Air Taxi or High-Speed Rail

I like to take an interest in my sponsors, so I clicked a link from a Siemens ad I saw on my blog which took me to their sponsor page whence I found this treasure-trove of fake news reports that Siemens put together. Siemens seems to make a lot of infrastructure products, so a lot of their advertorial content relates to stuff I'm interested in. Indeed, at times I'm already totally in the tank for what they're selling, as in this propaganda video for high-speed rail.

That's what I thought of as I read James Fallows' fascinating article on air taxis in the current issue of The Atlantic. Jim's an aviation enthusiast so he's excited about the rise of DayJet, but it sound ecologically problematic to me and -- relatedly -- something that could well be rendered impractical if we adopted sound carbon-pricing policies. Jim takes this on a bit in the piece and we learn that "Bruce Holmes’s response is that most of DayJet’s customers would otherwise have driven, probably alone and in a large car—and the new jets are designed to beat or match such trips in fuel consumption and overall carbon output per passenger mile."

This is fair enough, but of course an even more ecologically sustainable alternative for these kind of shortish intercity trips would be high-speed rail. What's more, at several points in the piece DayJet executives say they think they probably couldn't export their business model to the northeast, the only part of the country where we have decent passenger rail, so the air taxi people themselves seem to think that rail would be a more appealing alternative to short-haul flights if the infrastructure got built. What's more, the Acela is actually pretty crappy when you compare it to the true high-speed rail they have in Europe and Asia. So let's build some trains!

Photo by me, available under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Sorry. I am a rail proponent, but this is -- excuse me -- dumb. I read the Fallows piece, and he makes it very clear that the market for the air taxi service is for trips between destinations that cannot possibly generate enough traffic to support rail links.

Posted by roac | April 15, 2008 12:39 PM

The problem with high speed rail vs the air taxi service is that the air taxi will go from (for example) Tallahassee to Savannah. Or St. George UT to Colorado Springs CO. Rail, being highly infrastructure dependent, won't. There probably isn't enough volume to justify any passenger rail, much less high speed rail, on the runs where the air taxi service would go. In fact, rail would probably be less efficient (given the number of passengers who would use it) on routes like that.

Posted by wiredog | April 15, 2008 12:42 PM

Fallows had this totally backward. Air taxis aren't a cure but an exacerbation of the infection. One reason air travel is so fraught with delays is the influx of private jets. Of course, another reason is the strategy that suddenly made airlines more profitable again: smaller planes, meaning more flights to handle the same traffic, but also fewer flights with empty seats.

Caps, which rarely get into effect anyhow, don't seem to make the needed inroads. Plans like Schumer's to expand airspace are simply caving in, like much else of his politics. One would need regulation to reverse the second, larger factor; and one would need regulation that demotes the takeoff priority of private jets to the point that no one will feel pampered enough to want them. But adding some cute little flights for the rich? Come on.

Every so often a blind Fallows stumbles on an acorn (like Iraq war would involve us forever), but his fame despite wrong guesses (Bush will be a great debater, Murdoch is not politically biased, Japan's economic miracle will dominate the world economy forever) is one of the reasons I dropped my subscription. How can I become a pundit? Weathermen have better track records.

Posted by John Haber | April 15, 2008 12:47 PM

The Fallows piece addresses this: He says congestion is only an issue in the airspace around major airports, which this company does not serve. If he is wrong, let's see the data that show it.

Posted by roac | April 15, 2008 12:59 PM

So the US will cut emissions by 80% (or a mere 60% if McCain gets in) whilst increasing air transport (the fastest growing source) and coal use (the biggest source)? Please let Europe know how, as we'd love to do the same. Ah yes, bioethanol, that must be it.

Posted by Graham | April 15, 2008 1:14 PM

I like to take an interest in my sponsors

This totally cries out for another flame job from Petey.

Posted by Ryan | April 15, 2008 1:17 PM

Delays in commercial air travel have NOTHING to do with private aviation.

I didn't say "not much" or "very little" or similar. They literally have nothing to do with each other.

