High-Speed Rail

It seems that during the debate last night, Mike Huckabee proposed adding two extra lanes on I-95 all the way from Bangor to Miami. David Freddoso doesn't approve, sniffing a hint of FDR about the plan. Ross Douthat's all for it.

I won't rehearse the standard argument against the view that if we just build enough highways our traffic problems will go away, but what I'd really like to see in our urban corridors is true high-speed intercity rail. The TGV in France cruises at 200 miles per hour for commercial purposes. That'd make the 400 or so mile trip between DC and Charlotte something you'd probably want to do on the train. Similarly, the 250 or so miles between Charlotte and Atlanta, the 345 miles between Atlanta and Jacksonville, and the 349 miles between Jacksonville and Miami. And that, of course, is to say nothing of the possibilities of high-speed rail along the Boston-Washington corridor. In the real world, of course, there are a million reasons why we're not going to build a Boston-to-Miami high-speed rail line up to European or Asian standards. But we really should (and there are, of course, other appropriate corridors in parts of the country where I don't happen to live) it would make a lot of things in life better, and it's a bit pathetic that dysfunctional politics in the United States has just doomed the erstwhile Greatest Country Ever to get by with inferior infrastructure.

Comments

Do you have any studies indicating these proposals would make economic or practical sense?

Posted by Mixner | January 25, 2008 1:01 PM

Dude, high-speed rail is a joke--a very expensive one. The 185-mph (in a very few places) Chunnel is losing money hand over fist. High-speed rail requires straight, level, dedicated tracks. What would be the cost of digging new tunnels and adding new bridges from DC to Boston? The last time I went to Boston the plane took me 45 minutes. Show me a train that can do that. Someday we'll get over our hyper-obsession with airline security. Even if we don't, high-speed rail is still not the answer.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | January 25, 2008 1:04 PM

If the US government didn't have de facto subsidization of the automobile (highway expenses) and air travel industries (air traffic and airport expenses, to say nothing of sweetheart deals for boeing), those would be losing money as well.

Posted by George | January 25, 2008 1:11 PM

While the idea is a nice one, the reality is much more difficult.

The costs are ridiculous to set up these types of lines -- buying the land, laying the rails, the trains themselves.

That cost is, naturally, passed on to consumers. And in America, it would mean that few folks of modest means could enjoy a quick trip, say, from Chicago to St. Louis, St.L to KC, or KC to Denver.

Then you've got maintenance -- considering we have a hard time keeping sidewalks up to par in this country, not sure how we'd adequately deal with such a thing.

Again, I love the idea. It's the reality that screws everything up.

(And on a side note, whenever I visit friends in St. Louis, I almost always take the train. Sure, it takes longer, but it's just $50 round tirp -- much less than gas -- and they used to have a bar car where you could get your drink on. Considering the thing is practically empty, it's a nice, quiet, libation-heavy trip, IMHO.)

Posted by Mark D | January 25, 2008 1:14 PM

Besides, why would you want to build a really fast, straight high speed rail system when you can have the Acela--which efficiently bends and twists its way through every money-grubbing congressional district between DC and Boston?

Posted by southpaw | January 25, 2008 1:15 PM

I always love the comments on how train travel doesn't pay for itself. Um, none of out travel makes 'economic sense' if you take that to mean that it has to turn a profit.

Air travel is heavily subsidized in all sorts of ways and we still wind up bailing out the airlines every decade or so. Roads and cars are heavily subsidized in all sorts of ways. Yet for some reasons trains have to turn a profit.

Subsidize the hell out of every form of transit, but not trains. They have to pay for themselves. Strange.

Posted by moobycow | January 25, 2008 1:20 PM

I dunno. I LOVE the idea of high speed rail. To look at the French TGV, I got on a train in downtown Marseille, and arrived 3 hours later at downtown Paris. I sat in a car where cell phones and music weren't allowed, I watched th countryside blur by, and there were no hassles.

