« Oh Good | Main | Lying About Torture » Music to My Ears17 Jun 2008 11:11 am From Barack Obama's speech on competitiveness yesterday: We can invest in rail, so that cities like Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Louis are connected by high-speed trains, and folks have alternatives to air travel. More in-depth analysis of the speech and the policy agenda contained therein later, but I do love me some high-speed rail. Comments (78)
I'm not a transit expert by any means but my understanding is that intercity rail's ability to compete with other methods of transportation, both in the US and abroad, leaves something to be desired. And even if it is successful in some places, I'm not sure it is viable in America given its size and current infrastructure. 
I'm not sure it is viable in America given its size and current infrastructure. That's why we're talking about regional rather than national, and why it's a long-term matter. I don't know anyone pining for the old NY-LA run (Sky Chief? I can't remember what it was called). But a NY-Chicago run, downtown to downtown isn't exactly peronalized jetpack, is it? The other question that has to be brought up is the network, as I think you called it last week. I was in Chicago for two weeks last month, after spending two weeks in Europe. I was astounded at how bad the public transportation was by comparison. Dirty, crowded, infrequent, badly lit, confusing maps..... and, in spite of being less efficient and more expensive, in the red and losing money.
Not sure how the accounts look like, but travelling around France (and much of Wester Europe) using the TGV-trains is fantastic. Never have to worry about check-in times, security lines or trafic to/from airports. And as a bonus the comfort of trains is about 10 times that of airlines.
You can currently take the train from St Louis to Chicago for as cheaply as $23. Very few people do.
I'm not a transit expert by any means but my understanding is that intercity rail's ability to compete with other methods of transportation, both in the US and abroad, leaves something to be desired. I'm not a transit expert, either, but it's pretty obvious intercity rail is quite competitive at least in Japan and Europe.
I'm not sure it is viable in America given its size and current infrastructure. Infrastructure changes to meet needs. Its pretty clear that a lot of people who used to fly places cannot do so now, or will not be able to do so in the future due to price constraints and a shrinking airline industry. Due to the blessing/ curse of decades of cheap oil, part of our critical infrastructure involves moving people about. Family problems, vacations, and job changes are part of that infrastructure, as is the need to ship technical experts, management, and so on around the country. You can't telecommute to a funeral, or hire a local expert if one doesn't live in the area.
Some of us are hoping that an Obama presidency will at least be somewhat involved with medium and long term issues. Maybe rail has competitiveness issues at the moment, but that will change as gasoline prices, over the next 10, 20, 30 years continue to climb. We need to have the infrastructure in place for when gas is $10.00 a gallon -- when rail will be more than competitive. Just throwing money at highways and hoping that gas prices somehow miraculously drop (ANWR doesn't have _that_ much, people -- if peak oil isn't yet here, it will be within a few decades) isn't smart - government should have, say, a 50 yr. horizon. So should corporations, but that's another issue.
We could also invest in an Amtrak line between Hawaii and San Fransisco because, well, people need alternatives to air travel. Sound unreasonable? Just remember Washington's plan for a four hundred million dollar bridge to nowhere. Of course we could instead let businesses build trains consumers actually want and are willing to pay for.
I was astounded at how bad the public transportation was by comparison. Dirty, crowded, infrequent, badly lit, confusing maps..... and, in spite of being less efficient and more expensive, in the red and losing money. Seems like "because of" would be more likely than "in spite of" in that last sentence.
Yea, Milwaukee! Everyone is trying to get here, but the Hiawatha just blows. Okay, I'm being facetious. Milwauee to Chicago is not bad, but it would be really nice to feel more connected to St Louis, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Cleveland, etc. But, in terms of unintended consequences, might this kill the romance of the open road? I'm claustrophobic, and cherish the big open spaces of America, in comparison to European compactness. Nature just seems more inviting here, me thinks, and I like this a lot. Of course, some changes would be nice and probably not destroy America's spirit of possibility, but I do worry about these intangibles getting irredeemably fucked up by accident.
Promoting light rail in Flint, Michigan? Did somebody say Sista Souljah?