There are a grand total of zero private jets landing at LGA, JFK, and EWR during rush hour. Those are the airports with the most congestion.

The capacity problem that causes delays isn't a shortage of AIR to put the planes in. It's a shortage of RUNWAYS to land them on at peak times near major cities.

The airspace surrounding NYC could support another 5 airports with the traffic of Kennedy. You could fly several hundred jets into a newly built airport in the Bronx, or open commercial service to TEB for example.

There's essentially no limits to air capacity in any real way. There's a lot of air out there. The problem is the number of planes per hour that can land at the major commercial airports. And when they have weather and/or crossing runways they lose capacity, as spacing on arrival/departure and the number of runways they can use is affected.

All the while with not a SINGLE private plane in that airport or in any encroaching airspace.

The airlines want to shift fees away from themselves to small plane owners. Like cropdusters, little cessnas, etc. Of course they frame this by saying it's rich people in private jets that are making you late. The fact that this is completely baseless matters less, as most people don't understand how the system works.

Now ya know.

Posted by Wilson Phillips | April 15, 2008 1:22 PM

I think rail is great but you have to be realistic about the costs. Portland paid about 2.2 million for each car on the latest light rail project. Track and overhead electric lines pencil out at about 14 million per mile. It takes lots of riders to make up that kind of expense

Posted by Captured Shadow | April 15, 2008 1:22 PM

The problem in large parts of the country is that once in the cities (defining them by populations of about 150k or above), they have piss poor mass transit so you're stuck walking everywhere lugging your stuff in places that were not designed for walking.

Or you take a taxi or rental car, but then you're still just driving around. Is that a significant change than driving to the destination in the first place? Maybe.

I say this not to say this is a bad idea, but to point out that any kind of effort in this vein will need to be a wide-reaching diverse and holistic approach to the problem.

Posted by MNPundit | April 15, 2008 1:25 PM

Of course, the business model for air taxis is to go from exurban (or non-metropolitan) point to exurban point, so they wouldn't be direct competition for high-speed rail, which is best at connecting urban points. Problem is, if we are moving away from a carbon-fuel, light-infrastructure economy as seems to be the case, then the rationale for wealthy patrons to live in hard-to-service locations starts to melt away. In a (as now hypothetical) nation where oil and coal have given way to electricity generated in nuclear reactors, giant offshore wind farms and solar thermal power plants, it's gonna be advantageous--even for wealthy people--to live in large metropolitan areas with access to electric-powered trains, battery-powered delivery vans, ultra-high-speed broadband, and the like.

Kokomo, Williamsport and Valdosta aren't going to evaporate, but the number of people who can support an air taxi service in those places is going to be vanishingly small.

Posted by jlw | April 15, 2008 1:29 PM

Hmm...let's see now- on the one hand, the 'flying car' is back, slightly modified to meet the demands of the slightly upper-crust readership of the Atlantic.

On the other hand, coordinated efforts by the governments of Europe to build the most capable and efficient means of transit, to ensure their survival in the emerging world economy of energy price rises and global warming constraints.

Yeah, that's a real tough choice, all right- if you're five years old and you want your flying car!

Posted by serial catowner | April 15, 2008 1:35 PM

Gotta lay tracks before you can run trains. The reason that Acela lacks the real whoosh factor is that the infrastructure isn't there. The US needs new rails before it can have something like a 200mph train. It's really hard to see that happening in the crowded northeast.

On the other hand, if your cruising speed is in the 200mph ball park (German trains do this every day on various routes), then a DC to Chicago trip -- on new tracks -- starts to look like a four-hour proposition. That's twice as long as a flight, but then again the arrive-ahead factor for trains is basically zero. Holding patterns also zero. So your door-to-door time is not all that far from flying. Sure, there are conditions: new rail infrastructure and few stops being the most important. DC-Atlanta is about the same, and the Appalachians are not quite as in the way.