For about twice as much I could have taken the plane. This would mean getting out to Marignane (40 minute bus ride), hanging out there for an hour, going through security, 1 hr flight, then getting from De Gaulle to central Paris (45 minute bus ride). So all told, it is the same amount of time, with a pleasantness factor of about 1/3rd of the train.

I just think of the money spent on so much else (like here in Canada, we get a 2% sales tax cut costing theovernment about $10 Billion) when it could go into a piece of infrastructure that makes so much sense.

And yes, of course there are problems and complications - but there were problems and complications with building the interstate system and somehow that got completed.

Posted by Chris B | January 25, 2008 1:20 PM

This idea seems like something that would seem good to someone from the Northeast, but really isn't. The businesspeople I know in Jacksonville never go to Miami -- why would they? They might go to Atlanta occasionally, but then they're obviously going to fly, not drive, and the train's really not all that much better. The places they actually need to go are surrounding cities like Jacksonville Beach, Daytona Beach, St. Augustine. (Or, of course, far-away cities like NYC or Chicago for meetings and conferences, but again, the train doesn't help with that.) Equally importantly, for the most part, when they get to these places they will need a car and car rentals are expensive so there's yet another thumb on the driving side of the balance.

I'm not going to say there are no places in the United States where a good train system wouldn't make sense (Portland-Seattle, maybe?), but I think it's easy to overestimate when you're from the large-city-dense Northeast.

Posted by Christopher M | January 25, 2008 1:24 PM

Boston-Washinton DC corridor would be effective.

But extending the network to Miami???

I'm sure the length and limited use of such a line would make it unfeasible.

Posted by thehova | January 25, 2008 1:24 PM

The last time I went to Boston the plane took me 45 minutes.

Yes, that's the amount of time the plane was in the air. However, between travel to the distance airport, the security and, of course, long delays in both directions, it took 4-5 hours.

If we had a train that could make the DC-Boston trip in 4-5 hours, that would be a big boon to northeast travel, as well as relieving some of the pressure on highways and airports.

Posted by Tyro | January 25, 2008 1:24 PM

Maybe we can get the Republicans and Democrats together on this issue, just let them listen to this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaBe7bMOEL0

Donuts, is there anything they can't do?

Posted by Jeremiah | January 25, 2008 1:24 PM

Point one is that if we can reduce the security line wait at airports, air travel becomes much more tempting again.

Point two is that medium-sized American cities are much more spread out than Europe. It makes sense in the Northeast corridor, or the industrial midwest (say, Buffalo-Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Chicago-Milwaukee-Twin Cities-Fargo), or the California Coast, and maybe BC-Seattle-Portland, and maybe Florida itself, but that's about it.

Point three is if you believe James Fallows and semi-private air travel is about to approach twice the price of major carrier air travel, there's no point in doing rail at all.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | January 25, 2008 1:24 PM

I always love the comments on how train travel doesn't pay for itself. Um, none of out travel makes 'economic sense' if you take that to mean that it has to turn a profit.

Depends what you mean by "turn a profit." Some transportation methods are more cost-effective than others, and from the evidence I have seen, long-distance rail travel in the U.S. is highly cost-INeffective, and the cost-burden is distributed much less evenly across the population. Taxpayers fund huge the capital costs to build and operate these services, to benefit a relatively small population of heavily-subsidized riders.

Posted by Mixner | January 25, 2008 1:32 PM

High speed trains are a very good idea. Are they are green too.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | January 25, 2008 1:33 PM

The big problem (besides the expense) is that inter-city rail works when people can connect onwards in efficient public transit (like in Europe). Of course, most American cities lack efficient public transit and were specifically designed for car use. I think establishing a high speed railway would be a fantastic idea, but it would have to be accompanied by a lot more city planning changes as well.

Posted by greg | January 25, 2008 1:34 PM

It would definitely be cost effective in the Boston-DC corridor. Every time I've taken the train from Boston to New York, it has been full, and this is on a train that takes longer to go from Boston to New York than a train in France would take traveling from Paris to Marseille.

I'd even make the argument that high speed rail could lessen air traffic congestion. I imagine that if you could take a train from Chicago to New York at 200 mph (to go 800 miles), that trip could be done in between 5 and 7 hours, without all the hassle of airports, which would actually save time.

