By Request: Density and Intercity Rail

Nicholas Beaudrot asks:

Are American metropolitan areas outside of the Northeast Corridor dense enough or well layed out enough to support inter-city rail? Beyond putting light- or medium-rail in those cities, how much would have to change before inter-city rail made sense as a way to travel from, say, Milwaukee to Indianapolis?

As a general matter, rail works better as an alternative to driving when the destination is someplace with a good walking/transit network. That said, for a lot of trips it's not really necessary to have a car at your destination even if your destination is a very car-dependent area. I went to Forth Worth for a conference once and both the hotel and the convention center are in Fort Worth's smallish walkable downtown. Combined with a cab ride to the Fort Worth Cultural District to see the Kimbell Museum and the Fort Worth Modern that contained plenty of things to do for a few days without the expense of renting a car and that kind of thing is reasonably common for business travel.

Second rail is not only an alternative to driving, but also an alternative to flying. There are a lot of flights between Portland and Seattle, for example or between Chicago and Detroit. Any time you have two cities that are pretty close by and serviced by a lot of flights, you have a situation where a good inter-city rail option would attract customers notwithstanding any issues related to the density of the destination city. Replacing air trips with train trips is good for the environment, and any time you have a viable rail option that'll displace some of the intercity car travel which is also good. Meanwhile, a passenger rail hub can become a focal point for neighborhood development and a node on a growing urban transit network.

Comments

Another advantage of rail over flying for shortish distances is that w/ rail you usually end up in the middle of the city or at least close to it while with flying you are inevitably out in some far away part having to deal with an expensive cab ride or some other way in to town. A fast train between down-town portland and Down-town Seattle might even be faster than flying once you take into account driving from Sea-Tac.

Posted by matt (not the famous one) | June 24, 2008 3:33 PM

why are you writing a blog instead of, say, running for office?

Posted by tnko | June 24, 2008 3:34 PM

For what it's worth, just a couple of months a go I took Amtrak between Portland and Seattle. It worked just fine and was real cheap.

The thing is though, that the fact that everything went smoothly was just dumb luck. My understanding is that the train is often subject to major delays by the freight lines needing to use the tracks. So that uncertainty is a major impediment to the system's use.

Posted by ResumeMan | June 24, 2008 3:35 PM

For what it's worth, just a couple of months a go I took Amtrak between Portland and Seattle. It worked just fine and was real cheap.

The thing is though, that the fact that everything went smoothly was just dumb luck. My understanding is that the train is often subject to major delays by the freight lines needing to use the tracks. So that uncertainty is a major impediment to the system's use.

Posted by ResumeMan | June 24, 2008 3:38 PM

One other advantage for rail is the lack of a need for security theater. You are supposed to arrive at the airport well before your flight to allow time to shepherd you and everybody else through all the searches/removal of shoes etc. Not yet doing any of this crap to rail passengers (not to mention no no-fly lists for trains either). Plus I think they let you have more carry-ons.

Posted by jimBOB | June 24, 2008 3:42 PM

Matt,
Interesting that you use Fort Worth as an example ... rail service there is not as out there as you might imagine. Currently is rail service - Trinity Rail Express or TRE - between Fort Worth and Dallas - linking the two the the DFW airport. In addition there is a proposal for light rail in the city - an ultra-light rail street car type system. There's been some talk about the plan over the past year and the Star Telegram recently covered the issue .. http://www.star-telegram.com/metro_news/story/706843.html

Posted by Alex in DC | June 24, 2008 3:42 PM

ResumeMan - Amtrak's reputation for major delays comes mostly from the really long-haul trains (Chicago-SF, LA-Seattle, etc). My experience in many, many trips on the line between Seattle and Portland is that the Cascades corridor trains, which run only in BC, WA and OR, are pretty reliable.

Posted by cdc | June 24, 2008 3:50 PM

By ResumeMan:

> My understanding is that the train is often
> subject to major delays by the freight lines
> needing to use the tracks.

That's what I have heard too- that freight has right of way over passengers. In Europe, I understand that it is the opposite- passenger trains always take precedence over freight. Yet another thing to add to the list of things to change about rail policy.

Speaking also of the Portland-Seattle train - I had a friend who would commute back and forth fairly often to see her boyfriend (about twice a month), and she found it to be a reasonable way to go - that particular route is in decent shape. And with gas at about $4.25 here, it's about on par with driving (cheaper if you have a gas guzzler).

cheers-
Eric

Posted by Eric | June 24, 2008 3:55 PM

Any time you have two cities that are pretty close by and serviced by a lot of flights, you have a situation where a good inter-city rail option would attract customers notwithstanding any issues related to the density of the destination city.

I think a Pittsburgh-Philadelphia line would be a great example of this, plus it would have the added benefit of extending westward the existing rail infrastructure of the Northeast Corridor.

Posted by Mike T | June 24, 2008 4:00 PM

How many of the flights between close cities (such as Portland and Seatle) are connecting flights? Because if say Seatle is just a transit hub, not a final destination, flying there might make more sense than taking the train.

Posted by MS | June 24, 2008 4:01 PM

The hypothetical rail line between Portland and Seattle goes all the way to Vancouver, BC. It goes through some really beautiful areas, offers nice seats and decent beer/food, and is relatively affordable.

Posted by ben | June 24, 2008 4:04 PM

Though transit is obviously a nice benefit for any rail destination, let's not forget that by this point, most cities have some sort of carshare. So even if the city is auto-dependant, a service like ZipCar would let you get wherever you need to go.

Posted by Roman | June 24, 2008 4:04 PM

That said, for a lot of trips it's not really necessary to have a car at your destination even if your destination is a very car-dependent area.

It may not be "necessary," but the vast majority of American cities are not dense enough to make walking or transit a practical alternative to car travel for most trips. This is especially true for business trips. Business travellers are even less likely to be willing to put up with the inconvenience, discomfort and lost time involved in using transit than are leisure travellers.

Second rail is not only an alternative to driving, but also an alternative to flying. There are a lot of flights between Portland and Seattle, for example or between Chicago and Detroit. Any time you have two cities that are pretty close by and serviced by a lot of flights, you have a situation where a good inter-city rail option would attract customers notwithstanding any issues related to the density of the destination city.

Not at a price they would be willing to pay. Even the Acela, with its massive subsidies, is still so expensive that most of its riders are business travelers. Most people who have to pay their own way use cars or buses or discount air fares instead.

Replacing air trips with train trips is good for the environment, and any time you have a viable rail option that'll displace some of the intercity car travel which is also good.

Rail already has such a minuscule share of total intercity travel that even a large increase would have a negligible environmental benefit. And there isn't going to be a large increase, because the subsidies required to make intercity rail ticket prices affordable to the general population are so huge that Congress would never provide it. The only real question is how much longer it will be willing to provide the existing level of subsidy.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 4:06 PM

Also the Seattle train station lets you out in downtown, right across from Qwest Field (home of the Seahawks) and Safeco Park (home of the shell of the Mariners). It's a great alternative to trying to drive to the game and beating the traffic.

Posted by ben | June 24, 2008 4:08 PM

By the way, Milwaukee to Indianapolis is about 275 miles. Even accounting for a possible train change in Chicago, a high speed network could make that about a 3 hour trip, easily competitive with flying. In fact, I just checked Orbitz and only found one airline flying that route direct--Midwest (which is Milwaukee based).

Posted by DTM | June 24, 2008 4:10 PM

Southwest Airlines helped destroy an intra-city rail system that would have linked Dallas, Houston and San Antonio.

Posted by UN Plaza | June 24, 2008 4:15 PM

Another consideration is how miserable the drive is. What other parts of the country have a route as unpleasant to drive as I-95 in the northeast? When I take the Northeast Corridor Amtrak trains, that's the drive I'm trying to avoid. The same miles on an open road in the midwest would be another thing altogether.

Posted by M.C. | June 24, 2008 4:23 PM

Mike T,

The major problem with Philly to Pittsburgh is that it is rough terrain, so getting high speed service along that route would be expensive. But it might be worth it, since as you note the real benefits come when you can create networks, and that Philly-Pittsburgh link would be the logical connection between the Northeast Corridor and a Midwest network based in Chicago. Plus, central PA is one of the places losing a lot of air service in the cutbacks, so people in those areas would likely supply additional demand even for what added up to pretty long routes.

Posted by DTM | June 24, 2008 4:42 PM

The issue you haven't mentioned goes beyond density: rights of way and rails that aren't also used by freight. Amtrak owns the northeast rails. They have the right to use freight rails elsewhere, but rails that get flattened by 90-100 tons for each freight car aren't exactly the best for passenger cars.

Posted by Sherman Dorn | June 24, 2008 4:43 PM

The frequent, crowded flights between Dallas and Houston (4 hours driving; 45 minutes flying; e.g., perfect rail distance) are evidence of the demand for such a service even when the cities have only marginal local mass transit services. (business people not being willing to put up with that much mass transit, but being more than willing to pay for the taxi between the airport and downtown...)

Posted by Vermando | June 24, 2008 4:43 PM

There's a really simple solution to the dilemma of taking a train to a car friendly destination: take the car with you:

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

Posted by Chris Fabri | June 24, 2008 4:45 PM

Because if say Seatle is just a transit hub, not a final destination, flying there might make more sense than taking the train.

Or you could have some sort of connection to SeaTac from the train station. I wouldn't suggest using it as a model, but the LIRR connects to the AirTrain in order to get people to JFK, and I think that NJ Transit has a station at Newark.

Posted by daveNYC | June 24, 2008 4:51 PM

"Replacing air trips with train trips is good for the environment, and any time you have a viable rail option that'll displace some of the intercity car travel which is also good."

What Matt forgets here is the multi-year battle that would ensue over rights of way for each such line. Environmental impact statements (beloved by the left), property fights, etc, etc, etc.

Meanwhile, the planes Matt thinks are inconvenient can fly without needing to get a right of way organized first; there are a very small number of restricted airspaces in the US.