With those kinds of numbers, the US could support three world-class high-speed networks: east of the Mississippi (outside the northeast); key cities in Texas; and the Pacific coast. Linking east and west is a problem, though. Portland, Oregon, to Chicago is on the order of 2000 miles; Los Angeles to Dallas is about 1400. That's a long time to be on a train, even a gruesomely fast train.

But the necessary infrastructure costs real money.

Posted by Doug | April 15, 2008 1:38 PM

Good luck purchasing the land to build a new train line from the center of DC to the center of Philly, NYC and Boston.

Posted by Chris | April 15, 2008 1:54 PM

Roac and Wiredog nail it. Those of you who haven't read the Fallows article yet should do so.

Doug,

One point fallows makes is that with DayJet there is no "arrive-ahead" factor: the company flies out of tiny airports where you are on the plane and ready to go literally minutes after you get out of your car.

Posted by Fred | April 15, 2008 1:57 PM

What gets me is the people who complain about the costs of building the infrastructure. We built the highway system and it was extremely expensive, but we are sure glad we did it. I'm sure future generations would feel the same way about high speed rail if we decided to just build it, costs be damned. Also I'm pretty sure in this case, especially with the rising costs of basically everything, it you build it, the riders will come.

Posted by Cols714 | April 15, 2008 2:01 PM

Cheaper and less environmentally unfriendly still is telecommuting and teleconferencing.

A basic truth is that Americans like to drive cars.

Another basic truth is that Americans don't like to commute and they especially don't like to commute with other people in cars.

It's also the case that they don't like to travel for business.

Or even go to work.

I think the idea of people circumventing the preposterous new levels of security and crowds at large airports by organizing charter flights is a good thing.

I think the idea of national high speed rail is a good thing.

But no kind of public or collective private transit is going to replace the car in America or significantly diminish its use.

I like the progressive politics that values solar power (especially the new nanosolar), fuel cells for homes and businesses, hybrids and biofuel vehicles, restoring the tens of thousands of family farms that have gone under in recent decades with biofuel production, land clearing with mulching rather than burning, as well as telecommuting and videoconferencing.

Americans like personal freedom and privacy. This is a politics of optimism.

The other progressive politics - of high gas taxes, fear and loathing of biofuels, carpooling, density, and fantasies of everyone riding the bus - is a politics of scarcity, pessimism. It's a throwback to 1970s era Democratic politics. It's a throwback - in spirit - to Jimmy Carter and his new era of limits (or whatever he called it).

Posted by Linus | April 15, 2008 2:06 PM

Linus
I call BS, if people had a decent alternative to driving everywhere all of the time, I'd bet a significant portion would take the alternative. Not all of the time, but some of the time. Enough to to make a difference.
The problem is that for so long there have been no alternatives to driving everywhere so of course people are going to base their life choices off of this.

Posted by Cols714 | April 15, 2008 2:15 PM

It would be nice to build out high speed rail lines, which will cost much money. But there are many cities in the midwest and southeast that could cheaply and quickly build out commuter train systems. Since it would use existing freight lines, there's no need to acquire new right of ways or build new track. The only major expenses are buying passenger cars and upgrading the signaling. Of course, any money spent on that is money that highway contractors don't get, so for some reason cities like Houston and Atlanta refuse to build them (though in Georgia at least, the bottleneck is at the state government level).

Oh and Dayjet sounds like a great business concept. I remember a miserable evening where I had a business meeting in Beatrice, NE and I had to drive back to Des Moines for a morning meeting there.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=&saddr=Beatrice,+NE&daddr=Des+Moines,+IA&jsv=107&sll=40.930115,-95.180054&sspn=2.145522,4.356079&ie=UTF8&z=8

230 miles driving (188 miles by air), took more than three hours each way, almost 7 hours in the car round trip, There's no way they'd ever build a rail line (hell they don't even have a direct highway). It'd have been great to fly by airtaxi at roughly an hour round trip.

Posted by beowulf | April 15, 2008 2:15 PM

A basic truth is that Americans like to drive cars ... Another basic truth is that Americans don't like to commute.

These two statements would seem to contradict each other.