However, in our political system, this will never get play for the same reason our cities are neglected: a disproportionate share of the power in Washington is commanded by people from states that very few people live in. That's why Monsanto is showered with billions for corn we don't need, but Amtrak and intra-city public transit languish.

Posted by Fox | January 25, 2008 1:35 PM

Everyone who has been to Europe love the rail travel. There is no reason that we can't do the same for medium distance travel in the USA. It would greatly reduce our dependence on highways and air travel. A combination of all 3 should divide up the traffic enough to make all 3 options attractive and you can choose the one you like the best. And yes, a 45 minute plane ride is really at least a 4 hour trip when considering the time it takes to go to the airport, park, security and such. Plus you have to be there 1-2 hours in advance. There is no such thing as a short plane trip.

Posted by Cols714 | January 25, 2008 1:36 PM

Here is an exciting fact: the cheapest round-trip fare on Amtrak between New York and Philadelphia is $104.00. (If one does the Acela thing, it's more like $260. Yes: $260 to go from New York to Philadelphia and back on a train.)

For this reason, when I have occasion to go to Philadelphia (or Boston or Baltimore), I do what all my friends do: I take the Chinese bus. The round-trip NY/Philly fare is $25, and that's even with recent fuel-cost price increases. (They go all over the place-check out apexbus.com.)

I propose that instead of building high-speed trains, the US government should study Apex Bus and base its long-distance public-transit policy thereon.

Posted by James Gary | January 25, 2008 1:37 PM

Sheesh, opening an atlas would frequently be a useful endeavor.

Posted by Will Allen | January 25, 2008 1:38 PM

Frankly, it's disappointing when one one travels to see how much better the transportation infrastructure is in Western Europe, in Japan, and in Singapore. Perhaps if we spent more on our public goods and less on unnecessary wars, we too could match the rest of the world.

Posted by GJN | January 25, 2008 1:40 PM

I propose that instead of building high-speed trains, the US government should study Apex Bus and base its long-distance public-transit policy thereon.

Great, that means hiring conductors who don't speak English and "encouraging" them to work well past safe working hours to save money. If a train catches fire or derails, well, college students don't read newspapers anyway.

The problem on the Boston-NY end is the last hour spent in Manhattan traffic.

Posted by Brittain33 | January 25, 2008 1:40 PM

I recall reading a column by Michael Dukakis (remember that guy?) advocating a high speed rail line through California. He made a pretty convincing case, especially given the enormous amount of air traffic that goes between Los Angeles and the Bay Area (thousands of passengers daily, putting a huge strain on the respective airports).

Posted by Kraz | January 25, 2008 1:40 PM

We need both intercity rail and more highway lanes. We need plenty of new highway lanes, and new highways, just to take care of the growth we've already had, never mind future growth. The argument that more roads makes traffic worse is so dumb as to almost be self-refuting. Yes, traffic gets worse when we build more roads. It also gets worse when we don't build more roads. Unless you're going to start shipping people away or executing them to cull the population, or capping economic growth so they don't have jobs to go to, or sterilizing them, we're going to need more capacity in both roads and mass transit.

Posted by too many steves | January 25, 2008 1:42 PM

Frankly, it's disappointing when one one travels to see how much better the transportation infrastructure is in Western Europe, in Japan, and in Singapore. Perhaps if we spent more on our public goods and less on unnecessary wars, we too could match the rest of the world.

Not for nothing, but we defend all those places, except for Singapore, with stationed troops and our nuclear umbrella. Also, a lot of their rail networks were created as part of past military build-ups. I'm don't hold a brief for unneccessary wars, but this game is simply more complicated than you make it out to be.

Posted by southpaw | January 25, 2008 1:47 PM

Great, that means hiring conductors who don't speak English and "encouraging" them to work well past safe working hours to save money. If a train catches fire or derails, well, college students don't read newspapers anyway.