Rail is a good alternative in Matt's head. Back here in the real world, things are way, way more complex. Sure, there are similar issues with runway expansion - but the amount of land involved there is way, way smaller.

Posted by James Robertson | June 24, 2008 4:55 PM

"The frequent, crowded flights between Dallas and Houston (4 hours driving; 45 minutes flying; e.g., perfect rail distance) are evidence of the demand for such a service even when the cities have only marginal local mass transit services. (business people not being willing to put up with that much mass transit, but being more than willing to pay for the taxi between the airport and downtown...)"

Dallas-Houston is a bad example. Southwest has such a dominant share of this route that they can afford a huge number of flights, and they don't fly from far-from-downtown DFW or Houston Intercontinental -- instead, they fly from the near-downtown Love to the sort-of-near-downtown Hobby. So you essentially have flights every 30 minutes or so to and from airports within 20 minutes of the city center, and you normally only need to show up 20-30 minutes before the flight leaves. It's sort of an absolute best case for flying.

Now, if you needed to arrive 45-60 minutes before the flight, and the flights were more like 2 hours apart, AND the airports were more like 35-45 minutes from the city center, then I can almost guarantee that you would see express train service by now.

Posted by Joe | June 24, 2008 5:00 PM

vermando,

The frequent, crowded flights between Dallas and Houston (4 hours driving; 45 minutes flying; e.g., perfect rail distance) are evidence of the demand for such a service even when the cities have only marginal local mass transit services.

If "frequent, crowded" flights are evidence of anything, it's that air service may need to be increased. It doesn't tell you anything about the demand for rail service. How much would the rail tickets cost?

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 5:11 PM

Re: Best case train routes.

Going back to the Dallas-Houston traffic, I think this illustrates where we should initially concentrate -- cities that have a lot of back-and-forth business traffic that (1) are too far to realistically drive and (2) have inefficient plane service when travel to and from airports is considered. Some non-East Coast ideas that come to mind are: Chicago-(Minneapolis, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Indianapolis), LA-SF, Seattle-Portland, Denver-Colorado Springs.

Posted by Joe | June 24, 2008 5:11 PM

The amount of land involved in runway expansion is irrelevant. Iwo Jima is only 20 square kilometers. It took three Marine divisions 38 days to take it away from the Japanese. The opposition to airport expansion is only marginally less fierce. When was the last significant expansion of a major US airport -- anybody know?

A further question for J. Robertson (or Mixner or whoever): How are costs of right-of-way acquisition for new rail lines different from those for new highways? what is your position on the desirability of new highways?

Posted by roac | June 24, 2008 5:12 PM

Matt: "Replacing air trips with train trips is good for the environment, and any time you have a viable rail option that'll displace some of the intercity car travel which is also good."

James Robertson: What Matt forgets here is the multi-year battle that would ensue over rights of way for each such line. Environmental impact statements (beloved by the left), property fights, etc, etc, etc.

James, you're being unresponsive. Matt didn't "forget" any of that, it's just not relevant to his point. Matt is saying that rail infrastructure would be good. You're saying that it would be difficult. But the two are hardly mutually exclusive! But in order to enact a difficult change (and ALL change is difficult, there's always a status quo bias), the first task is to convince people that the change in question is worthwhile. Are you saying that, in fact, substituting rail travel for air/car travel would be a bad thing?

Posted by OhioBoy | June 24, 2008 5:13 PM

I have heard rumors that Southwest Airline is the primary opponent of high speed rail in California. I'll be sad if that's true.

Posted by Megan | June 24, 2008 5:19 PM

Or you could have some sort of connection to SeaTac from the train station. I wouldn't suggest using it as a model, but the LIRR connects to the AirTrain in order to get people to JFK, and I think that NJ Transit has a station at Newark.

Posted by daveNYC | June 24, 2008 4:51 PM

Although it's not official policy, groups in the UK conducting feasibility studies for a UK-wide high-speed rail network have argued that congestion at Heathrow could be greatly lessened by making Heathrow a direct stop on a high-speed line that connects with the Eurostar train.

In other words, Eurostar trains that dock at London's St. Pancras station would continue on to Heathrow and then into Northern England and into Scotland.

Heathrow would actually become a second major train station in the process. And you could eliminate a lot of short flights from Heathrow were a good high-speed rail line developed. For example, someone in Birmingham trying to get to Los Angeles could take a high-speed train directly to Heathrow airport and then fly out of the airport to LA.

Posted by ASI | June 24, 2008 5:20 PM

Joe,

You might find this interesting:

http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/203

It more or less confirms your suggestions (minus Colorado), and makes a few more.

roac,

Land costs tend to favor rail over new highways. That is because the capacity per width of rail is significantly higher (around three times, sometimes more).

Posted by DTM | June 24, 2008 5:25 PM

By the way, I think it is somewhat interesting to compare that map of possible high speed rail corridors to this map of current airline service cutbacks:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2008-05-30-airline-cutbacks_N.htm

Posted by DTM | June 24, 2008 5:37 PM

About 1.5 million passengers fly between Dallas and Houston each year.

The distance between Dallas and Houston is about 240 miles.

The federal government subsidizes rail travel at $0.2 per passenger-mile more than air travel.

So for rail to take half the market (750,000 passengers), assuming that that many people would even be willing to pay rail ticket prices comparable to the current Amtrak average for that distance, would require something like $36,000,000 a year in federal subsidies (750,000 * 0.2 * 240). About $50 per passenger per trip. That's just for regular-speed Amtrak service (less than 100 mph). High-speed service, requiring special track, trains and more energy, would require much more.

That's about 40% of the cost of a walk-up ticket on Southwest ($122). I just checked.

Next time I fly between Dallas and Houston, will the government pay 40% of the price of my ticket?

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 5:39 PM

I love it when proponents of sprawl come on here to tell us how the world "really is".

Just for fun, I did a real world analysis of getting to Pittsburgh from Philly. The train ride that exists now takes about 7 hours and includes 11 (eleven!!!) stops inbetween. The cost is $45 each way. So, 7 hours each way, $90.

Driving takes 308 miles, or approximately 5 hours (according to google) assuming no traffic. Let's assume your cars get 30 mpg highway and gas prices are $4 a gallon. That's $40 each way for gas, plus $16.75 toll for the turnpike. So, that's 5 hours each way, and total $113.50.

Southwest had flights for $160 roundtrip, 1.5 hours each way. Add another 1.5 hours for the airports and that's 3 hour each way, for a total of 160. Not bad, but by far the most expensive option.

So you actually save money if you go by rail, but all the stops slow you down. I imagine an express train would more or less even out the time difference.

Posted by Roman | June 24, 2008 5:41 PM

DTM,

Land costs tend to favor rail over new highways. That is because the capacity per width of rail is significantly higher (around three times, sometimes more).

Wrong yet again. What matters is not capacity, but volume. Your train may have the capacity to carry three times as many passengers per unit width of land as a highway, but if nine out of ten seats on the train are usually empty, the capacity isn't terribly relevant.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 5:46 PM

"It more or less confirms your suggestions (minus Colorado), and makes a few more."

The problem with the proposed San Antonio-Dallas-Oklahome/Arkansas corridor is that you run into the same SW problem -- air service between these cities is already plentiful, and since the Dallas airport is close to the city center, you eliminate a lot of the downtown-to-downtown benefit of a regional train.

As for Colorado, it's actually interesting. With several biggish (100,000-600,000) Front Range cities a few hours apart stretching (really) from Albuquerque to Cheyenne, it would seem to be a prime rail corridor -- except the intercity traffic (except for Colorado Springs-Denver) is fairly minimal. An extensive heavy commuter rail hub-and-spoke system with trains running from Colorado Springs (maybe extended to Pueblo), Boulder, Fort Collins and maybe Greeley would be a smart idea (and indeed, I think that's what is currently planned).

Posted by Joe | June 24, 2008 5:46 PM

Another advantage cars have is the ability to take second and third passengers at zero extra cost. The price of an Amtrak ticket vs. the cost of driving alone seems to be about the same on the routes I have checked, but with multiple passengers the advantage is all with the car. Amtrak could establish a policy of second and third passengers in a group riding free or at very low cost. Since their marginal cost is zero, they would make money on the deal and make more rail converts.

Posted by David L. Todd | June 24, 2008 5:46 PM

American cities are built for horses! Any transportation model that doesn't understand that the horse is the basis of personal freedom is foolhardy. That's why horseshit is the future!

Posted by Granpa Dixner, c. 1900 | June 24, 2008 5:47 PM

Another advantage cars have is the ability to take second and third passengers at zero extra cost. The price of an Amtrak ticket vs. the cost of driving alone seems to be about the same on the routes I have checked, but with multiple passengers the advantage is all with the car. Amtrak could establish a policy of second and third passengers in a group riding free or at very low cost. Since their marginal cost is zero, they would make money on the deal and make more rail converts.

Posted by David L. Todd | June 24, 2008 5:51 PM

Doesn't San Francisco - San Jose (actually Gilroy) and now Sacramento count as a useful rail link outside the northeast? And has been functioning continuously as such since 1868? (I know, the station's not on Valencia anymore, but still.)

And could easily be put back into Monterey, and with a bit more effort into Santa Cruz?

By the way, is there any in service rail line with a longer continuous history of uninterrupted service?

Posted by Gene OGrady | June 24, 2008 5:53 PM

roman,

Driving takes 308 miles, or approximately 5 hours (according to google) assuming no traffic. Let's assume your cars get 30 mpg highway and gas prices are $4 a gallon. That's $40 each way for gas, plus $16.75 toll for the turnpike. So, that's 5 hours each way, and total $113.50.

