The Myth of “High Speed” Rail

Y

ou have to love how Richmond works.

There’s a certain elite that tries to make all the decisions and it includes whoever is the mayor, the Chamber of Commerce, a few heads of whatever banks and investment houses are left over, sometimes the Armstrongs and Gottwallds and almost certainly Jim Ukrop. The ruling party Pravda, of course, is the Times-Dispatch, whose publisher and editorial page editor are card carrying members of the ruling elite and typically act in their interests and not necessarily the public’s.
So it is with “high speed” rail. All of Richmond’s poo-bahs are on board grabbing Obama’s stimulus infrastructure money to get “high speed’ rail to expedite train traffic from Petersburg and Richmond to D.C. Mind you years ago, there really was some form of fast, efficient and reliable rail on the old Richmond Fredericksburg and Potomac. Marquee name streamliners like the Silver Meteor or The Champion zipped through Richmond just about daily and some of them hit speeds of 100 m.p.h. on their way to the Florida palm trees and beaches. In 1936, my late father spent his college summers attending Platoon Leaders Class at the Quantico Marine Base and if the Marines ever gave these budding officers liberty, dad was just as inclined to hop a train for the flesh pots of Richmond as D.C.
Obama has come up with as much as $13 billion for as many as 11 high speed rail corridors in the U.S., including the Midwest and California and the Southeast, including Richmond. Congress is considering up to $58 billion more and Virginia wants its chunk.
If the $1.5 billion Virginia is applying for is approved, federal money would be available to bypass the crowded CSX yard at Acca in Richmond, improve signals, straighten curves, add third tracks to bypass slow freights, etc. It could cut the travel time to DC from Richmond by an hour to 90 minutes.
But is that high speed rail? Not at all. It would only add 11 mph to the 79 mph top speed now. Yet everyone talks about this as high speed rail, especially the editorial page editor of the TD who is touted as a “high speed rail expert” by the leaders of the movement. Funny but Amtrak defines “high speed” as that above 110 mph.
What would it take to get true “high speed” rail. I just did an article on this for Style Weekly.My best guess is $4 billion. It would include the $1.5 billion improvements aforementioned, another $1.5 billion to electrify the tracks and a brand new $1 billion bridge across the Potomac at DC since the current one is used by slow freights and isn’t electrified. It took $2.5 billion and seven years to improve the Woodrow Wilson bridge so we’re talking years. And, my estimate doesn’t include buying up land rights and fixing all those grade crossings from here to D.C. You can’t have grade crossing at trains going from 110 to 150 mph. Too dangerous.

Here’s another little irony. Many of the backers of high speed rail,including U.S. Rep and Republican Minority Whip Eric Cantor, can’t stand Obama’s stimulus. It’s tax and spend time, they say. The “liberal” Obama is sticking our children with huge deficits. Relying on the evil federal government is not the way to go. Except when it means they might get to their D.C. meetings a little faster, that is. Plus, the usual neocon suspects such as the Cato Institute question whether you get that much bang for the buck with high speed rail.
But the word is out. I attended a breakfast meeting at a country club last week when high speed rail was touted. Jim Ukrop happened to sit at my table and when he learned I was a reporter working for Style Weekly that is beyond the control of the movers and shakers he got concerned. He started quizzing me on what sources I was talking to and if I have ever had any experience covering high speed rail. (about 35 years of rail issues although not necessarily “high speed”).
My, I thought, how patronizing. I would never dare ask Ukrop if he knew how to run a supermarket. But that’s Richmond for you.
Peter Galuszka

Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

43 responses to “The Myth of “High Speed” Rail”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Heh. Did you actually just call the Cato Institute "neocon"?

    "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

  2. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    It IS neocon.If it isn't what is it?

    Peter

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "bypass the crowded CSX yard at Acca in Richmond"

    I love the idea of high speed rail, but getting past CSX and the coal traffic is key to seeing it happen.

    It's more than elite ambition:

    http://www.oregonhill.net/2009/04/17/the-dream-of-high-speed-rail/

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    True high speed rail needs dedicated tracks speciically engineered for that. No grade crossings, etc. Etc. Etc.

    If we go about "high speed rail" as Galuzka describes, then it will be the Concorde or rail systems: never profitable and ultimately disastrous.

    RH

  5. Just call it what it really is….commuter rail.

    Who cares how fast it goes? It still beats sitting still on 95, right? 😉

    That being said, we will never have true high speed rail in this country like they do in France and Japan because there are (or will be) too many stops along existing routes and too much freight traffic to contend with. Not to mention the costly upgrades that RH mentions.

    I just think politically, there isn't enough willpower to bypass a place like Fredericksburg with commuter rail so people from Richmond can get to DC quicker. The next thing you know you'll be stopping in Stafford, then Triangle, then Woodbridge, etc.