I was (hopefully obviously) being flip in my first post, but if I were a public-transit policy planner, I'd put my money on a solution that actually offered affordable fares to its potential users. My (non-flip) point was that Acela is already comparable to air travel in fare price; why would anyone want an alternative (a "real" high-speed train) that would surely have even higher fares?

Posted by James Gary | January 25, 2008 1:53 PM

Air travel is heavily subsidized in all sorts of ways and we still wind up bailing out the airlines every decade or so.

Bailouts? Really? Which were those? The ones that saved Braniff, Pan Am, Eastern and TWA? Those bailouts?

Or are you talking about the post-9/11 loan program -- the one that loaned money to a few airlines that presented workable post-9/11 business plans, and then returned a profit of several hundred million dollars to US taxpayers?

Posted by Jeffrey | January 25, 2008 1:54 PM

California already has the route between LA and Sacramento planed. They do not however have the money to build said line. It is a shame. Building something that size might actually stimulate the economy. In CA anyway.

Posted by cheflovesbeer | January 25, 2008 1:57 PM

The arguments here are interesting. You might want to chew on this:
There are only 2 rail corridors that make any money for Amtrak: Milwaukee to Chicago and Boston to New York. All the other lines lose money.

Now that we have that out of the way, let us for a moment examine rail transit itself. Currently passenger rail uses the same rail lines as freight. Because freight technically ownes the lines, passenger rail can only shoot through their corridors when freight isn't in the way. The bottleneck in rail (both passenger and freight) is stifling. Because rail transit is more fuel efficient than truck, freight rail has seen a huge boom recently.

As others have noted, the "profitability metric" that people level against trains isn't thrown at buses and planes. Since it is more energy efficient, why the double standard? I think it is more due to cultural perceptions and general ignorance/stupidity. Really, there is no good reason not to build high speed rail corridors where it makes sense. Certainly high speed rail will not be making a NY to LA run, because air travel beats it. But NY to Boston with DC in there makes more sense than flying. Same with a Milwaukee-Chicago-Detroit corridor and an LA-San Francisco corridor.

Posted by freddiemac | January 25, 2008 1:59 PM

"Not for nothing, but we defend all those places, except for Singapore, with stationed troops and our nuclear umbrella. Also, a lot of their rail networks were created as part of past military build-ups. I'm don't hold a brief for unneccessary wars, but this game is simply more complicated than you make it out to be."

No troops in france and they've their own nuclear forces. And a very good high speed rail system.
And the high speed rail system has all been built in the last few decades and has nothing to do with military build ups.

Anyway the whole 'free defence' line is pretty much nonsense. After all look at the top military spenders and the major eu countries are all in the top of the list.

And it could be argued that by having good rail networks which reduces oil consumption the europeans and japanese are allowing the USA to have oil cheaper that they would otherwise get it. After all if the EU used oil at the same rate as the US the demand for oil would be much higher than it currently is.

Posted by kenb | January 25, 2008 2:04 PM

Jeffrey,

Bailouts refers to the airline bankruptcies that cost taxpayers billions of dollars. The airlines are single handedly bankrupting the pension guaranty program. And just wait until the SHTF when gas prices spike this summer.

And that does count what the government spends in airport security and airport construction/renovations.

Posted by freddiemac | January 25, 2008 2:04 PM

I propose that instead of building high-speed trains, the US government should study Apex Bus and base its long-distance public-transit policy thereon. - James Gary

How can you compare the economic efficiency of buses vs. trains without considering that the government largely owns and (with the exception of a few tolls) largely pays for the infrastructure used by buses whereas the train infrastructure (rented or owned by the train companies or freight companies) comes out of the budget for the train companies themselves.

As others have pointed out here and elsewhere, the government subsidizes plane and automobile transportion and the costs to the taxpayer (and certainly not the environmental costs) are not considered in reckoning the profitability of automobile and plane transportation. OTOH, even though Amtrak, et al, are government subsidies, the money they have to pay for railroad tracks is part of their budget and is counted when people say how much money trains loose.