But if there are two passengers in the car, the cost drops to $56 per passenger. Only two-thirds the cost of the (massively-subsidized) Amtrak tickets. And you save 2 hours each way. And you have a car to use when you get to Philly, so you don't have to pay for a rental car or taxis/transit. If there are more than two passengers in the car, you save even more. It's no wonder Amtrak can't compete, even with its massive subsidies.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 5:55 PM

The ability to actually build rail lines is relevant - if it will take 30 years to argue through the building (see the IPCC in MD. While it's a road, the land requirements are the same).

Runways are easier to allocate, and in fact, have been built out in the last few years in more than one airport

Like LAX and O'Hare, for instance. Rail will take - based on how actual opposition tends to play out - take about as long as the IPCC has here in MD.

Not what I'd call useful.

Posted by James Robertson | June 24, 2008 5:57 PM

Wrong yet again. What matters is not capacity, but volume. Your train may have the capacity to carry three times as many passengers per unit width of land as a highway, but if nine out of ten seats on the train are usually empty, the capacity isn't terribly relevant.

Actually Amtrak's capacity is strained. Acela is 90% capacity during peak hours. Now with the high fuel prices, other routes are selling out:

Many of the long-distance trains are already sold out for some days this summer. Want to take Amtrak’s daily Crescent train from New York to New Orleans? It is sold out on July 5, 6, 7 and 8. Seattle to Vancouver, British Columbia, on July 5? The train is sold out, but Amtrak will sell you a bus ticket.
http://travel.nytimes.com/2008/06/21/business/21amtrak.html?scp=3&sq=Amtrak&st=nyt

Fuel prices aren't going down. This is the new reality. Either we adapt with an eye to the future, or else.

Posted by roman | June 24, 2008 5:59 PM

And to emphasize the point, here's why rail doesn't really work in the US:

arithmetic

Sure, there are areas outside the northeast where intercity rail could conceivably work - assuming you could get past the rights of way issue, and the years of NIMBY delays in construction that would happen. While those fights are ongoing, air travel will continue to work for people, because it's there already, and it's flexible between short haul and long haul trips.

Posted by James Robertson | June 24, 2008 6:05 PM

I have ridden Amtrak between Eugene, OR to Portland,OR and between Portland and Seattle many times over the last 30 years. I enjoy train travel. That being said, I would never, ever ride any of the trains on this corridor if I needed to be somewhere at a certain time. The train is more often late (up to 4-6 hours) than not. It would be wonderful if the NW system could be a reliable method of travel. Sadly, it is not.

Posted by Laurie | June 24, 2008 6:07 PM

roman,

Actually Amtrak's capacity is strained. Acela is 90% capacity during peak hours.

Peak load factor is irrelevant with respect to the cost-benefit comparison. What matters is average load factor. The more variation there is in demand between peak and off-peak periods, the more empty seats there will be at off-peak times if peak demand is to be accommodated. This also applies to variations in demand at different points along the train's route.

Fuel prices aren't going down. This is the new reality.

But Amtrak is also subject to fuel price increases. Especially since most of its locomotives are diesel. It's going to be burning through those federal subsidies even faster. Which means it will run out of money sooner. Or it'll have to raise ticket prices. Or cut back services.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 6:09 PM

I have ridden Amtrak between Eugene, OR to Portland,OR and between Portland and Seattle many times over the last 30 years. I enjoy train travel and the route is beautiful. That being said, I would never, ever ride any of the trains on this corridor if I needed to be somewhere at a certain time. The train is more often late (up to 4-6 hours) than not. It would be wonderful if the NW system could be a reliable method of travel. Sadly, it is not.

Posted by Laurie | June 24, 2008 6:12 PM

But if there are two passengers in the car, the cost drops to $56 per passenger. Only two-thirds the cost of the (massively-subsidized) Amtrak tickets. And you save 2 hours each way. And you have a car to use when you get to Philly, so you don't have to pay for a rental car or taxis/transit. If there are more than two passengers in the car, you save even more. It's no wonder Amtrak can't compete, even with its massive subsidies.

You think you're really clever with the whole "massively subsidized" shtick. Like roads that we drive on aren't "massively subsidized". Or the gas we fill our cars with isn't "massively subsidized". Fact is, right now, today, it's cheaper for one person to take the train to Pittsburgh than it is to drive. Not to mention that train travel for some is a much more pleasant experience. If you want to break it down to two people fine. Than let's include costs like car payments, parking, car maintenance and car insurance.

Posted by Roman | June 24, 2008 6:15 PM

You think you're really clever with the whole "massively subsidized" shtick. Like roads that we drive on aren't "massively subsidized".

Drivers pay more in gas taxes to the federal government than it spends on roads and highways.

Or the gas we fill our cars with isn't "massively subsidized".

If it is, then the diesel fuel Amtrak pumps into its trains also benefits from that subsidy, so it doesn't help your case.

Fact is, right now, today, it's cheaper for one person to take the train to Pittsburgh than it is to drive.

Only because the government pays so much of the true cost of providing the rail service. If the person is travelling for pleasure, he's probably not going to be alone. He'll probably be travelling with spouse/family/friends, and driving is a complete no-brainer. Even if he is alone, the car saves time (2 hours each way) and provides a means of getting around at his destination. If he's travelling alone on business, he's probably much more sensitive to differences in time than differences in price. So he'll most likely fly.

Like I said, it's no wonder Amtrak can barely compete, even with its massive subsidies.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 6:27 PM

Thank goodness at least one other person noted the existence of Caltrain-that must mean there's at least one other Californian here. There is already pretty decent commuter rail service between San Jose and San Francisco, as well as the Altamone Commuter Express that connects San Jose and Stockton.

What slows Caltrain down is the large number of stops it makes-there are mini bullet trains during peak commuter hours that make fewer stops.

San Jose-San Francisco may be an outlier in the Western US, though-lots and lots of people commute between SF and SJ, whereas even for close routes like Eugene-Portland or Seattle-Portland, yeah, there are business people who have to make those trips,but not nearly anywhere near the density of the Bay Area.

Posted by Amanda in San Jose | June 24, 2008 6:41 PM

Thank goodness at least one other person noted the existence of Caltrain-that must mean there's at least one other Californian here. There is already pretty decent commuter rail service between San Jose and San Francisco, as well as the Altamone Commuter Express that connects San Jose and Stockton.

What slows Caltrain down is the large number of stops it makes-there are mini bullet trains during peak commuter hours that make fewer stops.

San Jose-San Francisco may be an outlier in the Western US, though-lots and lots of people commute between SF and SJ, whereas even for close routes like Eugene-Portland or Seattle-Portland, yeah, there are business people who have to make those trips,but not nearly anywhere near the density of the Bay Area.

Posted by Amanda in San Jose | June 24, 2008 6:43 PM

Roman,

I heartily concur that automobiles are subsidized - it is one part of the national conversation regarding our national transportation costs that is missing.

Another part of our transportation structure that is subsidized is the airlines (by hundreds of billions of dollars) in airport subsidizes, air traffic control and security, tax preferences, and special treatment from the government including protection from foreign competition.

Mixner - I'd really love to see numbers to believe your claim that Amtrack's subsidizes are out of line in comparison to automobiles and airplanes.

Posted by Alex in DC | June 24, 2008 6:44 PM

Drivers pay more in gas taxes to the federal government than it spends on roads and highways.
That's blatantly untrue, unless you can back it up with hard numbers.

In a June 12, 2008 interview with Reuters[37], current Amtrak President Alex Kummant made specific observations: $10 billion per year is transferred from the general fund to the Highway Trust Fund; $2.7 billion is granted to the FAA; $8 billion goes to "security and life safety for cruise ships." Overall, Kummant claims that Amtrak receives $40 in federal funds per passenger, while highways are subsidized at a rate of $500-$700 per automobile. Moreover, Amtrak provides all of its own security, while airport security is a separate federal subsidy. Kummant added: "Let's not even get into airport construction which is a miasma of state, federal and local tax breaks and tax refinancing and God knows what."

Critics claim that gasoline taxes amount to use fees that entirely pay for the government subsidies to the highway system and aviation. In fact this is not true: gas taxes cover little if any of the costs for "local" highways and in many states little of the cost for state highways.[52][53] They don't cover the property taxes foregone by building tax-exempt roads. They also don't cover policing costs: Amtrak, like all U.S. railroads, pays for its own security, the Amtrak Police; road policing and the Transportation Security Administration are paid for out of general taxation.

In Pa, there was talk of selling the turnpike and/or tolling I-80 to make up for the lack in highway funding.

If it is, then the diesel fuel Amtrak pumps into its trains also benefits from that subsidy, so it doesn't help your case.
Pretty sure diesel is used mostly for freight, passenger trains use electric power.
Only because the government pays so much of the true cost of providing the rail service. If the person is travelling for pleasure, he's probably not going to be alone. He'll probably be travelling with spouse/family/friends, and driving is a complete no-brainer. Even if he is alone, the car saves time (2 hours each way) and provides a means of getting around at his destination. If he's travelling alone on business, he's probably much more sensitive to differences in time than differences in price. So he'll most likely fly.

Like I said, it's no wonder Amtrak can barely compete, even with its massive subsidies.
I doubt any businessmen are taking the train to Pittsburgh from Philly these days. It's not set up for that yet, but it certainly could, as the fuel prices contine rising. However, plenty of businessmen are taking Acela, that's why it has 90% capacity during peak hours. My whole point about the Pittsburgh train is that, even though, line has been completely neglected, it's really not far from being competitive. In fact an express line from Harrisburg to Philly (that saw $145 million in renovation) takes 90 minutes. If you extend that to Pittsburgh, it'll be quicker than driving.

Infrastructure needs constant investment. Rail, highway and air. We shell out billions of dollars on highway and air, but rail gets ignored and people cry about it being subsidized. Again, it's all subsidized. Rail might've made less sense in the time of cheap and abundant energy, but that time is ending. So it seems to makes sense to focus on the most energy efficient mode of transportation.