    So, the guy in Richmond who needs to be in DC by 9:00 a.m. will have to leave his house at 4:00 a.m. to make the 5:30 am train….he'd be better off driving to Springfield and hopping the Metro if he needed to get to downtown D.C.

    I think their is a place for commuter rail in our region…..just call it that so people know what they are getting into.

  6. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Under what conditions would high speed rail in Virginia make sense?

    1. The carbon tax makes flying and individual automobile operation too expensive for routine commuting. I'd guess that the counter-argument is that a relatively full bus is pretty carbon efficient (per passenger mile). So, why not dedicate highway lanes to mass transit and drive lines of buses up the dedicated lanes at 80 mph? The only reason I can see is that a real high speed train goes twice as fast and would take half the time.

    2. The cost of living in the job centers drive up labor rates to the point that even expensive, high cost, long distance transit is justified by the difference in personnel costs. One counter argument is that the jobs should be moved to the people rather than the people being moved to the jobs. Fiber optic cable rather than high speed rail. The other counter argument is that large scale economic development would have already occurred in the outlying areas if the talent pool were sufficiently deep. This is something of the creative class argument. The creative class already lives in the job centers – that's why these areas are job centers.

    3. Government regulation forces the world into EMR's preferred structure of NURs, etc. The job centers are densely populated, the rural support areas are largely de-populated. Since centralized planning never really workes very well, one can expect labor shortages and surpluses from NUR to NUR. High speed rail allows labor balancing among the NURs. Families keep their roots while the wage earner(s) commute, via high speed rail, from employer to employer. The counter argument is that the high speed rail would actually encourage lower population density. If you can live in a big house on a large lot outside Crozet, VA and still drive to a rail station in Charlottesville to get to your job at the Pentagon – why live in a more modest house in Arlington? If the train has WiFi you can even work as you buzz along at 150 mph. Meanwhile, your stay-at-home spouse and children still drive all over to get to/from your big house in Crozet to school, piano lessons, etc. Unless, of course, the infallible and all powerful government legislates housing based on "real" need. In which case, you might as well live in Arlington and walk to work.

  7. Larry G Avatar

    what would be the legitimate role of governance with respect to mobility and access?

    Should it be a govt role at all?

    It seems to me that a lot of folks thought it was a righteous and proper thing for the govt to build the interstate highway system but perhaps not such as noble for them to do an equivalent role for high-speed rail.

    why is that?

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Who will finance the rail line's sure-to-be-found annual operating deficits?

    TMT

  9. "what would be the legitimate role of governance with respect to mobility and access?"

    First you would need to determine who owns/maintains the track, right?

    "It seems to me that a lot of folks thought it was a righteous and proper thing for the govt to build the interstate highway system…."

    True, but some folks also think that the interstate highway system killed passenger rail…along with jet aircraft.

    "Why is that?"

    Railroad companies don't have much incentive to haul passengers – they would rather haul freight. Freight doesn't complain, freight doesn't care if it's on time, and freight makes them more money. That's never gonna change.

    As far as they are concerned it's the governments problem….let them deal with it.

  10. Cato Institute is NOT neocon. They are libertarians. They were critical of the Iraq War for instance. See this wikipedia entry, which notes that "Cato President Ed Crane has particular scorn for neoconservatism. In a 2003 article with Cato chairman emeritus William Niskanen, he called neoconservatism a "particular threat to liberty perhaps greater than the ideologically spent ideas of left-liberalism."[32] As far back as 1995, Crane wrote that neoconservatives "have a fundamentally benign view of the state," which Crane considers antithetical to libertarian ideals of individual freedom.[33] Cato's foreign policy team have frequently criticized neoconservative foreign policy.[34]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute

    As to their view on high speed rail, I'd be very skeptical of anything they produced, especially if it did not appear in a refereed journal. Cato folks don't think global warming is real either (at least as of a few years ago), which is key because climate change is the strongest argument for shifting rapidly to rail, even though it will indeed be expensive up front.

    Finally as to speed, there is some doubt even among strong advocates of rail as to whether you get much additional energy efficiency from traveling faster than 120 mph or so, due to the extra power going faster than that takes. A system that went 120 would be a huge improvement over the current situation and would make rail much more competitive with driving and also with air on moderate length trips (i.e. Richmond to NYC).

    One other comment on the article, I don't think Jim Ukrop should run the city either, but just because he is for something doesn't in itself make it a bad idea.

  11. very good article! i will visit your blog again.

  12. Larry G Avatar

    The idea behind the IHS was to "link" the country providing a way for people and goods to be moved efficiently across the country.

    And it was an idea of Governance.

    The same Governance that we now talk about in terms of involving itself in passenger and freight rail.

    so .. it's a two-fer question

    1. – should government be involved in access and mobility or should this be the province of the private sector.