Personally, I don't think that Americans like to drive cars at all. Because they MUST drive cars, however, they choose a lifestyle that allows them to spend all of their free time at home because going out to do something or going out to shop forces them to get in their cars, which they don't want to do.

People don't want to drive, but when they do drive, they want it to be essentially free.

Posted by Tyro | April 15, 2008 2:18 PM

Sometimes I feel that the transit arguments get more circular at every iteration. Which is to say that we argue in circles without really adding anything new to the discussion.

It seems that the market really will sort this mess out, because if the price of gas continues to rise, then the cost of flying will go up in greater proportion to that of other modes of transit. I'm not sure how much more efficient a 180 mph train is to a jet, but the efficient of freight rail over trucks leads one to believe that high speed rail is more energy efficient. So if costs for fuel continue to rise, it will soon be worth the trouble to build all those rail lines. Really I'd like to know where that price point is. My guess is 5 bucks a gallon within the next 2 years, and we'll start to see rail lines built.

Posted by freddiemac | April 15, 2008 2:21 PM

Linus
I call BS, if people had a decent alternative to driving everywhere all of the time, I'd bet a significant portion would take the alternative. Not all of the time, but some of the time. Enough to to make a difference.
The problem is that for so long there have been no alternatives to driving everywhere so of course people are going to base their life choices off of this.

Posted by Cols714 | April 15, 2008 2:24 PM

Oy, more high-speed rail sh*t. "High-speed" rail is about one-third the speed of a jet. I'd (almost) rather read about "Head In The Sand."*

*Kidding! Just kidding!

Posted by Alan Vanneman | April 15, 2008 2:27 PM

Sorry about the double post.

Posted by Cols714 | April 15, 2008 2:29 PM

There are too many zero sum arguments in transportation. Rail does have it's place. But I think rail's proponents like to bludgeon its skeptics. The air taxis probably have a place in the overall transportation network as well. And we just accept that roads and bridges reaching the end of their useful life will be repaired. What if they're not? Their is serious need for presidential leadership on the issue...which we haven't seen yet.

Posted by Ben | April 15, 2008 2:40 PM

There are too many zero sum arguments in transportation. Rail does have it's place. But I think rail's proponents like to bludgeon its skeptics. The air taxis probably have a place in the overall transportation network as well. And we just accept that roads and bridges reaching the end of their useful life will be repaired. What if they're not? There is serious need for presidential leadership on the issue...which we haven't seen yet.

Posted by Ben | April 15, 2008 2:41 PM

The air taxis probably have a place in the overall transportation network as well.

Indeed. America's Wang isn't Nebraska, which explains why flying makes sense in those circumstances. But that's idiosyncratic.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 15, 2008 2:53 PM

The Interstate Highway System has been the greatest land investment between major US cities in this country's history. It very efficiently connects our cities, and lets millions of people connect with each other and provides the most efficient (geographically speaking) means of providing and transporting goods from place to place. This nation owns this land. No further investment in land is needed to begin replacing lanes with trains.

I can easily foresee the day when toll roads are used to pay for construction of parallel or elevated trains instead of more lanes.

Posted by tp | April 15, 2008 2:53 PM

A major hurdle in trying to establish a high speed rail system (even a limited one) is that the current infrastructure is in such need of repair, at least in places where high speed rail would be most useful. Would the politicians of Illinois (for instance) really be willing to funnel so much money into rail even if they could be persuaded of its usefulness when the state's current bridges and roads are in such a state of disrepair? Unfortunately, there is only so much money and "first things first," especially considering the huge initial investment an effective high speed rail system would need. But, if people are lacking the political will now, 5/6$ gasoline will force people into thinking more seriously about mass transit.

Posted by jacobus | April 15, 2008 2:59 PM

"I call BS, if people had a decent alternative to driving everywhere all of the time, I'd bet a significant portion would take the alternative."

Many of the people who could have a convenient alternative to driving are the people who already do. These people live in a small number of major cities where outward development has been constrained by geography and topography.