Posted by roman | June 24, 2008 7:03 PM

Alex in DC,

Mixner - I'd really love to see numbers to believe your claim that Amtrack's subsidizes are out of line in comparison to automobiles and airplanes.

From the Bureau of Transportation Statistics:

Net Federal Subsidies Per Thousand Passenger-Miles By Mode, 2002

Highway: -$1.00 (yes, for highways it's a negative subsidy. The government makes a profit).

Commercial Aviation: $6.18

Railroad: $210.31

Care to explain why rail transportation deserves this vastly disproportionate subsidy?

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 7:23 PM

Care to explain why rail transportation deserves this vastly disproportionate subsidy?

Because the study is comparing apples to oranges?

Most highway miles are suburban commuting which are best compared to mass transit NOT interurban rail. (Looked on google for stats, couldn't find them, but ~70M commuters with an average ~20 mile commute just dominates all other highway activity).

Those empty four lane highways in Wyoming don't come close to paying for themselves. Hence the massive Eisenhower interstate highway system subsidy.

Posted by theo | June 24, 2008 7:46 PM

"Actually Amtrak's capacity is strained. Acela is 90% capacity during peak hours.

'Peak load factor is irrelevant with respect to the cost-benefit comparison. What matters is average load factor. The more variation there is in demand between peak and off-peak periods, the more empty seats there will be at off-peak times if peak demand is to be accommodated. This also applies to variations in demand at different points along the train's route.'"

Mixner - if you think peak load is irrelevant then you understand nothing about transportation economics. The economics of any capacity increase is the marginal cost of increased capacity. You know marginal cost from Economics 101. Supply and demand.

If you only use average load factor then NO road in America is congested. We can stop all road projects tomorrow, as all road's average capacity utilization is under 100%!

Back in the real world capacity increases are, or should be cost-benefited based on the marginal cost of additional capacity as one of the factors.

By the way you have not responded to my point that transit uses less that one percent 1% of the land for parking that private autos do and offers flexibility in parking placement, rather than wasting 25%-75% of the destination land area for parking, as autos do. This is a huge productivity boost for the entire economy.

Posted by Brian S. | June 24, 2008 7:57 PM

Brian,

Transit has those advantages, but it has disadvantages as well - it doesn't necessarily go where you want it to. Transit is great when you are trying to move lots of people from point A to point B (and then back again later).

It works less well as that becomes less true. If you have a typical set of suburbs - and the typical set of jobs spread amongst them - transit becomes very, very hard to set up, as there's no critical mass of people to move to/from any given set of points. In such a situation, cars - and their ability to drive "anywhere" - are far more useful.

The trouble for transit advocates is that this latter scenario is exactly what we have in the US, and the trend in that direction has been steady to accelerating for decades now.

Posted by James Robertson | June 24, 2008 8:09 PM

The US will spend somewhere around a trillion dollars on the Iraq war, which was fought mainly to secure long-term oil interests - that's some subsidy.

Posted by novakant | June 24, 2008 8:10 PM

The bottom line is that the debate over subsidies to existing infrastructure is really beside the point -- the question is, what is the most efficient use for a marginal subsidy dollar.

In many areas, the marginal benefit from building a new highway lane as significantly less than the train alternative, at roughly the same price per mile.

This is particularly true in California: there are a number of areas in California where it is impossible to add highway capacity at any feasible cost -- mountain passes, or urban areas where extensive demolition would be required. Same is true of the urbanized Northeast.

Not to mention that the benefit of a marginal subsidy dollar to a transportation mode depends on demand.

From the BTS report Mixner linked:

Economic theory argues that the economically efficient price, which maximizes consumer welfare, is the price that just covers the marginal costs of transportation usage. If a transportation mode has high fixed costs, but low variable costs of operation, charging a fare that covers all of the fixed costs may discourage usage to the point that the infrastructure is underused and consumer benefits are reduced.

It's pretty obvious to anyone who's ever ridden Amtrak that we're currently barely covering the fixed costs of running an intercity rail service. Acela proves the demand for rail is there. The variable cost of operation (i.e. the cost of running additional trains) is low.

So spending an extra dollar on highways gives you a linear return, but spending an extra dollar on certain rail improvements give you a nonlinear return.

Posted by theo | June 24, 2008 8:10 PM

Umm,

For areas where it's too expensive to add highway lanes, I'm not sure where you would stick additional rail lines....

Posted by Jam | June 24, 2008 8:15 PM

Theo,

Because the study is comparing apples to oranges? Most highway miles are suburban commuting which are best compared to mass transit NOT interurban rail.

Er, transit is subsidized almost as much as railroad ($159 per thousand passenger-miles), so this doesn't help the case for railroad subsidies. Try again.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 8:25 PM

James Robertson,

you have a typical set of suburbs - and the typical set of jobs spread amongst them...this latter scenario is exactly what we have in the US, and the trend in that direction has been steady to accelerating for decades now.

I would hardly call the trend "accelerating" right now. More like "hit the wall, and going in reverse."

To point out the obvious, oil is increasingly expensive, and cities are increasingly liveable.

Right now we have an enormous glut of suburban sprawl and no one is building anything profitable in the exurbs. Right now, transit oriented development is practically the only residential construction happening.

Posted by theo | June 24, 2008 8:28 PM

Jam,

For areas where it's too expensive to add highway lanes, I'm not sure where you would stick additional rail lines....

Thanks to 50 years of highway construction, a lot of highways have already maxed out their rights-of-way and can't get any wider.

There are a lot of unused (or underused) rail rights-of-way, many of which have capacity for an extra line or two. That's the plan for the California high speed rail system.

Posted by theo | June 24, 2008 8:33 PM

Umm, Jam - here in Maryland, as you head west out of the DC/Baltimore urban area, there are many, many exurbs still going up. maybe that's not true in other areas, but here in MD, there's plenty of that going on. And DC and Baltimore are still losing population.

Posted by James Robertson | June 24, 2008 8:36 PM

Mixner,

The topic is intercity rail, remember?

Er, transit is subsidized almost as much as railroad...so this doesn't help the case for railroad subsidies. Try again.

My point is that intercity highway travel is already highly subsidized. Since most highway travel is commuting, your comparison of all highway travel to intercity rail travel is bogus.

The bigger problem is that you're still stuck in Econ 1/2 mode. We're talking about infrastructure investment; existing subsidies are basically irrelevant. The question is, what is the most efficient use of a marginal subsidy dollar, and the answer ain't more highways.

Posted by theo | June 24, 2008 8:47 PM

Theo,

The bottom line is that the debate over subsidies to existing infrastructure is really beside the point -- the question is, what is the most efficient use for a marginal subsidy dollar.

No, they are both relevant questions: (1) What is the most efficient use of current funds used to subsidize existing infrastructure? And (2) What is the most efficient use of additional funds used to subsidize new infrastructure? If you think there's a good case that rail's hugely disproportionate share of subsidies is the "most efficient" use of that money, then make it.

It's pretty obvious to anyone who's ever ridden Amtrak that we're currently barely covering the fixed costs of running an intercity rail service. Acela proves the demand for rail is there. The variable cost of operation (i.e. the cost of running additional trains) is low.

You can create a demand for anything if you price it low enough. The "demand" for Acela is a consequence of its massively subsidized ticket prices, not any inherent advantages it may have over alternative modes of transportation. The point is that Amtrak's huge subsidies massively distort the supply and demand for its services, and so obscure the relative value of those services to consumers in comparison to road and air alternatives. If rail had to compete with air and road on a remotely level playing field its already-tiny market share would shrink to virtually nothing, because whatever benefits it may offer to consumers over those alternatives are not remotely justified by its costs.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 8:51 PM

Theo,

My point is that intercity highway travel is already highly subsidized.

And my point is that given the vastly higher subsidies for both intracity and intercity rail in comparison to highways, whatever subsidies intercity highways may receive, intercity rail receives vastly more. What is the justification for this vastly higher subsidy for rail?

We're talking about infrastructure investment; existing subsidies are basically irrelevant.

This is just utter nonsense. Existing subsidies are what keep Amtrak going. Billions of dollars in subsidies every year. You can't just wave your hand and declare the question of whether those subsidies are justified to be irrelevant. Of course it's relevant. Why should that money be spent to subsidized Amtrak rather than in some other way?

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 9:01 PM

Brian S,

Mixner - if you think peak load is irrelevant then you understand nothing about transportation economics.

You seem to be confused. The assertion at issue is DTM's claim that "land costs tend to favor rail over new highways [because] the capacity per width of rail is significantly higher." That assertion is false, because the cost-benefit analysis depends primarily on how many people each mode of transportation would actually carry in practise (passenger volume), not how many they could theoretically carry if they always operated at full capacity. And volume is a matter of average load, not peak load.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 9:22 PM

Mixner, go live in Japan for a few years and then come back and pontificate, ok?

Trains are a damn sight more efficient at moving around people than cars are, provided you have enough density and enough network. Don't forget to add in the cost of building parking garages downtown and how much people have to pay, daily, for parking!

We're not pricing in all the externalities of car/roads with our "costs"--why aren't we throwing in a sizable amount of the cost of the Iraq war, hmmm? And the cost of building and maintaining the highways/roads? Stuff that into your calculations before you yowl again about "subsidies" for Amtrak. I bet that if some disinterested observer (which you have shown yourself NOT to be) were to carry out the calculations, travel by auto would prove to be a heck of a lot more expensive than you claim it is.

Posted by grumpy realist | June 24, 2008 9:58 PM

I still think there are a lot of issues making inter-city rail viable in the US outside of a few areas. Density is part of it, maybe.

Having a good public transportation in the city makes it easier to expand rail. You have more people not using a car, or have short range transportation. It should be easy to get to the rail station without using a car and preferably taxi so you can avoid parking charges. Being able to get around the destination city without a car matters some too. Another advantage should be the ability to buy tickets at the last minute. Your plans fall through for the weekend and want to visit your parents? No problem. It's harder with airlines. You need enough riders to keep the trains running on a pretty regular basis.