And to compare apples to apples, you cannot compare the Acela or even Amtrak regular to a bus service. You should compare the bus service to the SEPTA/NJ Transit combination to the bus service, and SEPTA/NJ Transit doesn't cost $100 bucks to get you from Philly to NYC, does it?

Posted by DAS | January 25, 2008 2:08 PM

Everyone who has been to Europe love the rail travel.

I have travelled extensively by rail in Europe. Last year I spent a couple of weeks riding the rails in northern Italy. It certainly does have its pleasures and advantages, but there are also various downsides that enthusiasts tend to ignore. A few observations:

1. It's expensive. Even with discounts and rail passes. For journeys of several hundred miles or more, air travel is usually competitively priced. There is typically also a supplement for high-speed trains.

2. Waiting around in a crowded open-air train station is a drag, especially in hot or cold weather, as is hauling your bags along the platform and on and off the train.

3. Second class is often full during busy travel times, and you may not get a seat unless you show up early. The primary advantage of first class is not better facilities, but fewer people. To guarantee a seat, you need to pay a supplement.

4. The trains tend to be dirty, and even in first class the seats are not particularly comfortable, less comfortable even than coach airplane seats, in my view. The facing-seats arrangement that is common means you are likely to be fighting your facing passenger for leg space.

5. The supposed window-viewing pleasures are overrated. While you occasionally get a nice view, tracks often run through uninspiring industrial or residential areas, or your view is blocked by trees or tunnels.

6. Most services are not high-speed, and most high-speed trains rarely travel even close to the "200 mph" number quoted by Matt. Even where the track allows for high speed service, the average speed of a high-speed train is more like 140 mph.

I enjoy rail travel in Europe, but a lot of that pleasure comes from the novelty value of it. In Italy, we could have rented a car for the same price or less as we paid for our rail passes and supplements, reached most of our destinations almost as fast, and would have had a lot more flexibility.

Posted by Mixner | January 25, 2008 2:10 PM

but what I'd really like to see in our urban corridors is true high-speed intercity rail.

I don't like national programs in general, but this is a good idea in concept. However, unless you can convince the American people to use it, the economics won't work. The last thing the US needs is another DOT program that hemmorages money. I have my doubts.

Posted by Shinyk | January 25, 2008 2:18 PM

Oops ... I see Friediemac made my point about profitibility and line ownership.

But also about air travel times: what about delays? While problems with tracks provide ample opportunities for delays (especially since, as mentioned above, freight often has priority), the length of air travel delays seems even worse.

My last trip from NYC to Tally took (i.e. from the time the plane on which I booked a ticket was scheduled to leave NYC to the time I actually touched down in Tally) 19 hours (because the flight delays in NYC due to largely non-existent weather patterns meant that I would not have made it to my connection on time, and due to very real fog in Charlotte the first flight to Tally didn't leave until about 3:00 PM the next day). Efficient rail service wouldn't have even taken so much time as the weather impacts would not have been so bad.

Posted by DAS | January 25, 2008 2:19 PM

Here are my comments about rail in Texas. MIT is also working on small cars to help riders get to their final destination if it is not close enought to walk to. Rail has to catch on eventually....

http://earnestobserver.blogspot.com/2007/11/texas-rail.html

Posted by Anon | January 25, 2008 2:23 PM

DAS,

Good point about delays. My last trip from Detroit to Chicago was delayed due to a snowstorm. The snow wasn't so bad that planes couldn't land, they just had to space themselves out further. My 9:00 flight didn't take off until 11:00, which means I missed my connecting bus. One delay can send your whole trip spiraling, and in cases like this it isn't something that would slow down a train schedule.

Really, with all this talk of energy independence, rail seems a logical infrastructure to develop. Heck, it doesn't even need to run on diesel, the Metra out ouf Chicago is electric (and it runs on time in any weather).

Posted by freddiemac | January 25, 2008 2:26 PM

Well, I was going to launch into an intricate argument, but instead I am just going to relate that I made it from central London to central Paris in 2.20 recently on the Eurostar - neener neener.

