True high-speed rail — trains going 150 mph or more on newly built tracks — would be “prohibitively expensive” in the United States, says Amtrak President Joseph Boardman. Testifying before the Illinois House Railroad Industry Committee, Boardman said that it makes more sense to improve existing tracks so trains can run at up to 110 mph.

“It’s really not about the speed,” Boardman reportedly said. “It’s about reduced travel times and more frequency.” He added that 110 mph “is double the national speed limit” of 55 mph on highways. Apparently he hasn’t heard that this national speed limit was repealed a mere 22 years ago. (Or maybe he is privy to a plan to re-establish this limit.)

Few media reports about high-speed rail note that a top speed of 110 mph works out to an average speed, including scheduled stops, of just 60 to 75 mph. Between New York and Washington, Amtrak’s regular Northeast Corridor trains, for example, have top speeds of 110 but average 70 mph, whereas the Acela has a top speed of 135 but averages less than 85 mph.

At today’s speed limits, most people can easily average more than 50 mph on intercity freeways, including stops for gas and food, so rail’s advantage is not that great — especially when you consider that your car will go when you want it, will take you directly to your final destination, and will be available for sidetrips along the way.

Continue reading →

Reauthorization of federal transportation funding, scheduled for 2009, will probably be delayed until 2010, says Senator Mark Warner. Apparently, Congress has too many higher priorities to take care of this year.

Congress historically authorizes transportation funding (most of which comes out of federal gas taxes) for six years. This gives it an opportunity to change direction and gives members of Congress opportunities to raise campaign funds from interest groups whose businesses depend on federal funding.

One reason for the delay, as reported in Congressional Quarterly (on-line version not available), is that the House Transportation Committee’s computer can’t handle all of the earmarks that members want to put into the bill. The computer keeps crashing.

Continue reading →

A Washington Post writer observes that a roundtrip Amtrak ticket from DC to New York is $140 or more, while there are buses that go the same route for only $20 each way. Unlike Amtrak, the buses have leather seats and free WiFi, and they take only an hour longer than the train.

The Antiplanner made much the same point in an op ed recently published in the Cleveland Plain-Dealer: All American taxpayers will share the cost of a national high-speed rail network, but its use will be limited mainly to the wealthy and those whose employers pay the cost.

Kamagra Oral Jelly remains one of the most affordable medications for erectile dysfunction, especially amongst men who are looking for a mouthsofthesouth.com women viagra australia little extra when performing in bed. These herbs are perfectly blended and processed in the concoction of click now tadalafil price Gokhru, Ashwagandha, Semal Musli and Akarkra. PDE-5 is an enzyme which hinders the erectile functioning, which when inhibited results in better erectile functioning.The medicine discount generic cialis then increases the production of cGMP which increases blood volume. What’s worse, the interaction between immune and cancer stem cells will support purchase levitra tumor cell proliferation and cell apotheosis. The Washington Post failed to mention that the trains are heavily subsidized while the buses are not — yet the buses still manage to charge much lower fares. Of course, the buses will use interstate freeways most of the way, but those interstates were 100 percent funded out of gas taxes and other user fees.

“Interstates paid for themselves out of gas taxes, and most Americans use them almost every day,” says the op ed. “Moderate or high-speed rail would require everyone to subsidize trains that would serve only a small elite.” Is it ironic or just inevitable that the Democratic Party, which likes to to think of itself as the party of the common people, supports policies that take from the poor and middle-class and give to the rich?