Highspeed lines are also pretty important too. Especially with todays technology we should be able to get lines running faster then Japan's shinkansen. Having trains significantly slower then cars just isn't acceptable.

Ft Worth's downtown is really nice. On the other side of the metroplex Dallas has a growing light rail system. They have plans to expand it to the airport and more major destinations in Dallas. Service is also planned to Denton, not a major distance, but a good start and with a lot of students it might be some good use. More people are already riding it to and from work. Around a few stations small urban areas have been popping up. Many stations just don't have the land area to do that which I find disappointing (poor planning?). The future expansions should offer more opportunity for transit oriented development and possibility of carless living in Dallas (hopefully expanding to Ft Worth and Denton).

Posted by Charles | June 24, 2008 10:02 PM

grumpy,

Trains are a damn sight more efficient at moving around people than cars are, provided you have enough density and enough network.

We don't have enough density. We don't have enough "network." We don't want those things. We don't want to live like the Japanese. Or even the French, for that matter. There are things Americans value besides "efficiency," you know, like big houses, and the convenience of cars. In any case, the efficiency benefits of rail are generally greatly exaggerated by its proponents, who typically ignore fundamental questions of demand and cost when comparing rail to other modes of transportation.

We're not pricing in all the externalities of car/roads with our "costs"--

Really? Then show me your calculations for the externality costs of road vs. rail that justify the hugely disproportionate subsidies rail receives. A serious, quantitative analysis. Not a handwave.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 10:16 PM

Glad that Amanda in San Jose picked up my point on the SF Bay Area rail. But I'm now an ex-Californian (Oregon, for better or worse). I did commute on CalTrain from Palo Alto/Mountain View to San Francisco for nine years, and was proud of the fact that I never took the Muni bus to work, walking the mile or two come rain or shine. Guess that makes me a conflicted commuter.

I remember a study, but not the details, that showed that the towns on the Peninsula that grew up around rail commuting had consistently higher property values than the later ones that grew after the switch to the automobile.

And I am old enough to have ridden the CalTrain extension to Monterey (actually it was the SP then) -- now that was a fun train! But not old enough to remember the SunTan special to Santa Cruz, which was shut down to avoid Japanese terrorist attacks in 1942.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | June 24, 2008 10:34 PM

"We don't have enough density. We don't have enough "network." We don't want those things. We don't want to live like the Japanese. Or even the French, for that matter. There are things Americans value besides "efficiency," you know, like big houses, and the convenience of cars."

Your fundamental error is confusing "we" with "me". You don't like density. Fine. Americans are starting to crave density. Remember the link I sent you last week? Right now you're just screaming at the wind. The winds of change are already in motion, and your low density point of view is the loser. It was a 50 year trend that is coming to an end. In the long run it was a blip on the radar, an anomaly, probably mostly spurred by racism. You can troll this site as long as you want, but your argument are fallacious because of your confusion over nouns. Are you on the payroll of realtors or highway construction? I'll bet you work for some road contractors don't you?

Posted by freddiemac | June 24, 2008 10:54 PM

Your fundamental error is confusing "we" with "me".

Yes, that's right Freddie. Americans would actually prefer to live like the Japanese. They don't really want all those big houses and cars they keep buying. They don't really prefer the suburbs to the inner city. They've forced to live that way against their will. Thank God we have people like you to refute these vicious lies.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 11:04 PM

Shorter Mixner: Real Americans want to live in the largest house they can afford, on the largest lot they can afford, at the greatest possible difference from the nearest poor and/or dark-skinned person. And drive the largest possible vehicle. Anyone who does not so choose must not be a real American, but a hippie with a trust fund. And probably gay.

Posted by roac | June 24, 2008 11:06 PM

The problem with blogs is that most of the users are folks like Freddiemac, who live a rather unique lifestyle that they extrapolate to Americans as a whole. Despite watching Seinfeld, Friends, and the like, most Americans do not live on a 4th floor apartment in a major city, probably don't want to, and can't afford it, especially given that the same folks seem to find a way to suppress continued development in cities, in order to "preserve their quality of life"

The US and Europe simply cannot be compared in this respect. Germany, where I have lived for most of the last 8 years, is a country of 80 million people inside a space one could drive across in a day. Intercity rail is no longer subsidized and has become extremely expensive. Real estate is extremely small and very expensive for the size provided. Most people rent at extremely high prices for tiny apartments.

Interestingly enough, Germany spent hundreds of millions building a new rail station and hub in Berlin, praised by Paul Krugman, despite the fact that Berlin has been rapidly shedding population and business for years. Maybe government doesn't get it right.

Is this "better"? I don't know--but I don't know what business people have imposing an answer on others.

The intercity rail question leaves out a key question. Although most airports are in the suburbs, in many metro areas business development occurs near the airport. Thus it makes little sense to take the train downtown only to have to embark on a 45 minute drive or mass transit trip out of town. This is what I think of when I read of a "rapid" line between Pittsburgh and Philly? Why???

Posted by GDub | June 24, 2008 11:31 PM

The problem with blogs is that most of the users are folks like Freddiemac, who live a rather unique lifestyle that they extrapolate to Americans as a whole. Despite watching Seinfeld, Friends, and the like, most Americans do not live on a 4th floor apartment in a major city, probably don't want to, and can't afford it, especially given that the same folks seem to find a way to suppress continued development in cities, in order to "preserve their quality of life"

The US and Europe simply cannot be compared in this respect. Germany, where I have lived for most of the last 8 years, is a country of 80 million people inside a space one could drive across in a day. Intercity rail is no longer subsidized and has become extremely expensive. Real estate is extremely small and very expensive for the size provided. Most people rent at extremely high prices for tiny apartments.

Interestingly enough, Germany spent hundreds of millions building a new rail station and hub in Berlin, praised by Paul Krugman, despite the fact that Berlin has been rapidly shedding population and business for years. Maybe government doesn't get it right.

Is this "better"? I don't know--but I don't know what business people have imposing an answer on others.

The intercity rail question leaves out a key question. Although most airports are in the suburbs, in many metro areas business development occurs near the airport. Thus it makes little sense to take the train downtown only to have to embark on a 45 minute drive or mass transit trip out of town. This is what I think of when I read of a "rapid" line between Pittsburgh and Philly? Why???

Posted by GDub | June 24, 2008 11:33 PM

Passenger rail has a formal priority in the US ... however, when running over single track without a large number of passing sidings, having formal priority does not always help if a passenger train misses its slot, since the rail operator might be able to a passenger train going the other way that needs the freight train to clear the route.

Duplication of rail and increased frequency of passing sidings would not only increase the reliability of interurban passenger rail service ... bringing rail up to the grade required for the 100mph tilt trains in normal rail corridors also brings it up to the grade required for 80mph express container freight.

The other side of the issue is electrification. With electrification of passenger rail, the train station to connect to the airport can be underneath the terminal, just as there are Sydney Cityrail station is directly underneath the Sydney International and Domestic terminals ... there, its the reliance on diesels that interferes with underground stations.

And, of course, most carbon neutral sources of energy are electricity generators, whether wind turbines, CSP solar, or nuclear power. And unlike the famous prize winning battery, electric rail is a mature, existing technology for turning electricity directly into transport of both people and freight.

Posted by BruceMcF | June 24, 2008 11:48 PM

Fundamentally, people who think its about "population density" are confusing inter-urban rail with mass transit and subway systems.

A "Express" class inter-urban train ... which is classed as High Speed Rail in the US, if not in Europe ... shrinks distance. Unlike a city bus, it does not get caught in car traffic, and does not bog down as car travel speeds bog down in the endless cycle of congestion leading to roadwork leading to development at the outer end of the roadwork leading to congestion.

Now, there is a section of the country where the density is not "high enough", in the sense of not enough small and large cities close enough together to support a healthy mix of one to three hour inter-urban trips.

At the "moderately high" 110mph speeds, its "only" all the US east of the Mississippi, the next tier of population centers as far west as Dallas, and then Southern California, Northern California, and the Pacific Northwest that have density "high enough" for interurban rail. Indeed, the travel time between the Northern California cluster and the Southern California cluster is one reason why there is so much impetus in California to leapfrog the "Express" HSR level to true, fully grade separated 220mph High Speed Rail ... despite the substantial increase in cost per mile.

On the other hand, that is the bulk of the population of the United States that lives in regions that have the population density required to support regular inter-urban rail transport.

The population density question is about the local transport choice ... at the number of trips per route that would be seen in most US cities, heavy mass transit and subways are not justified .... most urban transit projects over the next decade are going to involve light rail of one sort or another or bus priority measures to reduce delays on bus routes to increase the effective capacity of a given bus fleet.

However, we would already be investing in substantial numbers of new inter-urban rail systems today if they were competing head to head on a full cost-benefit basis against road transport.

Posted by BruceMcF | June 25, 2008 12:11 AM

Mixner saith: "There are things Americans value besides "efficiency," you know, like big houses, and the convenience of cars"

This is true. But what happens when energy is so expensive that most Americans cannot afford these things? Do we pray that some new technology will continue to allow these things?

"New Technology! New Technology!" we'll say, praying that nothing forces us to have to live near or even sit next to (as on a train) a person with darker skin than us.

Posted by jacobus | June 25, 2008 12:44 AM

This is true. But what happens when energy is so expensive that most Americans cannot afford these things?

No one knows.

It seems unlikely that energy will become so expensive that most Americans cannot afford those things.

Posted by Mixner | June 25, 2008 1:04 AM

BruceMcF

Your very confused post begins by comparing an intercity ("inter-urban") train with a "city bus" and a car in city traffic. Why you think that's a relevant comparison, I have no idea. The competition for intercity trains is obviously intercity buses, not city buses, and intercity car travel, not cars driving in an urban environment.