Posted by novakant | January 25, 2008 2:28 PM

And to compare apples to apples, you cannot compare the Acela or even Amtrak regular to a bus service. You should compare the bus service to the SEPTA/NJ Transit combination to the bus service, and SEPTA/NJ Transit doesn't cost $100 bucks to get you from Philly to NYC, does it?

You nailed me! From what I can gather online, the SEPTA/NJT fare looks to be about $30.00. (My last Apex Bus trip to Philly was a couple years ago, and was $15--I guess fuel costs have really hit Apex bus hard since then, making them less competitive with rail.) I stand corrected.

Posted by James Gary | January 25, 2008 2:29 PM

From my travels in Europe, I agree with Mixner's post.

I especially agree with these two facts, which Mixner points out:

1. Rail travel is not cheap. European airlines are very competitive against rail, especially for longer distance hauls. Backpackers in Europe increasingly turn to discount airlines, which are thriving in Europe.

2. Rail travel is not fast. I don't think most Americans realize what a tiny percentage of rail line in Europe are high speed. France has the best system. But even in France, only a small percentage of its rail lines are high speed.

Posted by thehova | January 25, 2008 2:29 PM

We've been studying and planning it in california for at least 10 years and it makes eminent sense, but it requires such a huge up front commitment in dollars, it's hard to see it happening. It's not happening this year with the budget crunch and the costs keep going up so much each year. It's a shame

Posted by Tim | January 25, 2008 2:32 PM

DAS, it's true: the non-existent weather delays in New York are proliferating dramatically. That and mechanical problems that may or may not exist.

It's amazing how much non-existent snowfall and non-existent rain happens to appear when the airlines dramatically overbook the same airspace and can't coordinate with each other for shit because their planners haven't seen A Beautiful Mind.

Posted by jhupp | January 25, 2008 2:41 PM

Driving a car in Europe is not cheap either, friends. And I don't know what rail routes you've all ridden, but I think that you have to be pretty jaded not to find all aspects of a foreign country at least somewhat interesting, not to mention the great natural beauty available to someone traveling a main route from, say, Paris to Rome.

Posted by Oh Boy... | January 25, 2008 2:48 PM

Point three is if you believe James Fallows and semi-private air travel is about to approach twice the price of major carrier air travel, there's no point in doing rail at all.

The truth is, we need to reduce the number and frequency of flights by private jets that we already have. They are just about the worst per capita belchers of CO2 in the entire transportation system.

So don't count on that semi-private air travel once we get a carbon tax or cap and trade going.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 25, 2008 2:49 PM

"if you could take a train from Chicago to New York at 200 mph (to go 800 miles), that trip could be done in between 5 and 7 hours, without all the hassle of airports,"

If the train is going to hit 200 miles per hour, there is going to be hassle, possibly rising to the level at the airports.

Posted by Njorl | January 25, 2008 2:56 PM

SEPTA/NJT requires a transfer in Trenton and takes considerably longer than Amtrak -- up to 2:45 total. If one train is delayed, then you're out an hour while you wait for the next departure out of Trenton. It is pretty outrageous that Amtrak charges that much more for the convenience tho.

Posted by Matt B | January 25, 2008 3:00 PM

We need more airports near where people live.

That's the real bottleneck in American air travel: takeoff and landing slots. But there's only so many slots that can be configured into one airport. To have more slots, you need more airports.

Yet when we discuss infrastructure needs, airports never get into the discussion. I don't get it.

This problem is only going to get worse over the years, if nothing is done. And land near major cities is only going to get more expensive over time, so the best time to act is now.

Take the D.C.-Baltimore area, for instance. It's already keeping three airports very busy. Maybe it's time for another airport or two that can handle big passenger jets - out I-270 somewhere, or along U.S. 301 either between Bowie and Upper Marlboro, or between Upper Marlboro and Waldorf. Or on the north side of Baltimore somewhere.

Or do all three, and double the amount of air traffic the area can handle.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | January 25, 2008 3:01 PM

People often say that the true costs of travel--road maintenance and energy-use externalities, aren't factored into the price of car or bus travel. Does anyone have any reliable numbers on this? I assume that it is true, but I wonder how big a difference those factors would make. Is rail travel much/a little cheaper, or is it still more expensive? Of course it matters what route you are looking at.

