According to the President, it once was that part of America where, in fear of progress, people hold on to their Bibles and their guns. Chicago, under Obama’s “faster passenger rail lines” plan, suddenly emerged as the non-fly over hub of faster rail service. Hmmm… will the nation’s capitol be moved to Chicago next?
Chicago as the hub for high speed rail worries me. My brother lived North of Chicago and for years I drove from O’Hare to his house on the same highway when I visited. After more than ten years, the City of Chicago never completed road repairs on that highway. How can workers employed by government who can’t repair a highway in a timely manner build something as complex as a high speed rail system? How timely will their work be?
When is the last time you saw a government project planned or run efficiently or on budget? Do you recall a government-sponsored program that didn’t hand taxpayer money to political cronies like peppermint candy? One might also ask how many favors will be passed out to elitists… companies like Blackstone, the Carlyle Group, BlackRock, J.P. Morgan, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and others?
Maybe Acorn will be invited to create a high speed rail hedge fund? As I write this, Carlyle, BlackRock and Blackstone appear to be investing in banks – not bad banks, just banks in difficulty – at bargain prices.
There is an alternative to having government build America’s high speed rail system. A private company has offered a high speed rail deal to the government – years ago. The deal offers high speed rail, not just “faster trains.” It promises to use no taxpayer funds. I repeat, no taxpayer money… just private capital.
To which taxpayers would this private company make high speed rail available? Well, let’s look at another map and compare it with the Obama administration’s high speed rail map.
As you can see, this plan brings high speed rail to all taxpayers – who will NOT be paying for it. If we can let go of our Bibles and guns long enough to buy a ticket, even those of us in fly-over country will have access to high speed rail… and so will our local and state economies. New jobs will stimulate our economies, too. All of the country, not just the select Northeast, Chicago, and California Corridors, get high speed rail under this plan.
The offer says the company will: “Build and PAY without liens or encumbrances a total and complete Hi-Speed Bullet type domestic railroad system, based on existing Japanese/Chinese and/or other alternatives.” The offer further states the company will use American employees, suppliers and fabricators. The plans are thorough. Attention has even been paid to using high speed rail for emergency evacuations… what a difference that could have made for Katrina victims!
THE COMPANY WILL “BUILD AND PAY” is a key phrase. It offers American taxpayers a way to avoid paying the hundreds of billions of dollars the high speed rail program will cost – California alone will cost over $50 billion.
I support the concept of high speed rail – necessary to bring America to a transportation par with Japan, China and Europe. However, I prefer that a company experienced in building high speed rail systems pay for it than have government tax me, my children, my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren.
The routing in the offered plan includes New York to Los Angeles, Florida to Seattle, Florida to Los Angeles, New York City to Seattle, Richmond to Sacramento, Seattle to Los Angeles, New York City to Florida – and Texas to Minnesota via the Chicago Corridor up to Detroit.
The proffered plan for high speed rail includes cities like Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Cincinnati, Denver, Salt Lake City, El Paso, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston, Phoenix – and many others. Taxpayers in Iowa, Montana and Arizona would gain as much benefit as the Northeast and Chicago Corridors.
Logic tells me the best way to update America’s rail system so it equals the rest of the world is to let experts in high speed rail build the national grid and let local governments using stimulus funds build “faster train service” that connects communities to it.
There is no doubt America will have high speed rail. The primary question is: will we get high speed rail from the private sector? Or, will we get “faster trains” from the public sector? Will an expert build it? Or, will government cronies get the nod?
We need expertise for this project. We need to tell our legislators to keep the intrusive hands of government off high speed rail!
© 2009 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved
High Speed Rail to Nowhere
By Marilyn M. Barnewall
February 3, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
Obama Administration officials are going around America this week (as they did last week) to announce funding for various high-speed rail (HSR) projects. Based on the plans proposed to the American people, the question must be asked: Are President Obama and Vice-President Biden talking about HSR? Or, are they talking about updating financially troubled Amtrak? Is this an attempt to remake an unprofitable rail service into Rapid Transit Rail (RTR) while telling taxpayers they are building a high-speed rail system?
There is a huge difference between HSR and RTR.
The Administration says HSR will create new jobs. If what they are proposing is HSR, they are right. They are also right when they say an investment in HSR can help rebuild the economy. The Obama Administration apparently prefers spending taxpayer dollars to using private capital (which is on the table). I know it is unfamiliar territory for bureaucrats, but “private capital” translates to “zero tax dollars.” Zero tax dollars is about all the American government currently has in its coffers.
I’ve said in other high-speed rail articles that a properly built HSR system can create jobs and stimulate the economy. A Rapid Transit Rail (RTR) system will too – to a far lesser degree. There will be far fewer jobs with RTR than with HSR and they will pay less. They will also offer less long-term employment with good job benefits. The same level of builder expertise isn't required for an Amtrak update as for HSR.
Since the Recovery Panel now has union representation with AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, union members should be asking him if he is serving their best interests? Or, is he serving the needs of the Obama Administration? Is non-union labor represented on the Recovery Panel?
Listen closely when President Obama and Vice President Biden talk about high-speed rail.
There are very apparent reasons why the announced Tampa to Orlando or Milwaukee to Chicago rail links cannot possibly be representative of a high-speed line. If it takes a HSR train 25 miles to reach full speed – and it does – and another 25 miles to slow from top speed so it can safely stop, the 85-mile stretch of Tampa-Orlando rail line proposed by Obama provides 35 miles of HSR and 50 miles of RTR. Such a short-distance “link” does not support HSR. It supports RTR.