"I'm not a transit expert by any means but my understanding is that intercity rail's ability to compete with other methods of transportation, both in the US and abroad, leaves something to be desired." True, but with rising fuel costs and newer technology, I think high-speed rail could be successful in certain parts of the country. The midwest, with all those big cities 2-4 hours apart by car, would be an obvious choice. Maybe up and down the West Coast. Texas and Florida have high-density corridors. And so forth. "You can currently take the train from St Louis to Chicago for as cheaply as $23. Very few people do." According to the Amtrak website, the travel time from St. Louis to Chicago is 5h 44m. You can drive it in less than 4:30. That's not what I'd call high-speed rail. Also, note that Amtrak sends 7 trains per day between St. Louis and Chicago, and several of those trains are selling for up to $65 a week in advance. This suggests to me that more people are taking the train than you think.
Don't worry, Robert. You'll still have I-43 to get to Green Bay and Beloit. Doesn't MKE have a spiffy new Amtrak station, though?
G. Gecko - that would make perfect sense, if the government didn't handle the infrastructure for the highway system and the air travel system.
Before we get all crazy imagining the highway traffic flowing (or not-so-flowing) between Midwestern cities going over to the rails, we need to ask what portion of that traffic is really going from point A to point B, as opposed to just passing through. When I'm in St. Louis and I see that sign for Chicago-or-Memphis, I'm not going to Chicago or Memphis, and probably a lot of people aren't either.
Similarly, I wet myself when I saw this this morning: http://blog.cleveland.com/pdgraphics/2008/06/17CGRAILHUB.pdf I live in Cleveland with family in Columbus and Cincinnati. Neato.
"True, but with rising fuel costs and newer technology, I think high-speed rail could be successful in certain parts of the country. The midwest, with all those big cities 2-4 hours apart by car, would be an obvious choice. Maybe up and down the West Coast. Texas and Florida have high-density corridors. And so forth." Don't forget the Front Range corridor in the West. Driving-wise, starting from Albuqueque (technically not in the Front Range), you've got Santa Fe (ditto) about 45 minutes away, Pueblo (the traditional southern terminus of the Front Range) 4 hours after that, Colorado Springs 45 minutes after that, Denver an hour after that, Fort Collins an hour after that, and Cheyenne, WY 45 minutes after that. That's a lot of cities with 100,000-600,000 people. Combine that with improvements to the existing California Zephyr line that takes you from Denver to Grand Junction, and all of the sudden you've got rail access connecting all of the cities in CO with 100,000+ people.
One problem with rail with regard to global warming is the tendency of tracks to buckle and warp from the heat - this is a growing problem all around the world and was responsible for derailing a metro train in DC. The situation's only going to get worse regardless of whatever is done to mitigate the effects of climate change over the next few decades. Why not promote trackless trains instead?
Here in California, I've noticed that the Bakersfield-Sacramento Amtrak line has been packed. If you're traveling alone or with one other person, taking the train makes financial sense right now. If they ever build the high-speed rail here, it'll be a no-brainer. Traveling from Fresno to San Francisco would take less than 2 hours, much faster than driving or flying. I think the way forward for passenger rail in the U.S. is to divide Amtrak into several regional authorities. The future isn't a LA-Chicago-NYC route, it's LA-SF, Miami-Orlando, and other congested intercity corridors.
Maybe if those tracks frequently crossed the existing highways, causing the highway traffic to stop and yield to the trains, it would be better still, since it would effectively raise the price for those nasty car-lovers.
Voters in California will have the chance to take the first step toward a state-funded intercity high speed rail system in November. There's a $20 billion bond on the ballot that would authorize and fund modern high speed rail between San Francisco and Los Angeles, with future extensions to Sacramento, Oakland and San Diego. There are literally hundreds of flights per day between the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles - it's a corridor ripe for HSR. I hope we're smart enough to pass it.