Posted by Dan S | January 25, 2008 3:05 PM

re: DC airports. Richmond is already becoming an alternate airport for those living on the southern fringes of the DC burbs like Fredericksburg.

Posted by Pan | January 25, 2008 3:16 PM

Re: the airport bottleneck, it is actually the proliferation of regional jets (seating 50 - 80). So whereas there were once 3 flights a day in a 747 between Chicago and DC, now here are 10 in a Bombardier. Same number of people being moved, but there are now 3 times as many planes in the air

Posted by Chris B | January 25, 2008 3:43 PM

Vancouver to San Diego.

Also: a roller coaster from my house to town.

Posted by Linus | January 25, 2008 3:44 PM

I love how Matt keeps pushing light rail and high speed rail without ANY understanding of the cost structure. These are money losers across the board. Of course, I don't see Matt pushing buses, which are in fact the way to provide local transport.

You know, we have a far more robust airline industry in the U.S. There are problems, of course, including the TSA-ificiation of the whole system which makes traveling by plane take longer point-to-point than it should. But before we invested $10 of billions of dollars building high speed rail - which is a money loser - let's think about cost-effective ways to increase efficiencies of airlines. Congestion pricing of gates is a start.

Posted by Joe Strummer | January 25, 2008 4:26 PM

That's the real bottleneck in American air travel: takeoff and landing slots.

How much traffic at a typical airport is commuter flights of less than 600 miles? LAX is heavily congested. A big chunk of that congestion is flights going to San Francisco, Las Vegas, and San Diego. Offer convenient high-speed rail to those locations and you reduce the demand and traffic at airports. This situation is repeated in DC, NYC, Boston, Philly, etc.

Posted by SDHokie | January 25, 2008 4:45 PM

Offer convenient high-speed rail to those locations and you reduce the demand and traffic at airports.

How much would it cost to build and operate a high-speed rail link between LA and SF?

Posted by Mixner | January 25, 2008 4:53 PM

Mixner, IIRC california already has a route from LA to Sacramento. And a route from sac to Frisco. But no money. The amount I have heard is 10 billion.

Posted by cheflovesbeer | January 25, 2008 5:49 PM

Yes the costs of building a high speed train line are extremely high. But so were the costs of building the highway system. The point is that people complain about the high costs, but in the end it is often worth investing in infrastructure. Good thing that the people who built the highway system didn't bitch about the prohibitive cost of building it. They build it and we are reaping the rewards. A similar attitude towards rail by our generation will be a great thing for the future.

And yes, the airlines are greatly subsidized. Plus, the hassle of flying increases the chances of people taking trains if rail was an option, even if similarly priced.

Posted by Cols714 | January 25, 2008 6:02 PM

Simply pointing out that the costs of building both rail and highway links are "high" doesn't really help us to decide which would be better. How high? How high per passenger mile of projected use? Of course, all sorts of other factors would go into the evaluation, but you can't do anything without at least ballpark figures for construction and operating costs.

Mixner, IIRC california already has a route from LA to Sacramento. And a route from sac to Frisco. But no money. The amount I have heard is 10 billion.

As I understand it, high-speed service requires new track. Britain, I think, spent huge sums of money in the 70s or 80s trying to develop a high-speed train that would run on existing track but eventually scrapped it.

Posted by Mixner | January 25, 2008 6:18 PM

Why is that every time a rail project is proposed, there are tons of hoops to jump through, while road widenings happen constantly?
If we build rail, people will use it. Just like we build more roads and people use them. Remember we are spending something like 12 billion a month on the war, some of this money could be used on infrastructure.

Posted by Cols714 | January 25, 2008 6:37 PM

These threads always tremble between ignorance and delirium. Were American cities built for the automobile? No, they were built for railroads and ships, which is why American cities haven't worked very well for the past 60 years.

An astounding number of commenters don't realize that airlines depend on airports the public built for them and US mail contracts. Nor do people seem to realize that the roads aren't free, and yes, they do wear out.