    2. where should the funding come from if not fares on those who use the roads and rails?

    bonus question for EMR:

    what level of governance should be responsible for access and mobility and how would it be paid for?

  13. paul_h Avatar

    This seems to be the hot topic this week. I'm glad to see it getting serious attention.

    The air of suspended disbelief on this issue has become delusional. The costs, the legal actions, the time involved mean nothing to supporters of high speed rail.

    The cool factor has put stars in their eyes and in their world the environmental concerns of constructing a whole new infrastructure don't exist. The economic sustainability is not a factor because people will abondon their cars in droves for the thrill and novelty of $200 ticket to DC shaving 15 minutes off the trip.

    Then there is the vision of a high speed rail terminal in Shockoe Bottom, which doesn't violate the integrity of Lumpkin's Jail.

    None of that matters, because well, high speed rail is cool and I agree it is. So is a billion dollar towards beefing up local transit, new quieter buses and reusing existing infrastructure like roads.

    Those things don't make for pretty front page picture, but will do a lot more to cut carbon emissions and are much more friendly towards today's commuters who will have to support this project.

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    http://www.creativeclass.com/creative_class/2009/05/05/mega-regions-and-high-speed-rail/

    According to this map only Richmond to washington and Raleigh to Richmond deserve consideration.

    ——————————

    "HSR is best suited for journeys of 2 – 3 hours (150-600 km or about 100-400 miles), for which the train can beat both air and car in this range. When traveling less than about 650 km (400 mi), the process of checking in and going through security screening at airports, as well as the journey to the airport itself makes the total air journey time no faster than HSR. However, anecdotally, competition authorities in Europe treat HSR for city pairs as competitive with passenger air at 4-4.5 hours, allowing on a 1-hour flight at least 40 minutes at each point for travel to and from the airport, check-in–security–boarding, disembarcation–baggage retrieval and other waits." Wikipedia

    This corresponds to my recent trip to Marthas Vineyard. An hour on the internet to coordinate flight and bus and buy tickets, and hour to the airport, 90 minutes in the airport, 90 minutes to Boston, 40 minutes to connect to the bus and 90 minutes to Woods Hole. 7.5 to Woods Hole hours and I can drive it in nine, for $200 less money. If my wife goes with me it is $500 less money.

    —————————-

    "HSR is also competitive with cars on shorter distances, like 50-150 km for example for work commuting if there is road congestion or for people who have expensive parking fees at their work. For large cities this is common. Not every HSR route has such regional high speed trains, but it is common. Introduction of them enlarges the labour market around a large city."

    EMR should hate that, although I don't see how you have HSR for 50 lousy kilometers: you might as well drive, for th most part.

    ——————————

    Then there is the issue of the size of the cities to be connected, otherwise you just can't generate enough passengers. Unless, as Groveton Points out, you tax them into submission.

    RH

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Of course there should be a government role. This is one of those things like the interstate system: private enterprise will never do it.

    The interstate system operates at pretty close to 100% deficit, unless you count the gas tax, there being few or no tolls. Why should the rail system be any different?

    The important thing is to coordinate the interstate, HSR, and airline system to use each when and where it works best.

    RH

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Finally as to speed, there is some doubt even among strong advocates of rail as to whether you get much additional energy efficiency from traveling faster than 120 mph or so, due to the extra power going faster than that takes."

    It isn't just the energy efficiency, which isn't that great to begin with. Really high speed trains need another whole level of security and inspection and safety measures, which increases the cost more than the extra speed is probably worth. On a 400 mile trip the difference between 120 and 150 MPH is probably less than 20 minutes, after considering acceleration and deceleration.

    Planes can take off and fly at those speeds and eliminate the rail construction and friction. How fast do you need to go before planes make more sense?

    RH

  17. carolinabiker Avatar
    carolinabiker

    Charlotte, NC is also looking to get on board with a number of rail projects being proposed. One of the main features would be a shortcut from Charlotte to Raleigh and Richmond over the current route. More details are in the Charlotte Observer.

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Geographic expansion, as I noted there, is a fundamental axis of economic recovery and development. Recovery after the Long Depression of the 1870s was in part powered by the rise of the large-scale industrial city that grew up around raw materials, ports, and railroads, expanding outward along its early street-car lines. ……post-war recovery was propelled by the rise of another era of geographic expansion – the rise of the Sunbelt and the massive growth of auto-oriented suburbia. …………….. It may well be impossible for sustained recovery to come from breathing life back into the banks, auto companies, and suburban-oriented development model. A new period of geographic expansion – or what geographers term a “new spatial fix” – may well be needed to spur a renewed era of economic growth and development."

    Richard Florida.

    AHA, "A new spatial fix"

    "It’s a mistake to consider suburban sprawl a backward step (as some do), and to see only more compact urban style back-to-the-city development as a path to the future. The rise of the mega-region is the cornerstone of a new, more intensive and more expansive use of space."