Density matters to intercity rail because it affects the size of the market. Intercity trains generally travel between stations located in city centers. Most Americans do not live in or close to city centers. Most Americans do not work in or close to city centers. They live and work in suburbs or exurbs. This seriously limits the attractiveness of intercity rail services. If you have to travel from the suburbs into the city center in order to catch the intercity train, the time and inconvenience increase considerably. If you drive in to the city center, you'll need to park your car. Parking tends to be expensive in city centers. And if your final destination is in the suburbs or exurbs of your destination city, you'll have to do the reverse at that end--travel from the train station in the city center out into the suburbs. That also adds time and inconvenience. Driving or flying may simply be faster overall. Even if they're not faster, they may involve much less hassle, and travellers may choose them for that reason also.

Posted by Mixner | June 25, 2008 1:24 AM

Really, arguing with the silly child is futile, because his whole schtick is based upon making excuse after excuse, while his fantasy freeway future is beyond challenge. Immaturity and hypocrisy rolled into one stinking glibertarian turd confit.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 25, 2008 1:54 AM

The problem with Seattle is that we have a very poor local transit system. It is designed for worker transit, where routes run mostly toward Seattle in the morning, and mostly out to the burbs in the evening. This is in contrast to places like LA, SF and NY where it is easy to get around even if you are just visiting. Portland is so small it doesn't even matter. But Puget Sound also suffers from geography: every route out of Seattle requires either a tunnel, bridge or ferry. Many smaller cities suffer the same.

On the bright side, our region has reduced traffic at least 4% over the last year, unrelated to oil/gas prices.

Posted by tomj | June 25, 2008 1:59 AM

TRANEZ: DO NOT WANT! I CAN HAS MAJIK LECTRIC CAR?

Posted by LOLxner | June 25, 2008 1:59 AM

I think it's interesting that someone who can say this:

Then show me your calculations for the externality costs of road vs. rail that justify the hugely disproportionate subsidies rail receives. A serious, quantitative analysis. Not a handwave.

can, in the course of the same discussion, also say this:

It seems unlikely that energy will become so expensive that most Americans cannot afford those things.

What everyone here fails to realize is that Mixner's fresh-from-his-ass assumptions and assertions are self evident truths, and it is therefore incumbent upon anyone who disagrees with him to do his googling for him.

Because I'm feeling generous to those in need I recommend that he use the keywords "wikipedia" and "megaprojects" on google and click the top link. If, after perusing what he finds there, he can explain where he thinks new oil production after 2013 is going to come from, then, as penance, I'll make an inexpert but good faith effort to quantify the external costs of roads vs. trains.

It should go without saying that I'm looking for a serious, quantitative analysis, not a handwave.

Posted by DMonteith | June 25, 2008 2:01 AM

DMonteith,

I think it's interesting that someone who can say this: ... can, in the course of the same discussion, also say this:

Do you? How nice for you.

Posted by Mixner | June 25, 2008 2:06 AM

Do you? How nice for you.

Who knew that brevity is the soul not only of wit, but also of Mixner's bluff being called?

You shouldn't play poker with a tell like that...just sayin'.

Posted by DMonteith | June 25, 2008 2:22 AM

The problem with Seattle is that we have a very poor local transit system. It is designed for worker transit, where routes run mostly toward Seattle in the morning, and mostly out to the burbs in the evening. This is in contrast to places like LA, SF and NY where it is easy to get around even if you are just visiting.

LA by transit is "easy?" You've got to be kidding. Even for the small share of trips that start and end within walking distance of stops on LA's not-very-extensive light-rail and subway system, it's probably going to take you far longer than the same journey by car. SF is okay, but as various commenters have noted its transit system is fragmented and poorly coordinated. NYC probably has the most extensive, most useful transit system of any U.S. city, but even there people who can afford it tend to use taxis rather than the subway or buses, at least in Manhattan.

It's not surprising that Seattle's transit system is geared towards commutes, because that's the type of journey for which transit is most suited. Transit buses and trains tend to run most frequently during peak commuting hours, and roads tend to be more congested, which reduces the relative time advantage of driving. But even for commutes, cars generally beat trains and buses on time. The average commute by car takes only about half as much time as the average commute by public transportation. And for non-commute travel, the time savings from driving are even larger. And of course, public transportation is also frequently uncomfortable, especially at peak commuting times when buses and trains are often crowded and seats are in short supply.

Posted by Mixner | June 25, 2008 2:26 AM

...even there people who can afford it tend to use taxis rather than the subway or buses, at least in Manhattan.

This just in! People who can afford a private jet are uninterested in traveling via intercity rail! Trains are obviously stupid!

Next up, people who buy islands get to them most often, according to my own unfounded assertion, with their yachts. Down with bridges!

Posted by DMonteith | June 25, 2008 3:09 AM

Dmonteith, I don't know if Mixner understands your point, but I sure don't. What are you trying to say? That oil's going to run out in 2013 unless someone can prove otherwise? or what?

Posted by jmo | June 25, 2008 3:10 AM

Sorry jmo,

It's a continuation of a discussion I had with Mixner on another thread a few weeks ago.

The short version is that currently producing fields consist of some that are ramping up production, some that are stable, and some that are declining. Overall, decliners are outpacing advancers and new projects (either new fields or application of advanced recovery techniquies on old fields) must first offset declines in existing production before overall production rises. The rate of decline in existing fields is currently about 4% but fields such as Mexico's supergiant Cantarell, which was exploited with newer technologies, have recently been declining at rates up to 14%. The north sea production has been declining at that rate for the last six years. The reason for this is that horizontal drilling, water pressurization, steam cracking and other new technologies increase the rate of production and, to some extent increase the economically recoverable amount of oil, but they also result in steeper declines when declines come.

A 4% decline means that every year new projects must add 3.2 million barrels/day capacity just to break even. This also ignores the growing net exports problem. There have recently been declines in oil exports without actual declines in production because the exporting countries are withholding ever increasing amounts for their own booming economies. Last year net exports, which account for over half of global production, fell over 2%.

The megaprojects list on wikipedia shows all new production slated to come online and thing look pretty good through 2012, meaning that so long as declines in existing production remain at 4% we're likely to see overall increases in production of 5 to 10 million barrels/day. Remember, though, that the net exports problem will eat into this somewhat.

The problem is that after 2012 there is a sharp dropoff in the volume of oil expected from projects scheduled to come online. There will be additions to the list, but these things never come in on time, and as things currently stand, with 5-10 year lead times being the norm, new production will start falling well short of existing declines within a few years.

For perspective, the current run up in oil prices has occurred in a context of simply stagnant overall production, not declining production. Sam Bodman, Bush's Secretary of Energy (and noted left wing crazy man!), recently said, "In the absence of any additional crude supply, for every one percent of crude demand, we will expect a 20 percent increase in price in order to balance the market."

If you do the math on 2% annual declines, much less 4%, 6% or 8%, this is some scary shit.

Unless, of course, Mixner can save us all with his powers of assertion.

Posted by DMonteith | June 25, 2008 4:19 AM

jmo,

DMonteith appears to be some kind of "Peak Oil" paranoid obsessive. He's always going on and on about it. The comment of mine he quoted earlier and that seems to have set off his latest round of ranting is as follows:

It seems unlikely that energy will become so expensive that most Americans cannot afford those things.

"Those things" being cars and big houses.

Apparently, DMonteith thinks that in the year 2013, or some time soon after, oil will become so expensive that "most Americans" will no longer be able to afford cars or big houses. If they can't afford cars, they presumably won't be able to afford to fly, either. Or to take most buses, which use about as much oil per passenger-mile as cars. And only a few of them would be able to afford trains.

So, apparently, he's predicting the collapse of most of America's transportation system within a few years, because "most Americans" will no longer be able to afford to use it.

Needless to say, serious energy analysts don't take this kind of lunatic prognostication very seriously.

Posted by Mixner | June 25, 2008 5:00 AM

Mixner is apparently unable to read.

It would be convenient for him if I was saying what he thinks I'm saying, and since convenience seems to be a non-negotiable element of his lifestyle, he argues with himself rather than with me.

Posted by DMonteith | June 25, 2008 5:32 AM

Re: If you have to travel from the suburbs into the city center in order to catch the intercity train, the time and inconvenience increase considerably. If you drive in to the city center, you'll need to park your car. Parking tends to be expensive in city centers.

And the above is true of airports too, except that they aren’t in inner cities—but are in places that are usually distant from where one lives. And airport parking is not known for being cheap. Ditto for your arrival: very rarely is an airport at or near one’s final destination.

Posted by JonF | June 25, 2008 6:43 AM

Up thread, there was a simple point that most commenters missed. To wit: most jobs are not in city centers. Transit systems in urban areas are designed to aggregate people in those city centers.

That works out great for the small percentage of an area's population that works there; for everyone else, the transit system is a non-useful brick that other people use.

When I travel for business, the same thing holds. Outside of Manhattan based customers, it's never convenient for me to use rail - either to get to the city I'm heading to, or to get around once I'm there. Why? Because all the work locations are outside city centers.

That's the problem that transit fans completely miss. It's not just a matter of far flung people somehow selling out and moving back to the city; the jobs they go to aren't in the city either, so even if people living "way out there" move, they are highly unlikely to land in a city. They'll land in a different suburb - and even the close in suburbs (like the one I live in) have no way to add useful transit systems. The people and jobs are too spread out.

Posted by James Robertson | June 25, 2008 7:26 AM

Well, I don't know what it's like in the rest of the country, but in Puget Sound people started moving back into Seattle and Tacoma, as shown by a sharp uptick in house prices and density, back around 1995. In my rural county the average commute to a job (big surprise- the jobs are in cities) is over 40 miles one way.

One of the big apples-and-oranges moves by Mixner and James Robertson is to compare the movement of the entire country by automobile with transit use. To those two, the piddling here-today-gone-tomorrow businesses of suburbia are just as productive as the bio-tech labs in the center of Seattle.