I've lived in Jersey, LA, New York, DC metro, San Francisco, Berkeley, Sonoma County, Seattle, San Diego County, and the inter-mountain west. Even in a city like San Francisco with fairly good public transit and poor parking you wasted at least three times as much time on the bus than you did driving. The least inefficient form of transportation (for individuals at least) was and still is a motorcycle or scooter. When I lived in the City and worked in Berkeley it took an hour and a half to get from my place (in the Lower Haight) to my place of work. When I went by public transit (bus then train) I had practically no free time or even time to do the things I had to do.

I'm not saying that there aren't some people in some places who could benefit but it isn't most Americans and because America is such a large and sparsely populated country a European-style transportation infrastructure and culture is just not realistic this century.

Posted by Linus | April 15, 2008 2:59 PM

Linus, this blog post wasn't about intra-urban transit, it's about alternatives to long-distance highway driving or air travel.

In any case, there aren't nearly enough people being skeptical of biofuels which could easily turn into the next ethanol boondoggle, and it seems pretty obvious to me that since people have to drive to get anywhere and everywhere, they simply prefer to stay at the house all day, which seems preferable to them to getting in their cars and given that walking anywhere is nigh-impossible.

Posted by Tyro | April 15, 2008 3:04 PM

In Colorado Springs, they already have a light rail system that in areas uses the median of the interstate. It makes sense to put a rail system in the medians of our interstates.

If you drive any distance on the interstate system, even though desolate areas it is a steady stream of traffic. Allowing some of those people driving the opportunity to take a train would really alleviate congestion.

Chad

Posted by Chad Hahn | April 15, 2008 3:09 PM

The Acela is more than "actually pretty crappy." It is, genuinely, assuredly, totally, crappy compared to decent European trains. the SNCF trains in France , in the midst of a strike, seem about comparable to the Acela. The Acela is slow (at best, it's 20 minutes faster than the Metroliner, or about 10%, and it's delayed more often). It offers the kind of luxury and comfort normally reserved for passengers of the Chinatown buses. Lousy food, nonexistent service. Oh, and it's obscenely expensive. (About 3 times the cost of a "comparable" train in Europe -- although maybe now fares are only twice as much or so, now that the dollar has fallen to record lows against the euro).

I like trains, I would like Amtrak to thrive and have decent service in the northeast corridor and beyond. But Amtrak sucks, and we all pay a lot of money for them to suck. They could make more money if they didn't suck so much, yet those who run Amtrak seem to prefer their current situation.

Posted by pilgrim | April 15, 2008 3:23 PM

Living in Las Vegas, I can certainly appreciate the value of rail service. The week-end traffic on I-15 from LA and the traffic on US-95 from Phoenix is horrible. It can take up to an hour to get across Hoover Dam, and if there is an accident on I-15, you can wait for literally hours.
A fast high speed rail between these cities to Las Vegas, would drop the carbon footprint of car travel by several orders. Rail is the most energy efficient mode of transportation available besides walking. Bring on the trains.

Posted by DBD | April 15, 2008 3:33 PM

The same people who complain about crappy train service in cities and how it takes forever to get somewhere via mass transit are the same people who complain when someone tries to put more money into the system so you could, you know, improve on it.
The lack of money going to mass transit is the main reason why so much of our mass transit sucks and why people don't use it very often. If we built a decent system, people would use it. Sure there are still people who will drive everywhere, but having a well funded alternative the doesn't suck will effectively get people out of their cars and into mass transit.

Posted by Cols714 | April 15, 2008 3:51 PM

High-end coach buses can also be a reasonable substitute for this type of travel. At average passenger loads, buses are much less polluting than airplanes on a per passenger basis. And really nice bus that has wifi could be much more comfortable and convenient than air travel with all of its security hoops.

Posted by Scurry | April 15, 2008 4:04 PM

Scurry, true, those sorts of buses are a good alternative within a 250 mile radius, but once you're talking about a 400-500 mile trip, the prospect of spending 8-10 hours on a bus aren't worthwhile, compared to getting on a plane, even when the costs of getting to the airport, going through security, and dealing with flight-delays are taken into account.