    Richard Florida

    Sound Familiar, anyone?

    RH

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Hmmm….like single payer health care, other countries do this and do it well to their citizens' great satisfaction. What is holding the U.S. and in particular, Virginia, back? Remember, Richmond was closest to rivaling NYC as a commercial center when it was a RAIL center. Why not go for it again?

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I would urge anyone intersted in "high speed rail" which is really going to be "commuter rail" in a fancier looking train, to visit the New Mexico Rail Runner website or read about in online. The State of New Mexico has been constructing and has almost finished about 100 miles of track from Belen, south of Albuquerque and on to Santa Fe, with smaller stops in between, a ride which is about like going to Charlottesville from Richmond. The RailRunner has proven to be very popular with people going to Santa Fe for its convenience and as a novelty, but I don't think has yet had any impact on commuter traffic between the two major cities in New Mexico. Studies probably are in the works on it………….cool looking trains on shared freight lines.

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Single Payer Health – Social Security and Medicare are well on the road to insolvency.

    And from the Daily Mail online.

    A 9-month wait for arthritis treatment: Delay can mean a lifetime of agony for victims

    Thousands of rheumatoid arthritis sufferers face a lifetime of agony because they are not being treated quickly enough, a report says.

    Guidelines state that patients should receive treatment within three months of the first symptoms appearing.

    But the average wait is nine months – and GPs are not trained well enough to know what help to offer.

    There is no cure, but experts say that if arthritis is diagnosed in the first three months, drugs can be given which limit its progression. This means the disease will not be as painful as it would have been if the condition was diagnosed later.

    The study by the National Audit Office found that patients do not know enough about the condition, and therefore delay going to see their GP.

    Between half and three-quarters of people with symptoms wait more than three months before seeking medical help, and about a fifth delay for a year or more.

    GPs lack the specialist knowledge required to diagnose the condition quickly, and on average it takes four visits before a patient is referred to a specialist for diagnosis and treatment, the report adds.

    Its author, Chris Groom, said: 'This is a nasty disease, a progressive auto-immune disease, which attacks otherwise healthy joints. Early symptoms are joint pain and stiffness and it leads to inflammation and loss of strength.

    'It also affects other parts of the body, such as the heart and lungs, and is also associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease.'

    The report found that the average length of time from the onset of symptoms to treatment has not improved in the past five years. Mr Groom said that services needed to be better coordinated and designed around people's needs, including helping them remain in work.

    Three-quarters of sufferers are of working age when diagnosed, meaning delays cost the economy almost £2billion a year – about £560million a year in NHS healthcare costs and £1.8billion in sick leave and work-related disability.

    'Once people fall out of the job market with this disease, it is very hard to get back in', Mr Groom said.

    The report also found that 50 per cent more people have rheumatoid arthritis than was previously thought.

    Mr Groom added: 'We estimate that 580,000 adults in England have the condition, which is higher than existing estimates of 400,000 for the UK, and that there are 26,000 new cases each year in England, compared to estimates of 12,000 for the UK.'

    Neil Betteridge, chief executive of the charity Arthritis Care, said: 'The report echoes what people with rheumatoid arthritis have been telling Arthritis Care for years.

    'Early diagnosis and referral for suitable treatment is crucial as it can stop this debilitating condition in its tracks.

    'We applaud the audit's recommendations that the Department of Health and Primary Care Trusts replace their often scattergun delivery with joined-up services.'

    Tory MP Edward Leigh, chairman of the Commons public accounts committee, said the NHS needed to improve support services for people with arthritis.

    Health minister Ann Keen said: 'We welcome this report and will consider it carefully before responding.

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Way off topic here, but Social Security (elderly ponzi scheme) and Medicare (bandaid) have very little in common with single payer.

    The article on arthritis mentions that it is a hard diagnosis to discover but that government is being held accountable- I would say it still compares favorably to the situation here in the U.S. where there is very little accountability.

    SINGLE PAYER NOW/ HIGH SPEED RAIL NOW!

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    So the Eurpean high speed trains can hit 155 MPH, and with American safety standards we may only get to 125 or so.

    Meanwhile on the rural interstates cars and even heavy trucks are routinely running at 80+.

    Why not just create an American Autobahn where we allow speed of 110 for vehicles and drivers with special safety certifications, and be done with it?

    We could do that for a fraction of the cost of building all that special infrstructure and technology for a handful of high speed rail routes, and do it in a lot more places.

    RH

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Richmond has the naions first city rail system, and it went away for a reason. Do we need to build another one in order to re-learn that reason?

    RH

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Single Payer Health – Social Security and Medicare are well on the road to insolvency. "

    So what? So is our highway system, but it doesn't mean it is a bad system: it just means it is inadequately funded – or it provides too many benefits for the price charged.