Using this reasoning, if you squint real hard and do some cherry-picking, commute times in suburbia are less than in big cities- the woman driving to her part-time job as a hairdresser in suburbia takes ten minutes to get there, and the bio-tech researcher going to a lab takes 30 minutes to get there. Guess what, if you live in Montana, you probably have the shortest commute!

Even using this slanted table, Mixner and JR have to apply generous sprinkles of pixel dust- energy will always be cheap! Americans get what they want because they want it!- when their delusions are challenged.

In reality, the party is over. WW II ended with the US as the only intact economy and society, controlling, by our purchasing power, a dozen task forces, and the use of the CIA to overthrow outbreaks of democracy, the world. Times have changed, the dollar has tumbled, and other vigorous societies that know how to build trains are competing with us for resources. Whether we can adapt remains to be seen- many societies in the past have failed that test- but if we can, HSR corridors will undoubtedly play a part.

Posted by serial catowner | June 25, 2008 8:25 AM

According to the Census bureau, the population for Seattle has grown by a whopping 1% between 2000 -2003.

The state of Washington grew much faster (4%) in that interval. So even in your preferred data set, people are choosing areas other than the city in larger numbers.

I do a lot of business travel, and Manhattan is just about the only city center I ever end up in. Most of the time (including visits to corporate HQ in Ohio), I end up in a suburb outside the beltway.

Posted by James Robertson | June 25, 2008 8:37 AM

James,

It is obviously true that any given mode of transportation, local or intercity, will not serve every relevant transportation need. And similarly, it is indeed true that both cars for local travel and airplanes for intercity travel will remain very important modes of travel for the conceivable future.

The problem for anti-train folks is that none of that implies that light rail can't serve SOME local transportation needs, and that high speed rail can't serve SOME intercity transportation needs. And it is also quite obvious to anyone who knows anything about transportation economics that as fuel prices increase, so does the relative number of travel needs which can most efficiently be served by trains (local or intercity).

What that implies is that persistent high fuel prices will in fact eventually lead to more travel by train (at a lag, of course, as it will take time to build out the necessary infrastructure). Again, though, that doesn't mean cars and airplanes are going to disappear, and indeed it doesn't imply that either alternative mode will ever be behind trains in terms of passenger miles. It just means that SOME travel will eventually switch to trains (local or intercity) in response to high fuel prices.

That claim really shouldn't be controversial. Generally, in my experience people who are neither anti-train, nor anti-car, nor anti-plane, nor emotionally involved in which mode of transportation people use at all, can have a reasonable discussion about these issues. But the problem is that there are people around who for whatever reason have developed strong emotions about one or more modes of transport, and as a reasult they end up incapable of having a rational discussion.

Posted by DTM | June 25, 2008 8:49 AM

GDub,

The problem with blogs is that most posters are people like you, who make strawman arguments rather than actual arguments. You seem unable to read arguments and string together coherent rebuttals, so you string together ad hominems. In fact I do not live in NYC. You do help, however, in proving that old canard to be true: conservatives are intellectually lazy and have low IQs.

Posted by freddiemac | June 25, 2008 9:12 AM

"most jobs are not in city centers"

Do you have any proof?

Posted by freddiemac | June 25, 2008 9:15 AM

"most jobs are not in city centers"

Do you have any proof?

Posted by freddiemac | June 25, 2008 9:17 AM

"Americans would actually prefer to live like the Japanese."

Strawman argument, a sign of your intellectual dishonesty. Who pays you to write this drivel?

"They don't really want all those big houses and cars they keep buying."

You mean big houses and big cars they aren't buying? The ones they can't give away? Do I really have to google new home sales and SUV rebates for you?

Posted by freddiemac | June 25, 2008 9:22 AM

freddiemac,

More importantly, true or not that claim doesn't really matter. Here would be a parallel sort of argument:

Most American jobs are not in the state of Ohio. Indeed, most Americans do not live in Ohio. Therefore, there should be no public investment in transportation for use in Ohio.

Of course that is ridiculous on its face, and yet that is basically no more ridiculous than some of the other arguments people are making here.

Generally, it makes no sense to talk about national averages when discussing transportation policy (or state averages, or even local averages). Instead, rather than looking at averages, you have to get down to very specific cases before you can decided what policy makes sense in that particular set of circumstances.

Posted by DTM | June 25, 2008 9:32 AM

Apparently, DMonteith thinks that in the year 2013, or some time soon after, oil will become so expensive that "most Americans" will no longer be able to afford cars or big houses.

Apparently, the silly glibertarian boy thinks that in 2013, we'll all have magic electric cars.

Apparently, he doesn't understand that adopting two different standards of proof -- strawman for others' arguments, bullshit for his own -- exposes him as a class-A dick.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 25, 2008 9:43 AM

I do a lot of business travel, and Manhattan is just about the only city center I ever end up in. Most of the time (including visits to corporate HQ in Ohio), I end up in a suburb outside the beltway.

Things change.

A buddy of mine who heads HR for a local engineering firm just e-mailed me to say how his people are looking to centralize their offices to attract workers. They tender offers, but nobody wants to drive out to the boonies. Its a becoming a real problem for him. Granted, this is anecdotal, its probably too early to get any solid figures, but there is evidence that values are changing.

Posted by RoboticGhost | June 25, 2008 9:47 AM

By the way, I just want to note that the same person can live in a big house, use cars for some travel needs (perhaps a car he or she owns, but also possibly shared cars or taxis), and also use public transit for other travel needs.

Posted by DTM | June 25, 2008 9:51 AM

You mistake my skepticism for the utility of rail for hostility. If I thought rail systems were in any way, shape, or form a viable answer, I'd be happy to support it. When I do travel to NY from here (near BWI), I take the train - because it's far simpler than flying into JFK or Laguardia.

However, even with the upgraded rail (all electric to Boston now), I don't take the train when I go to Boston. Why? Because by air, Boston is under 2 hours. By rail, it's more like 7 - and then, the places I have to go in that area are all out on the 128 anyway - so I need a car regardless.

Beyond the northeast corridor, I've never traveled anywhere in the US where it looked like rail - heavy, light, or subway - was of any real utility to me. Heck, even when there's a decent transit system (like in Boston), cabs or cars tend to be far more useful, because they don't leave me with a long walk (carrying heavy bags) at the end of the trip.

Going back to the area I live in, transit simply does not work, and it won't work anytime soon. Even if Matt's dream of a metro connection from DC through the suburbs to Baltimore came true, it still wouldn't work for most people - because the vast majority of jobs in the greater Baltimore/DC area are not in DC or Baltimore - they are out on the rings. Transit systems suck for taking dispersed people off to dispersed locations, and there's no real answer for that.

Posted by James Robertson | June 25, 2008 10:11 AM

James,

Again, no one to my knowledge is claiming rail will serve every transportation need. But you seem to be generalizing from your personal transportation needs to everyone else's transportation needs, which is obviously a mistake.

Posted by DTM | June 25, 2008 11:13 AM

Beyond the northeast corridor, I've never traveled anywhere in the US where it looked like rail - heavy, light, or subway - was of any real utility to me.

Both Chicago airports have rail service from the Loop. It system old, dilapidated, and slow, but at any time other than 3 a.m. it will get you to and from downtown faster and cheaper than anything on rubber wheels. Even aside from the time involved in renting & turning in a car, which is even more of a hassle at O'Hare than most airports. I guarantee you could be halfway to downtown on the train by the time you had a set of keys in your hand.

(People do work in all those tall buildings that you fly over -- quite a lot of them, actually. Though the tech jobs are no doubt mostly in goddamn Naperville or some such place.)

Posted by roac | June 25, 2008 11:17 AM

Posted by James Robertson | June 25, 2008 10:11 AM: However, even with the upgraded rail (all electric to Boston now), I don't take the train when I go to Boston. Why? Because by air, Boston is under 2 hours. By rail, it's more like 7 ...

And even with upgrade to Express speeds ... it will still be more than three hours, so most people would use air for that trip.

Its New York to Boston that would grab a large share of the current air shuttle market if a genuine tilt train was put through (most likely off the Northeast corridor to get away from the contention with slower speed local passenger services) ... maybe some of the Philadelphia to Boston transport market ... MD/DC is outside the three hour trip where rail splits the market with air, let alone the two hour trip where rail dominates air.

Of course, that is the travel-time driven mode-split ... if we get entirely out of the range of cheap oil, we would start to see a cost-driven mode-split, but with crude oil well under $300/barrel we are not out of the range of cheap oil yet.

Posted by BruceMcF | June 25, 2008 11:28 AM

Not that anyone would give creedence to Mixner, a monkey spanker who pretends to be an expert on all things, but that Federal subsidy table seems very odd. Maybe because it looks only at Federal spending, which is a small subset of total highway spending.

How small? According to the Federal Highway Administration, about 20 percent. See:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/htm/hf10.htm

Something like $147 billion were spent on roads and highways in FY 2004, and only $28 billion way from the Federal gas tax. Indeed, that $28 billion was less than the amount of road money from state and local property taxes and general fund assessments.

That BTS Federal subsidy study seems as if it were politically motivated--specifically excluding classes of revenue and spending to get a particular result--but I don't know enough about its history.

Posted by jlw | June 25, 2008 12:27 PM

JonF,

And the above is true of airports too, except that they aren’t in inner cities—but are in places that are usually distant from where one lives. And airport parking is not known for being cheap. Ditto for your arrival: very rarely is an airport at or near one’s final destination.

The point is that most people don't live or work near city-center train stations, just as they don't live or work near airports. So the supposed time advantage of city-center to city-center train travel is likely to be a myth. The central location of train stations just isn't a benefit for most of the potential market for intercity travel, because most of their journeys do not start or end in the city center.

And airport parking may be expensive, but city center parking tends to be even more expensive, which is another reason to avoid rail services.