Plenty of people take the Chinatown bus from DC to NYC. Hardly anyone takes it from DC to Boston.

Posted by Tyro | April 15, 2008 4:08 PM

Why do Republicans hate trains? Seriously, they've been cutting money out of Amtrak for years. The reason was to make it crappy. So those of you that say its crappy have Republicans to thank. I believe the director is appointed so he's a Republican appointed to run a service that they want to fail, and guess what its working. One thing Republicans do well is destroy things that others have built. In fact its the only thing they do well.

Don't believe the hype. We could have good working trains in this country, run by the government, if we had people who believed in it and worked at it.

Posted by Henk | April 15, 2008 5:05 PM

Ha ha, I wonder if anyone else remembers a blackmarket bus on the west coast- I think it was called the Grey Rabbit or something like that.

This was an unlicensed bus with some seats and more mattresses that carried hippies down the coast to SF, LA, and Mexico. Definitely apealling to a 'niche' market.

One thing about the emerging energy picture- electricity will be big. And most people won't have cars that are very good for driving long distances, even if they do buy hybrids instead of straight plug-ins. So high-speed rail would be competing with airplanes, which can't fly on electricity, and cars that don't do well at longer distances.

Posted by serial catowner | April 15, 2008 5:28 PM

"Why do Republicans hate trains?"

Whaa? Ever been to Seattle? It's a pretty Democratic city, and last time I was there, there was a broken-down monorail they hadn't bothered to fix. Heck, didn't you see Singles? Remember what happened to Campbell Scott's Super Train proposal (a commute with "great coffee, great music")?

Posted by Fred | April 15, 2008 6:56 PM

Ever been to Seattle? It's a pretty Democratic city, and last time I was there, there was a broken-down monorail they hadn't bothered to fix.

Seattle's got some pretty messed up public transit, but that monorail isn't an example of that; it's a relic of a '60s World Fair that goes 1.5 miles from a shopping mall to the Space Needle. It's a tourist attraction, not real transit.

Posted by cdc | April 15, 2008 7:13 PM

Linus: "Even in a city like San Francisco with fairly good public transit and poor parking you wasted at least three times as much time on the bus than you did driving."

Absolutely correct. It's time that matters to people. I pretty much walk everywhere in San Francisco lately, but I don't go far because it takes too much time. If I have to, I use the bus or BART. If I had a car, I'd use the car - except for the parking problem.

Air taxi is for people who value time over money, rail is for people who value money over time, cars are for people who value both as well as valuing the freedom to go pretty much anywhere (and with decent storage capacity). And that latter freedom will never be approached by anything but the personal vehicle.

The obvious answer is to provide all three, sized to the appropriate niches willing to pay for them. That, and use technology to reduce the issues of pollution and non-renewable fuel consumption with the personal vehicle.

First, you have to deal with the problem of the electorate of the US not being willing to spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure upgrades while apparently being easy to sucker into a deal to spend a trillion dollars conquering some brown folks in some other part of the world.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 15, 2008 7:15 PM

Can't say I'm surprised that nobody in this thread has mentioned that California has a high speed rail project fully planned out and awaiting voter approval this fall. It will connect LA to SF (in the first phase) in 2.5 hours, which if you add travel to and wait times at the airport is comparable to flying. It's a shame more people aren't aware of this project, because it's the most important project CA has considered in 50 years.

I also cannot say I'm surprised that not one person so far has mentioned peak oil. The notion that we will be able to fly and drive between cities ten years from now at the same rate as today is absurd. Driving and flying from LA to SF, for example, will be prohibitively expensive once carbon fees and oil prices are taken into consideration.

It's not even a question of "air taxi or high speed rail" but "when will bloggers realize the only option is high speed rail?" The cheap oil that enables air taxis today isn't going to exist in ten years' time. Trains will be the solution because it simply won't be feasible or affordable to fly all over the country.

Posted by Robert in Monterey | April 15, 2008 7:27 PM

"Linus, this blog post wasn't about intra-urban transit, it's about alternatives to long-distance highway driving or air travel."