    The fact that it is insolvent doesn't mean it has anything to do with being a single payer.

    My experience with commercial health insurance has convinced me that THAT system is fundamentally a fraud and it is seriously broken.

    If I have a choice between my single payer insuranc being insolvent and me personally being insolvent due to inability to get insurance, I'll take the first one every time.

    I see no reason why we should continue to have a system in which the insurance companies have the entitlements instead of the insured. I see no reason why they should be entitled to refuse to ensure my heart, just because I have arthritis in my knees.

    This system is broken, and those that wish to raise false arguments about how bad the fixes are going to be are not getting any traction from me until they come up with a real alternative plan that isn't what we already have under a new optimistic sounding false name.

    Our current private system is an outright fraud, and it is hard to be any more insolvent than that.

    RH

  26. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "A 9-month wait for arthritis treatment: Delay can mean a lifetime of agony for victims"

    You obviously do not know what you are talking about. Arthritis treatment is mainly a drug regimen. Doctors visits are few and far between because the drugs are slow acting.

    Some of them are also very expensive, and until we recently added a drug benefit, they were not covered at all, under maedicare.

    In my case, I lost my job due to the agony you describe. On disability, I had no private insurance, after having paid for it for 35 years. it took three years for the drug regimen to control the disease and for me to rehab myself back to work.

    Some system of "insurance" that is. Thank God the disability insurance worked better than the health insurance, which paid zero for my treatment, drugs or doctors.

    I could literally, fly to Switzerland, buy a years worth of my arthritis medication, vacation for two weeks, and fly home for less than I could buy the same drugs in the U.S.

    The health care I got was excellent. Lets not confuse health care and whateer that costs with health insurance and whatever that costs. One reason our health care costs soo much is that it works so well. We live longer and use more of it.

    I don't see that is something we should be complaining about. Today I am back to work (with "health insurance" avaialble only while I''m working) and I'm a living breathing example of better living through chemistry.

    But, rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic condition: sooner or later it will be back, and I will be out of work and uninsured again.

    And, don't even get me started on how my wife's private health insurance was recinded retroactively, after she had already been paying for it for nearly two years, based on a fraudulent claim by the insurance company of a pre-existing condition she never had.

    How broken does this sytem have to be before every citizen is as uzipostal disgusted with it as I am?

    RH

  27. RH –

    Absolutely 100% agree on your assessment of our health care system and your story about Arthritis….a family member of mine has rheumatoid arthritis and diagnosis is hard and once you have it it never truly goes away.

    Anyway, what's your take on the health care bill congress is currently working on….does anyone have a link to a non-partisan "boiled down" version/summary??

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I have no clue. My expectations are so low, and the rhetoric so high, that I have pretty much given up on learning or deciding anything useful.

    I think we are trying to hard to do too much. For starters all we need is a few things:

    1)Some definition of a minimum health insurance plan: some kind of high deductible, catastropic insurance plan with some kind of a ceiling. This says that you must pay for most of your ordinary, routine medical problems: after your deductible insurance kicks in, but it runs out at $7.5 million dollars (about what we us as the value of statistical life). This says if it isgoing to cost more that $7.5 million to fix you, then we dont think you are worth it. Tough love, get used to it or buy your own additional insurance. No pre-existing conditions, no diseases or remedies excluded.

    You want to save on insurance costs, and you think $7.5 million is too high? Fine, but we are going to use the new lower value for all government "health plans". If you don't think we are worth $7.5 million we will lower it to $6 million, but we are going to use that new value for all government cost benefit evaluations in all the environmental and safety regulation assessments.

    2) If you want to be in the insurance game, you must offer this minimum insurance to all comers at the same price. You can offer additional insurance at a additonal cost if you like.

    (Maybe you have to REQUIRE everyone to have this minimum insurance, so that healthy people don't sit on the sidelines until they get sick. Both the insurance companies and the idividuals have to be restricted from cherry picking in order to spread the risk accordingly.)

    If push comes to shove, make the maximum payout a parimutual payoff: it is a variable maximum amount depending on what the total payoffs are. Use public education to teach people that if they nickle and dime the doctor over every cold, there may not be enough left for your heart bypass.

    3) Kick the insurance companies out of the medical care business. Let the body shops compete for the insurance money, same as with cars.

    4) Figure out how to train more medical professionals better, faster, and more cheaply. Cut out the insane hours for interns: nobody needs that kind of hazing.

    No national health care system, no national health insurance required. Just level and regulate the playing field first, and then see where we need to go from there. make it clear to the medical professionals AND the insurance companies that this is their last chance to clean up their act. Otherwise you will get some REAL regulation, and no one will like it.