When people talk about a Tampa-Orlando 85-mile long HSR line or a 90-mile Milwaukee to Chicago rail link, they are either talking Chicago Political Speak, or they are ill informed about the differences between the two systems. HSR is designed to carry people long distances, not 85 or 90 miles. That’s the job of RTR. If President Obama doesn’t know that, he should find out before telling the American people he’s giving them HSR when, in reality, he is spending their tax dollars on rapid transit. At the very least, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, should know the difference.
In his highly viewed State of the Union speech last week, President Obama said his plans should make America’s transportation system more competitive with China (which is building HSR) and Japan (which has had HSR for over 50 years). If he were talking about HSR, he would be right. Implementing short-distance rail links designed to update Amtrak via a rapid transit system will not make America’s rail system more competitive with nations that have real HSR.
To make what I’m saying very clear, the Obama Administration is lying – intentionally or otherwise – to the American people. To be fair, there is another possibility. It is called being uninformed about what one does before committing huge amounts of money to a project, mistakenly telling people one thing when you mean another.
HSR is a national project from which all Americans benefit equally. An Amtrak update using RTR as proposed by President Obama is a series of local projects from which limited areas of the country benefit. The rest of us in fly-over country (where we read our Bibles and hug our guns) get to pay for it.
So why are politicians supporting this project? One answer might be found by evaluating every contract signed by those who profit from each rail line – car rental agencies, contractors who build stations and motels, etc. – to see if any percentage of revenue goes anywhere but to their own bottom lines.
Bureaucrats within the Obama administration have expressed concern that HSR may not generate enough passengers to make it profitable. Based on their “tell them it’s high-speed rail but give them rapid transit deceit,” such fears are justified. An updated version of Amtrak is not HSR and will not draw to it sufficient passenger traffic to make it succeed. And knowing that makes these planned 85 and 90-mile stretches of track even more peculiar choices.
Regardless of what kind of rail service it provides, the new rail routes announced by President Obama in his speech are, in a profit sense, just another bridge to “nowhere.” As I said in my Canada Free Press article of October 26, 2009:
“The average speed of HSR trains is between 150 and 250 mph… RTR averages between 100 and 150 mph and traditional rail averages from zero to 100 mph. HSR moves people across long distances very quickly. RTR takes people from a central HSR depot to a variety of locations.”
Additionally, instead of responding to demand that already exists and is not being well-served by either our failing airlines or our national rail service, the first rail link announced, Tampa to Orlando, will have to create mass transit needs where none have existed. Neither of these cities will likely produce the revenue base offered by more heavily populated areas. Revenue comes from connecting densely populated areas to one another.
Is this a test case to make HSR (as fed to and perceived by the public) fail? Call RTR high-speed rail and if it fails, it provides an undercover boost to an ailing airline industry by removing competition from the marketplace. The choice of locations and the confusion about HSR versus RTR makes the test cases suggested appear like an underhanded way of making HSR appear to be a failure when it is not even part of the plan. Instead, it will be an RTR failure… but who will know the difference?
As I said in my June 25, 2009 News With Views article:
“The Bullet Trains were implemented by Japan in the mid-1960s and today ‘garner a 67% market share of travel between Tokyo and Aomori. The airlines serve only 33 percent of travel between these two cities.’
“Speed is important and construction largely determines the ability to achieve the maximum speed available. In France, when the TGV high-speed rail operation from Paris to Marseilles shortened travel time between the two cities from just over 4 hours to 3 hours, market share jumped to approximately 60%. Prior to that, it carried only 40 percent market share. To gain public support for rail travel and resultant market share, the quality of high speed rail construction is critical.”
With 50 years of marketing analysis available proving high speed rail not only competes effectively with the airlines but also can earn a majority of market share, why were these short-distance Pork links chosen? In the Florida example, it doesn’t serve a majority of the state’s residents or its tourists. So what reasoning lies behind it?
It is particularly disgusting to watch this happen because, since 1995, a private investor has been trying to get the American government to let him invest his own money – no taxpayer dollars involved – to build a national HSR system. His plans are so thorough they include evacuation routes to quickly move people from areas likely to face hurricanes – and those plans were approved by one of the States facing hurricanes each year. The plans he submitted to the government in 1995 are detailed and provide a national, not regional, system.
Who is this “investor?” An American born and raised in Wisconsin. Following is his list of things that need immediate attention if high-speed rail is to become a reality.
1. Right of Way and Roadbed planning and construction;
2. Roadbed equipment and engineering; with vehicular traffic tunnels;
3. Hi-Speed Train engines and passenger railcars,
4. Civil engineering studies and FRA/USArmy approvals/modifications;
5. Real Estate and Land procurement;
6. Electrical Power Stations;
a. Westinghouse
b. General Electric
c. Other alternatives
7. Hotel, Depot and Maintenance Facilities' design and construction;
8. Rail Track Assembly Plants (20 buildings, minimum);
9. Electrical Power Stations/Plants (Non-nuclear/Nuclear);
10. Human resources;
11. Vehicle procurement;
12. Metal Tower fabrication and wiring;
13. Overall safety and security programmes;
14. Underground electrical, water, gas piping between corridors;
15. Parallel two way emergency and evacuation vehicle roadways;
16. Food Management Services;
17. Emergency Health and Safety Services
President Obama said in his State of the Union address that China is building high-speed rail, and asked why can’t we? I wanted to shout: “Because we are bankrupt and China is not – and what you are suggesting is not HSR!”
Now we have a bridge AND a badly defined rail system (which, in reality, is Amtrak on rapid transit steroids) going to nowhere.
If this Administration does not become more sophisticated in its understanding of how to define rail systems, our economy may well be an unwilling passenger heading for the same destination.
© 2010 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)