What about roller coasters? People like those.

Posted by Linus | April 15, 2008 8:08 PM

Robert in Monterey,

I heard about the California project, that they had surveyed high speed rail in France and worked on a proposal. I was told that getting funding for it was never going to happen. I don't know the veracity of such remarks. Do you really think it will happen? And now that Nevada is in the toilet, it seems unlikely that the obvious LA to Las Vegas line won't be built...a shame because it so obviously would be a money maker.

Posted by freddiemac | April 15, 2008 8:16 PM

Linus -- a politics of OPTIMISM? Give me a break. More like a politics of sitting stuck in traffic, if you ask me.

The politics of optimism is, thanks to efficient, fast rail, being able to arrive three hours late at London Heathrow due to American Airlines' incompetence, and thanks to the Heathrow Express train (15 minutes for 18 miles, even though it is, for them, just regular commuter train equipment), the easy-to-get-to Circle Line on the underground (one short flight of stairs down at Paddington, one short flight back up at St. Pancras), and the efficient check-in procedures inherent to even international train travel, still making my connecting train to Paris despite being left with just an hour and a half from the time my plane finally pulled up to the gate at Heathrow. Fancy that.

To summarize, here is OPTIMISM. An hour and a half to walk through Heathrow airport, stand in line at immigration, clear immigration, claim my bags, buy my train ticket, use the Heathrow Express, recover a misplaced piece of hand luggage thanks to super-efficient lost-and-found, connect on the Circle Line and check in at St. Pancras. It was like I'd left the third world (AKA O'Hare and a US airline) and re-entered the first.

Just try pulling that off even in New York, let alone anywhere else in this country.

Posted by DBX | April 15, 2008 9:19 PM

Um... how about much cheaper rail infrastructure. It simply does not seem credible to me that multiple millions per mile should be necessary. Of course, costs in urban areas are higher than rural, mountains cause difficulties, and high-speed requires tighter tolerances and restricts the possible paths... but still, we should certainly be able to do better IMO.

As far as I can see it, rail should be about the same cost per mile as a decent 2 lane highway... and those (multiple of those) go pretty much everywhere. Running the actual trains is not very expensive, which is one of the great benefits of rail travel and freight.

The US used to have many many rail lines going pretty much everywhere with population or production. Short-haul track would even run into the middle or industrial districts or directly to the loading dock of large factories or processing plants. There are remnants of this still in use today... for example along interstate 5 there are a few large agriculture processing plants (Kraft is one) with active rail lines running right into them.

Focusing on highspeed passenger rail isn't particularly useful. Well planned freight lines are an obvious starting point. And back to my first point, there has got to be some room for building them better and cheaper (long term cheap... not crap).

Posted by travc | April 15, 2008 9:23 PM

The California HSR proposals could trigger the biggest quantum leap in transportation in this country since the interstate highway system. They're that big. This is an even bigger deal than cheap air travel.

The Governator is opposed to the main system, though, which could be a big barrier. And in this economic climate it could be a challenge. You really have to sell the change concept, big time. But if it happens it will revolutionize travel in that state, and it will save the state from having to deal with massive highway and airport expansions.

The rail project to Las Vegas I think is actually more likely to happen, because it is one of the lowest cost-per-mile HSR plans out there, and because I-15 is choked with traffic and Caltrans doesn't have the money to expand it and studies indicate people are willing to pay enough fare to mostly cover the project cost. Catch -- it won't go all the way to downtown LA. That's an expensive add-on that would probably require public subsidy.

I still think how things might have been different if Southwest Airlines' legal guerilla warfare against the Texas TGV consortium had failed. It was a massive conflict of interest too on Southwest's part. Bottom line -- American and Continental were prepared to change their business model to incorporate the train. And Southwest weren't. And Southwest organized the farmers along the route to oppose selling land to the consortium.

Posted by DBX | April 15, 2008 9:28 PM

Linus's idea of the "politics of optimism" strikes me as similar to being part of the Donner party. Sure, you might go the rest of your life knowing how you used ingenuity and your own strength to overcome adversity and make it to the west on your own terms, but the journey kind of sucks.