    RH

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    What I don;t understand is why the conservatives and Republicans haven't figured out that the best thing they can do for business, especially small business is to get them out of the health insurance business. We need to divorce health insurance from the requirement that you have a job to get it. Or else find a way to level the playing field so that all businesses have a known expense per employee. Even that will deter small businesses: certainly my farm is in no position to provide health care for its workers (Me, my wife, and Moses). If I was required to provide health insurance, I'd have to shut down.

    RH

  30. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    From the blog site Virginians for high speed rail: My comments in bold.

    * Taking Amtrak round trip between Richmond, VA and Washington, DC is 39.56% cheaper compared to paying an employee the federal recommended reimbursement for mileage.

    Well Yes, but cheaper for whom? AMTRAK is already heavily subsidized by the feds. Assume the Fed is reimbusing you for your trip on AMTRAK: what is the total cost of your reimbursement plus the fed payment to AMTRAK + the additional cost in your time for using AMTRAK compared to just jumping in your care and going? (You can of course get some work done while riding AMTRAK which you cannot do while driving: we need to count costs and benefits)

    * Taking Amtrak between Washington, DC and Richmond, VA is 91.13% cheaper than flying.

    This is a ridiculous comparison, no one in their right mind would fly such a short distance, epecially out of Richmond. Flying ususally isn't competitive unless youare flying over 400 miles, except for some special situations.

    Environment:

    * Intercity passenger trains average 51 mpg per passenger mile compared to 40 mpg per passenger mile for automobiles.

    Whoop te do. Fuel is only one environmental cost. If trains did all the jobs that cars and trucks do, we would pretty soon find out that are environmental impacts of trains we haven't thought of yet. Yes, trains are more fuel efficent on longer trips, if you have enough passenger density, but what about all the other costs?

    * Freight trains average 20.25 mpg compared to tractor-trailers that average 6.75 mpg.

    But freight trains still rely on tractor trailes at both ends of the trip. To make a fair comparison select a number of deliveries and figure out the total door to door mileage per per ton-mile. Do that for the intermodal trip and the same trip using truck only. Then you will see that the true difference is no where near as clear cut.

    And again, mileage isn't the only cost. Time is an issue, laoding and unloading takes time and involves risk of damagae. You will probably travel farther using the intermodal service, Even if you milage is higher, you fuel consumption may not be any different.

    *One railway track mile uses 0.42 football field(s) worth of land compared to one highway mile that equals 1.10.

    Are we talking lane miles, or are we comparing a four lane highway to a two track railbed? What is the actual throughput in ton miles or passenger miles? Why are we even comparing one to another this way? They are both part of ONE TOTAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.

    RH

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    *One Virginia Railway Express commuter train can equal as many as 800 cars taken off the highway.

    NONSENSE. Those cars will still be on the highway, just not for that trip. The way this is stated makes it sound like a total replacement for cars. Studies suggest that it takes three commuter rail trips to eliminate one car trip: rail trips are in addition to our auto trips, not in place of them. Maom may be using the carte whild pop is on the train, etc etc.

    * One intermodal freight train can equal up to 300 tractor-trailers.

    No, it does not, because they do not do the same job. That intermodal freight train needs 300 tractor trailers at one end, and 300 more at the other end.

    Investment:

    * For every $1 invested in public transportation such as intercity passenger rail, $4 is returned in economic development.

    Q. How is your wife? A. Compared to what? What is the return on other public transportation, like highways?

    ————————-

    I like trains. I support trains. But let's at least use valid arguments to support them, and lets support them where they make sense for th job they do, not just because there is free money available.

    Remember the dozens of regional airort terminals we built, just because the money was available? Now they are uses as police stations and museums. I don't have anything againstpolice stations and museums, but lets not build them with fraudulently obtained money or money that was supposed to support some other purpose.

    RH

  32. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Isn't the basic equation in insurance:

    Total payments – ((volume of treatments)*(cost per treatment)) = profit

    At this very macro level, there are four factors:

    Payments – this total is too high and growing too fast. The payments are consuming too much GDP and too many people can't afford the payments.

    Volume of treatment – the number of medical processes provided under the insurance coverage.

    Cost per treatment – the unit cost of each treatment provided under the insurance coverage.

    Profit – self explanatory.

    If you accept this equation then it has to balance along the equals sign. If you want payments to go down then factors on the right have to go down. If the factors on the right side of the equation stay the same then you need more money in payments on the left to insure the uninsured and keep up with the rising cost of health care.

    The Democrats' plan is more about increasing the payments than reducing the cost. They simply want to take more money from one group of people and use that money to subsidize the insurance for another group of people.