Posted by Mixner | June 25, 2008 12:42 PM

DTM,

The problem for anti-train folks is that none of that implies that light rail can't serve SOME local transportation needs, and that high speed rail can't serve SOME intercity transportation needs.

I have consistently said that urban light-rail may be justified in some places. But as far as HSR goes, no one has presented a remotely persuasive case that HSR is practical or economically feasible anywhere in the nation, on any route at all. There's just lots of handwaving and vague allusions to unquantified benefits. The one sorta-HSR service that exists in the United States, the Acela in the northeast corridor, is a fiasco that has consumed billions of dollars in subsidies. Even with those subsidies, it is still so expensive that most of its riders are business travellers.

And it is also quite obvious to anyone who knows anything about transportation economics that as fuel prices increase, so does the relative number of travel needs which can most efficiently be served by trains (local or intercity).

Wrong again. We've been over this. Urban rail is barely more fuel-efficient than even existing cars. The Toyota Prius beats the pants off almost all urban rail systems in terms of fuel-efficiency, and the typical car of 10 or 20 years from now will almost certainly be even more fuel-efficent than the Prius. Intercity buses are more fuel-efficient than intercity trains, so rising fuel prices are likely to shift intercity traffic from rail to road, not the reverse.

Posted by Mixner | June 25, 2008 1:02 PM

According to the Census bureau, the population for Seattle has grown by a whopping 1% between 2000 -2003. The state of Washington grew much faster (4%) in that interval. So even in your preferred data set, people are choosing areas other than the city in larger numbers.

Yes. The story in Washington is the same as in the country as a whole. Older, denser cities are either losing population, or growing more slowly than the surrounding suburbs and exurbs. Virtually all the fast-growing cities are the newer, sprawling ones in the south and west. Between 2000 and 2006, Seattle grew by 18,000 people. Over the same period, Phoenix, Arizona--the epitome of car-oriented sprawl--grew by almost 200,000 people. Almost all the old, rust-belt cities in the east are losing population.

Posted by Mixner | June 25, 2008 1:17 PM

Mixner,

Like I said, that point is obvious to "anyone who knows anything about transportation economics."

Posted by DTM | June 25, 2008 1:17 PM

DTM,

Since you clearly know nothing about transportation economics, that rules you out, then.

Posted by Mixner | June 25, 2008 1:23 PM

Freddiemac,

This has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. This has to do with cost effectiveness and utility. Whom I've voted for is irrelevant to this question, but would probably surprise you.

We probably want the same things:

1. Fuel efficiency
2. Environmental protection
3. Lower traffic
4. cost effectiveness to the taxpayer.

Besides the constant confusion on this blog between the different needs of intercity transit and commuter transit, no one seems to address "ownership" of the rails. European countries have had huge difficulties trying to have competition in rail fares, because only one company has access to the shortest route at a time.

Rail routes traditionally have been subject to monopolies and have had per-mile costs far higher than other forms of transportation (ask anyone in the steel industry--this is the reason inland steel mills at first closed). On the other hand, publicly-owned companies have little incentive to lower fuel or environmental costs because there will be a lobby to "invest" in them to make up for their inefficiency. So what's the plan then? Build it and they will come?

A comparable example to the US is not France or Germany, but Russia. And rail transit in Russia takes a long time!

Where is America's business community located? I can tell you that here in MA there is a relatively steady outflow of labs, etc. from city centers to suburban locations, because it is cheaper per square foot. Most high-tech in MA is outside of the city center. Boston is a relatively small city, but travel by car for a one-off trip from the airport is far faster by cab than by rail. Many cities, to include Chicago, KC, St. Louis, even LA--have seen their center of business activity shift closer to airports over the years.

As for "investing" in declining markets. Of course we should maintain infrastructure, but it would be senseless to build a new hub of our national transportation center in Ohio if the bulk of our population lived in Texas, California, Florida, and Georgia.

Unfortunately most people, having a genuine desire to build a good rail network, can't help but try to impose their vision of the "good society" on the rest of us. This is where you lose the argument in the public debate. Sorry.

Posted by Gdub | June 25, 2008 1:47 PM

Freddiemac,

This has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. This has to do with cost effectiveness and utility. Whom I've voted for is irrelevant to this question, but would probably surprise you.

We probably want the same things:

1. Fuel efficiency
2. Environmental protection
3. Lower traffic
4. cost effectiveness to the taxpayer.

Besides the constant confusion on this blog between the different needs of intercity transit and commuter transit, no one seems to address "ownership" of the rails. European countries have had huge difficulties trying to have competition in rail fares, because only one company has access to the shortest route at a time.

Rail routes traditionally have been subject to monopolies and have had per-mile costs far higher than other forms of transportation (ask anyone in the steel industry--this is the reason inland steel mills at first closed). On the other hand, publicly-owned companies have little incentive to lower fuel or environmental costs because there will be a lobby to "invest" in them to make up for their inefficiency. So what's the plan then? Build it and they will come?

A comparable example to the US is not France or Germany, but Russia. And rail transit in Russia takes a long time!

Where is America's business community located? I can tell you that here in MA there is a relatively steady outflow of labs, etc. from city centers to suburban locations, because it is cheaper per square foot. Most high-tech in MA is outside of the city center. Boston is a relatively small city, but travel by car for a one-off trip from the airport is far faster by cab than by rail. Many cities, to include Chicago, KC, St. Louis, even LA--have seen their center of business activity shift closer to airports over the years.

As for "investing" in declining markets. Of course we should maintain infrastructure, but it would be senseless to build a new hub of our national transportation center in Ohio if the bulk of our population lived in Texas, California, Florida, and Georgia.

Unfortunately most people, having a genuine desire to build a good rail network, can't help but try to impose their vision of the "good society" on the rest of us. This is where you lose the argument in the public debate. Sorry.

Posted by Gdub | June 25, 2008 1:49 PM

Gdub | June 25, 2008 1:49 PM:

As for "investing" in declining markets. Of course we should maintain infrastructure, but it would be senseless to build a new hub of our national transportation center in Ohio if the bulk of our population lived in Texas, California, Florida, and Georgia.

Making the investments required to provide intercity rail in, say, Ohio, is not instead of doing the same in Texas, California, Florida or Georgia ... to name four states that would also receive substantial investment in track upgrade and grade separations to support high speed passenger rail and high speed freight rail ... if transport funding competed on a full cost and benefit basis, rather than having rail projects sequestered in their own little ghetto, fighting each other for funding while having to show three, four or five time the benefit as highway and airport projects do.

"Maintaining" our infrastructure, as the current heavy reliance on the road-motor transport system approaches its obsolescence, means switching funding to the technologies that are suited to a country that has lost its economic independence due to dependence on imported liquid fuels.

Posted by BruceMcF | June 25, 2008 2:50 PM

The Census estimates that Ohio's population grew from 2000 to 2006.

Of course other states experienced more rapid growth, but the idea that somehow Ohio's 11.5 million (and growing) residents should not be getting a decent share of investment in new transportation infrastructure is kinda ridiculous.

Posted by DTM | June 25, 2008 4:13 PM

I'm betting my livelihood on horseshit now, because horseshit's going to be around for ever!

Posted by Granpa Dixner, c. 1900 | June 25, 2008 5:18 PM

Gdub,

"no one seems to address "ownership" of the rails"

If you read other posts on the subject on this blog (and others), I have consistently lamented the fact that rails are mostly privately owned but roads, highways, and airports are mostly publicly owned. So if this is the "ownership" you were referring to, then it has been tackled. I don't particularly care for Amtrak. Ideally I'd like to see passenger rail compete in the same fashion as other transit.

"A comparable example to the US is not France or Germany, but Russia. And rail transit in Russia takes a long time!"

Why exactly is Russia comparable to the US? They just got access to the car market what 15 years ago?

"Where is America's business community located?"

Why don't you give me an anecdote relating your personal experience in a very small portion of the country and extrapolate from that dataset a generalization about the whole country. That would be really useful. Oh wait, you did that. Should I remind you that both of Chicago's airports are in the city itself? So even your anecdote fails.

"As for "investing" in declining markets. Of course we should maintain infrastructure, but it would be senseless to build a new hub of our national transportation center in Ohio if the bulk of our population lived in Texas, California, Florida, and Georgia."

This is what we call as "strawman". I don't recall, and maybe you can help me, where anyone suggested making Ohio our "new hub of our national transportation center"? Oh that's right, they didn't. So the bulk of our population lives in California? I wonder, is that why they are trying to build a high-speed passenger rail system out there? Are you trying to sound as stupid as the real GDub?

Unfortunately most people, having a genuine desire to destroy rail network, can't help but try to impose their vision of the "good society" on the rest of us. This is where you lose the argument in the public debate. Sorry.

Posted by freddiemac | June 25, 2008 5:18 PM

The Census estimates that Ohio's population grew from 2000 to 2006.

Yeah, by a whopping 1%. Have you looked at what happened to the populations of Texas, Arizona, Nevada and California over the same period? Phoenix alone gained more people between 2000 and 2006 than the entire state of Ohio.

Posted by Mixner | June 25, 2008 6:32 PM

When we lived in San Diego my wife and I found Amtrak to be a decent option for going to Orange County. Generally, the Coaster seemed pretty busy. Now that we live around Portland we've found Portland to Seattle and Seattle to Vanouver BC to be decent.

That said, it is not something you want to take if your running on a strict timeline as ontime service is very spotty.

As some have mentioned though, the results for longer trips that run through heavy freight areas and terminals can be brutal. My Mom took Amtrak fromm San Louis Obispo to Sacramento (5 hour drive) and it took 18 hours including 7 with the train just sitting in Oakland with no explenation (passengers almost rioted apparently). My father in-law took it last Summer from Orange County to Portland (he likes trains) and was almost an entire day late arriving.

From what I can tell out here on the West Coast, even people that generally like the idea of rail travel don't trust it when they have time constraints or need some certainty about when they arrive.

Posted by bjh | June 25, 2008 7:37 PM