It gets to the point where we're less interested in making everything about having a "formative growing experience on our own terms" and more about getting from point A to point B efficiently and effectively.

To put it in terms of the "American mindset": we love our new kitchens with the granite countertops and top-of-the-line stainless steel appliances. Why don't we expect the same from our public infrastructure?

Posted by Tyro | April 15, 2008 10:39 PM

Arnold isn't opposed to the system - he is playing games with the implementation plan, insisting on a big role for private contractors. He hasn't given a final endorsement to the plan but the signals are that he will back it.

Posted by Robert in Monterey | April 15, 2008 11:35 PM

Inter-city rail and high speed long distance rail are the *primary* viable option that this country needs to reconsider.

For short inter-city commuter lines - it works. As a commuter in the Bay Area, CalTrain kicks butt. Its cheaper than driving and faster if you live/work near the stations. For people that argue that light rail, bus, etc is terrible (especially in the Bay Area) I suggest trying CalTrain commute for a few days. Its the best thing going.

But extend that further. For trips under 1000 miles, high speed rail (real high speed rail) can be as fast as a plane. Look...the flight from SFO to LAX is an hour, but then factor in the drive to the airport, the wait at the airport, the baggage check, security check, delays...it ends up being a 3.5 hour trip.

And now I'm getting into rant territory - but why is it that finding the land/rights for rail is so hard. We have 8 lane freeways crisscrossing the country. How much does it cost to repair these roads? Are you telling me that we couldn't use 1-2 lanes of existing freeway/highway right-of-way to build rail that runs from 80-120mph for short inter-city commute? Yeah - I like the freedom of sitting in a traffic jam on 101 doing 10mph.

It doesn't matter. Time is on mass-transit's side. When people are still getting paid nominally what they were paid in 2000 and gas is $10/gallon - they'll be screaming for more trains.

Posted by BC | April 16, 2008 2:00 AM

I take the Acela all the time DC to NYC, and love it. I would never fly that route, and haven't driven it in years. I also like the night train DC to Atlanta - I think that even night trains are competitive with flying if you have to be there early in the morning. (Otherwise, you have to take a really early flight, or fly the night before.) A sensible government would be investing in high speed rail, I hope we get one of those before too long.

Posted by Marshall | April 16, 2008 10:00 AM

How many bullet trains started service in China in 2007?

answer at:

http://frepubtra.blogspot.com/2007/11/whats-score.html

Posted by fpteditors | April 16, 2008 10:49 AM

How many bullet trains started service in China in 2007?

answer at:

http://frepubtra.blogspot.com/2007/11/whats-score.html

Posted by fpteditors | April 16, 2008 10:52 AM

How many bullet trains started service in China in 2007?

answer at:

http://frepubtra.blogspot.com/2007/11/whats-score.html

Posted by fpteditors | April 16, 2008 10:54 AM

the multiples posts above were a server error... sorry

Posted by fpteditors | April 16, 2008 11:00 AM

"... I also like the night train DC to Atlanta ..." That's the Crescent. The overnight to Atlanta works well. This is a traditional passenger train, and the overnight part helps. However the two main lines from DC to Atlanta (Norfolk-Southern and CSX) and indeed main lines and carry considerable freight traffic. The Crescent uses the NS line; the pre-Amtrak Seaboard used to run the Silver Comet on what is now the CSX line. Sharing rails with freights is ok to an extent, but most freights are long and slow -- this pounds the rails. The result can be a rough ride at passenger train speed -- assuming the RR is allowed to run at such speeds on the segments (there are speed limits set by the railroads based on track conditions, etc). Fast trains, such as in Europe, cannot be run without significant upgrades or new rail altogether (and btw, it would be better to get rid of as many grade crossings as possible). I agree the rising cost of fuel will decide this in the end. It will be expensive no matter, but the alternative will be more so.

Posted by Pierre de Fermat | April 16, 2008 11:49 AM