    There are other alternatives:

    1. Reduce the number of procedures by rationing the health care itself. This would certainly work but would require some very emotional decisions. For example, you'd have to stop treatment (for anything but pain) when somebody develops a "statistically terminal" disease. This would create some heartbreaking situations – especially for younger patients. It would no longer be "OK" to provide treatment if, for example, the odds of success are 5% or 10%. Some people who would have lived with that treatment will die without it. You'd also have to deny treatment to those who are deemed to be at "end of life". Again, this is a statistical concept. Some people will die years sooner than they would have died if treatment was provided. There is also some merit in prevention. People who engage in "health risky" behavior could be asked to pay more in premiums. Most people think this applies only to people who smoke or eat high fat diets. However, some occupations are higher risk than others. Why should accountants pay the same premiums as farmers when accounting (as a profession) is safer than farming?

    The next factor is efficiency. How can we make each procedure cost less? This areas gets a great deal of focus because it has less emotional content than the others. You hear people say things like, "If we only had electronic medical records all of our health care problems would be over.". Of course, when the state government in Virginia loses thousands and thousands of prescription records which, by law, were stored in state government databases – this plan grows suspect.

    Finally, the profits of insurance companies can be cut. Last quarter Aetna posted a profit of just over 5% of revenue. Staying with the very generalized theme of this commentary – let's assume that all Aetna does is health care (not really true) and that all insurance companies are Aetna (also not really true). However, in the interest of brevity let's assume 5% is a good number for insurance company profits. Eliminating these profits would reduce the cost of health care by 5% assuming the government runs the process as efficiently as the private sector (also not usually true).

    So:

    1. Raise taxes on the relatively wealthy and subsidize insurance for the less wealthy..
    2. Deny care to people who are PROBABLY too sick to recover.
    3. Make the process more efficient.
    4. Charge people engaging in health risky behavior more money.
    5. Reduce or eliminate insurance company profits.

  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I don't think so.

    I think it is:

    Premiums Paid In – Cost of Treatment – Administrative Costs = Gross Profit where cost of treatment is volume of treatments * cost per treatment.

    I don't think there is too much you can do about the volume of treatments except for some minor effect from wellness camaigns. A certain number of people will need appendectomies, rotator cuff, diverticulitis, and a host of other ailments for which health and habits are not really an issue.

    Some percentage of the population needs treatment. We might reduce it a little and we might put a cap on it, otherwise we are pretty much stuck.

    But, we can increase the Premiums Paid in by making sure everyone has health insurance.

    "They simply want to take more money from one group of people and use that money to subsidize the insurance for another group of people."

    Insurance is fundamentally a subsidy: healthy people pay premiums and sick people get the benefit. The question is whether we as a society benefit from people being healthy. If so, then who benefits the most?

    It would seem that if you are wealthy and your workers are healthy, then you are better off than if they are sick.

    I don't see any reason why the cost of insurance for one person should be more than another. For a fisrt cut, you divide the risk up equally and figure out what a level payment for everyone would be.

    But then you discover that the people at the bottom simply don't have enough to pay that level amount: they may not even be able to pay rent. And some people simply have no income at all, like children.

    Bad habits, poor living conditions and genetics aside, everyone has pretty much the same probability of needing treatment for something, but not everyone has the same probability of being able to afford insurance.

    So, either we treat insurance the same way we treat the environment and schools, as something we all have basic rights to, or we don't.

    If we do, we will have to get the money somewhere, and the plain fact is that the top 4% of earners earn 95% of all the money. If you need money, you have to go wher the money is.

    It might seem unfair for the rich to "subsidize" health insurance for the poor, but the fact is we don't know whether this will make them better off or worse off. That depends on how much the subsidy is and what we get for it.

    Otherwise we have to ask ourselves if we are really willing to say to poor people "Don't get sick: if you do we will let you die because you are not worth anything."

    I would argue that it is no more unfair than paying for insurance for 35 years and then not having it when you need it.

    ————————–

    Efficiency isn't going to do it. If we make each procedure cost less then it is more cost effective to do it and we will do more of them. When we get Ceasarians down to a painless $25, who will opt for natural childbirth?

    —————————-

    You are right about the profit on insurance companies. They are among the biggest gainers in my portfolio. How is cutting their profit to subsidize insurance any different from cutting the profit of wealthy individuals to subsidize health insurance?

    Overall I agree with your five points, but I would add a sixth: get more people paying in by making sure everyone has health insurance.

    RH

  34. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Anyone wee the robert Moore special on health care?

    He visited Canada and GB and interviewed users and practitioners in the health care system.

    According to him much of what we hear about sociliazed medicine just isn't so.

    When I was disabled, my social security advisor (an ex Canadian) advised me to emigrate to Canada!

    RH

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Why should accountants pay the same premiums as farmers when accounting (as a profession) is safer than farming?"

    Why aren't farmers compensated for the risks they take at the same rate accountants are compensated for theirs?

    RH

  36. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    "Bad habits, poor living conditions and genetics aside, everyone has pretty much the same probability of needing treatment for something, but not everyone has the same probability of being able to afford insurance.".

