Fiction or Fluff.
Sunday, November 1, 2009 at 07:39PM
United States Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood was recently in New Hampshire. “And we’re on track to create and save a total of at least 3.5 million jobs by next fall.” he said. The article which this is quoted from appears in Laconia Citizen also included some statements about high-speed rail in New Hampshire.
“David Danielson, a Commissioner with the Southern NH Regional Planning Commission made a pitch for rail in the Northeast, saying most of the money appeared to be going elsewhere in the country.” “You have the opportunity to make a poster child out of the Northeast.”, Danielson said.
Right.
I think all of this is pure fiction. This also reminded me of a press conference at least a year ago when the President announced his intentions and policy concerning the development of high-speed rail in the United States. The press conference was in Spain and he discussed the Spanish high-speed rail system and what this could mean for areas like the environment and economic development. President Obama never mentioned the high-speed rail systems in France and Germany, the most successful high-speed rail systems on the European continent, if not the world. Not even mentioned.
Politics.
The same politics and reasons why I think New Hampshire will never have a high-speed rail system like what exists in Europe or anywhere. The idea of high-speed rail is a great forum for Secretary LaHood, Commissioner Danielson and former Senator Peter Burling to talk to the press. But beyond the words there is no substance and I mean no substance. And I think the reasons are simple. There isn't enough public support in New Hampshire for high-speed rail, it’s very expensive to implement and there is no analytical evidence available to show how these trains would even be used regardless of how good of an idea it is.
In the 1990s I spent some time on the high-speed rail systems in Europe mainly in Germany on both the French TGV and the German ICE. As a part of this adventure I was in the Hauptbahnof in Munchen and heard of the proposal to expand high-speed rail from this city to Budapest, Hungary. This is a good idea, the improvement of transportation between member EU countries and commensurate with existing rail networks and policy. It is my understanding that although this substantial project was started, the work on the infrastructure has not been completed especially on the heavyweight welded rail section from Austria to Hungary. And the reason is cost.
So how can the situation be any different here in New Hampshire? I don’t think it can. Secretary Lahood, Messrs. Danielson and Burling all have something to say but they never talk about cost. Maybe the answer to this question is buried under the 3.5 million jobs that have been created along with a good pile of fiction and fluff.
Reader Comments (4)
I don’t know your definition of high speed rail service. Are you suggesting, say over 55 mph? To me high speed is between 125-300 mph. Unlikely to obtain these speeds with steel wheels, on steel tracks. Does the Aceler reach speeds over 125 mph? The abbreviations you used for French and German rail systems, I assume they represent some kind of magnetic levitation system. A magnetic levitation system can reach speeds of 200 mph plus. I remember years ago a scientist named O’Neil, wanted to build an experimental system from NY to Washington, putting a passenger container in a vacuum. He had visions of speeds, 400 to 600 mph. Is this fiction? No. I could never understand when building our beautiful and functional highways, a rail system is not incorporated into the infrastructure along with communications. Cloverleaf’s and interchanges would provide an abundance of parking.
Who will pay for high speed rail systems? Ownership is another issue. Article 6a of second part of our State Constitution, states, monies generated from gas taxes, fees and licenses can only be used to build and maintain highways. Not transportation. Explain this to Ray. Burton and the Executive Council. No gas taxes for railroads, no eminent domain and transferring title to a private party either. Although I don’t object the use of State property for private railroads, maybe private operations could pay a fee (tax). Let private money dictate and keep government out of railroading. Otherwise the taxpayer will be railroaded.
I'll define high-speed rail as anything above 150 MPH which is more or less industry standards. The Amtrak Acela actually reaches speeds of 190 to 220 MPH depending on the roadbed, time of year, etc. Amtrak simply does not have the funds it needs to maintain both the tracks and equipment to what I think is a safe standard. I'm surprised there has not been a serious accident and if the trains are still running at all. This is a testiment to Amtrak. Not a testiment to the polticians in Washington or in District #1.
In Europe the rail networks clearly have the public funds and policy to support all aspects of rail. I think its because the elected officials recognize the numerous advantages of rail. The German Intercity Express or ICE routinely travels at speeds in excess of 200 MPH. I've even seen cigarette smoke in the cafe car going upward in an almost straight line at these speeds. The ICE runs on standardized rail that is extremely well maintained. I think this is the best system to use. The ICE was tested in the U.S. and it ran very well, but the politicans would not finance the acquisition of the ICE trainsets. Instead they went with Bombardier which I think are of lower quality. Business as usual.
When I lived in Japan I had an opportunity to ride the Maglev train near Tokyo. Certainly an impressive system. But the costs are obsenely outrageous. For example if there were Maglev between Boston and New York I think the price of a one way ticket would have to be $950.00 just to cover the construction costs. Maglev is a good idea but I don't think its feasible. yet.
Closer to New Hampshire the starting place should be an extention of passenger rail from the Boston hub into markets in New Hampshire and possibly Vermont. Pan Am Railways made a realistic and good offer to expand passenger rail into southern New Hampshire. The idea was brushed aside by former Sen. Peter Burling and the NH Rail Authority. They apparantly wanted something more expensive and taxpayer financed. I believe Councilor Burton is in the later group.
This is yet another example of why New Hampshire will never have a high-speed rail system or any rail system for that matter. It is impossible to have a 21st century technology and all that it requires with a 20th century mentality and attitude.
I don't see change in New Hampshire anytime soon.
Your posts are always credible, with a businessman’s perspective. A little out of post in fro. At the commissioner’s meeting today, part of Register Sharps report, 144 foreclosures since 1/01/09 in Grafton County.
I think the whole valuation of real estate in the Hanover-Lebanon area is just like the speculation in the 1990s. I don't think this is a deep enough market for some of the prices for housing. So the prices go down, refinancing isn't an option and the forclosures will rise.
While on the subject of speculation I think the financial losses to the Dartmouth Endowments and their related investments were and are much deeper than is being reported to the media. I think this reality when it sinks in will only exaserbate this whole situation.
Less local tax revenue for Grafton County. Less revenue to pay for their shiny new jail. How unfortunate. Guess the Commissioners have a travelling road show these days telling the citizens of Grafton County about the new jail.
Maybe someone should tell the Commissioners about reality. But be sure to bring a camera this seems to be the only time they're really attentive to what is being said.
Even then.