High speed rail beats air for distances under 300 miles on time alone, even before you consider the lower cost and reduced carbon footprint. Take those commuter flights off the tarmac and you might actually be able to accomodate long-haul flights with the airfields and traffic controllers we have.

More sobering is the reflection that our tech-savvy elite commenting here is in some doubt of America's ability build even a sidewalk, but, it's like, sure I'm dumb as bread, but nothing will ever change and we'll keep driving cars and flying because we like it.

This is a real Marie Antoinette moment at a time when a lot of Americans are developing a solid hatred for the car that is eating them out of house and home.

We're spending a billion a week in Iraq. The candidates are suggesting we might spend a billion a year on rail. Something seriously out of kilter with that set of priorities.

Posted by serial catowner | January 25, 2008 6:42 PM

Mixner, they have a route no track. It is a start.

Posted by cheflovesbeer | January 25, 2008 8:30 PM

"Bailouts? Really? Which were those?" Posted by Jeffrey | January 25, 2008 1:54 PM

Jeffrey,

Are you really unaware of how bankruptcy courts [a government entity] renegotiates contracts for business?

Man, I know we have an ignorant population...but c'mon dude.

Posted by S Brennan | January 26, 2008 1:00 AM

High speed rail is a great idea, but I think light rail is a much more pressing concern. Afterall, what value is that high speed train if you get to the city and there's no way to get around without your car?

The sick thing is that public transit gets shot at by both sides. Conservatives seem to think that any money not spent on roads is communism, basically assuming that buses and trains should all turn immediate profits, instead of recognizing that the profit of an excellent public transportation is in how it helps businesses and relieves stress on our system.
Then liberals have a sick habit of turning rail into a race issue, suggesting that buses are egalitarian and rail is for rich white people and is never justified. You may laugh, but this happens in Los Angeles year round. There's a group called the Bus Riders Union that does good work fighting on behalf of the poor and the bus system, but then has a sick, totally self-defeating attitude that all rail is racist.

I suggest this blog post: http://streetheatla.blogspot.com/2008/01/feds-cut-light-rail-language-from-stc.html
It basically covers how a Transportation commission started by the Republican congress in 2005 basically reached the conclusion that a gas tax increase and significant rail increases are vital to our nation's future. The Bush administration then took the report, which was written by some very conservative Reagan era officials, and basically removed every recommendation and then publicly condemned it. Yes, the magic of a Department of Transportation that doesn't want to improve transportation.

Posted by Simon | January 26, 2008 1:03 AM

Obviously, more highway lane miles don't relieve congestion (for long).

But (arguing against my own inclinations here) they certainly increase *capacity.* Which to a greater or lesser extent, contributes to GDP growth.

The interstate highway system has certainly contributed a great deal to American prosperity, no?

High-speed rail is similar. Of course Amtrak and the chunnel don't make money. That's because their income statements don't include the positive externalities that they generate--more commerce, growth, etc.

That's why investments in (smart) infrastructure are a net positive.

When you compare rail to highways/cars, and factor in the huge negative externalities associated with those, the win is clear.

Steve Roth
http://typepad/trueconservative.com

Posted by Steve Roth | January 26, 2008 1:12 PM

I think it would only make sense in the U.S. is from Boston to DC-Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, and DC are all dense cities with good public transport...and flying from boston to nyc or nyc to dc would take the same amount of time as a train....beyond that it seems to be another boondoggle. I would pay for it, but it would need to be done right.

Posted by luke | January 26, 2008 2:21 PM

It's not as sexy, but Chicago-Detroit-Toledo-Pittsburg joining into a Boston/DC line at NYC would look like it might work also.

As to being the erstwhile Greatest Country Ever bit-- well, there are a lot of problems we can't deal with largely *because* we see ourselves as the Greatest Country Ever. We seldom look to other nations to determine best practices, and refuse to acknowledge shortcomings where they exist. As for rail, so too for broadband and health-care. There are probably other examples.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | January 27, 2008 11:03 AM