    RH – If you could insure a random group of 35 year olds for the next year at $2,000 per person per year or a random group of 55 year olds for $2,000 per person per year – who would you rather insure (assuming you could keep the profits)? Statistically, you'd make a whole lot more money insuring the 25 year olds.

    That's how companies think. They have an employee base which they insure. The employee pays for some of the insurance cost and the company pays for some of the insurance cost. The insurance provider charges the company based on the company's actual experience over time. Companies with lots of young employees don't want to be grouped with companies that have lots of older employees because age is directly related to health costs. They don't want to leave employees who quit in their insurance pool because these former employees get older and negatively impact the company's health cost experience and, thus, their insurance rates.

  37. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    "Why aren't farmers compensated for the risks they take at the same rate accountants are compensated for theirs?".

    Prices are set by the market – supply and demand. I guess there are too many farmers relative to demand for food. Therefore, the profits on food are low and some farmers struggle financially. I further assume that the supply and demaand for accountants is more in balance. Hence, fewer accountants struggle financially.

    I am not a farmer or an accountant. However, I believe that the laws of supply and demand hold for labor and sprockets alike.

  38. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Socialized medicine?

    Denmark runs it like a charm (according to my Danish co-workers).

    My Canadian friends tell me that the Canadian system is just fine.

    The Brits are a lot less positive.

    Maybe this is one of those things that work well in countries with a relatively small population and poorly in more populous countries. Broadband penetration seems to be another of those things.

  39. paul_h Avatar

    "
    So the Eurpean high speed trains can hit 155 MPH, and with American safety standards we may only get to 125 or so."

    What is the god damn hurry? Sit back and relax.

  40. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Statistically, you'd make a whole lot more money insuring the 25 year olds."

    Yeah, and I culd make a lot more money by insuring the 25 year olds until they were 45 and then canceling their insurance. And I can do that for reasons that have nothing to do with their health, under the current system.

    The whole point is to avoid the cherry picking you are suggesting: EVERYONE gets and pays for insurance, 25, 35, 45, 55, 65.

    As for 75, maybe, maybe not. After all, we are not guaranteeing your health FOREVER.

    At what point in your life are you willing to give up your health insurance, in exchange for a guarantee that ill health won't bankrupt you before then? It isn't health insurance we are buying, it is bankruptcy insurance.

    You tell me, you get sick and die your life insurance will pay off, but you get sick and DON'T die, your health insurance won't pay off.

    And your life insurance company loses its shirt if it has to pay off your policy when you are 25, because you don't get to pay the rest of the premiums.

    But with health insurance you can pay all the premiums and STILL have no insurance. What is wrong with this picture?

    If you buy the argument that what we really have is bankrupcy insurance, then health insurance for poor folks ought to be a lot cheaper, since they aren't protecting as much. And the reverse side of that argument is why we are going to charge rich folks more for health insurance: call it a subsidy if you want, but they have a lot more to protect.

    RH

  41. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Nope, paul_h isn't my brother Paul.

    I'm with you: Go green, go by sailboat. All renewable energy, no big rush, and all it will cost you is around $10 per mile.

    Sometimes faster is a lot cheaper.

    RH

  42. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The Brits are a lot less positive.

    I don't have the first hand knowledge you have.

    Moore showed a crowded UK Emergency room and went around the room asking them how long they waited to get seen: most answers were 20 min to 1/2 hour. I imagine it can be a lot faster if you don;t have to fill out a bunch of insurance forms first.

    Then he went to the cashiers office. That is where you go after your treatment, and you get reimburded for you rtravel costs.

    Finally he spoke to a Britsh doctor, working for the governmnet. The doctor drove an Audi and lived in a nice modern four bedroom home. He might only earn half of what an American doctor could make but it was enough to be comfortable by any standard.

    And, as the doctor pointed out, he doesn't have to work in a place where they turn customers away for lack of ability to pay. He wouldn't work in such a place, he said. I spend my time doing medicine, and I never have to waste time chasing money.

    Maybe we save a lot of money by not having mercenaries for doctors.

    I don't claim to have any answers, I just know that what we have is broken, broken, smashed.

    How about if we pay for health care by NOT wasting billions on high speed rail?

    RH

  43. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "I guess there are too many farmers relative to demand for food."

    Bingo.

    Now, why is it that we are so intent on "Saving Our Farms"?

    They are going to save me (and a lot of other people) to death. Even if I get out, I can only sell to someone willing to get in to the same losing business, due to my zoning.

    We need some accountant to go explain to the BOS that this is beyond stupid.

    The reason we are so intent on saving the farms is that we get a lot of stuff from them for free. If we paid for all the stuff that represents the real reasons we want to save the farms, then I would make as much as an accountant.

    We all love the free market when we ae on the free side. It is when you a re on the other side that you realize it doesn't always work and it isn't always free.

    RH

Leave a Reply