The argument that the US is big and therefore trains won't work is absurd. You know what else is big? Europe. Anti train arguments all seem to assume some sort of all or nothing system. What makes Europe work is the combination. Unless your a backpacking vacationer you don't take the train from Stockholm to Madrid. I just got home from 2 weeks in Germany, the combination of air, highspeed ICE trains, regional RE and RB trains with local S and U trains works really well. And would be ideal for the US.
I have brought up the California high speed rail initiative several times on this site. I will be working hard to get the ballot initiative approved between now and Nov. Travis is right, this is the perfect corridor to introduce high speed rail to America.
What's standing in the way of California and BosWash high-speed rail isn't lack of subsidies going to Amtrak, it's that the funds are all being sucked up by congressional districts where rail simply isn't viable.
These proposals are doomed by their choice of friends. There are too many people who would be content to sit in the ruins of a once-great civilization if only they could say "Yeah, I know, it's a new Dark Age, but at least I never voted for anything French, called 'public', or endorsed by Al Gore."
What's standing in the way of California and BosWash high-speed rail isn't lack of subsidies going to Amtrak, it's that the funds are all being sucked up by congressional districts where rail simply isn't viable. What's needed is to stop unprofitable routes sucking money away from those which are profitable and merit investment. Cutting Amtrak off from congressional funds/influence is the best way to do this.
What's standing in the way of California and BosWash high-speed rail isn't lack of subsidies going to Amtrak, it's that the funds are all being sucked up by congressional districts where rail simply isn't viable. This assumes there is some fixed pool of money that can be used on Amtrak, and if it's spent on outlying districts, there's nothing left elsewhere. The amount of money spent supporting little-traveled congressional districts is so small that any initiative to built out high speed rail infrastructure wouldn't be affected by the continuance of these subsidies, wasteful as they are. There are too many people who would be content to sit in the ruins of a once-great civilization if only they could say "Yeah, I know, it's a new Dark Age, but at least I never voted for anything French, called 'public', or endorsed by Al Gore." No kidding. It's one reason why, on balance, my lifestyle might be better supported elsewhere. The USA is great if you want to open a small, low-wage-employee business or live in a rural area with lots of land for cheap. For those in the tech industry, the venture capital market is much better here, also. Then the tradeoff of private wealth/public squalor is worth it. On the other hand, if you're a professional without large amounts of wealth but with some amount of mobility, you might find that access to good schools and high-quality public infrastructure may be worth it. It depends on your lifestyle preferences, of course, but a public culture driven by spite can wear on you. On the other hand, that's what Obama, for all his grating kum-bay-a stuff, is offering: a presidency and political mindset driven by something other than, "let's piss on others to show them who's boss."
Not sure how the accounts look like, but travelling around France (and much of Wester Europe) using the TGV-trains is fantastic. Never have to worry about check-in times, security lines or trafic to/from airports. And as a bonus the comfort of trains is about 10 times that of airlines. Pretty absurd. I'd say the comfort of a TGV train is comparable to that of coach class air travel. I suspect the seat width on the TGV is actually less. In any case, you could only afford to ride the TGV at all because your tickets were massively subsidized by French taxpayers. If you had to pay anything like the full cost of actually providing the service, you'd never use it.
The argument that the US is big and therefore trains won't work is absurd. You know what else is big? Europe. The vast majority of European rail services are in western and central Europe, which has a far higher population density than the United States. The U.S. has about 31 people per square kilometre. Only a handful of small European countries have similar densities. All the big European countries are far denser than the U.S. Spain has 88 people/sq km. France, 109. Italy, 192. Germany, 233. And Britain, 244. That's 8 times denser than the U.S. European cities and population centers tend to be far closer together than American ones. And unlike American cities, most major European cities were established long before the rise of motor vehicles, meaning they are much denser on average and their layouts are much more conducive to public transportation. In the U.S., only a handful of cities are dense enough to be effectively navigable without a car. Even in Europe, intercity rail is viable only with massive government subsidies, and even with those subsidies struggles to compete with airlines and private cars.
Several decades ago I took the late lamented Empire Builder from Seattle to Grand Forks. It was relaxing and pleasant, and a bit cheaper than flying. The scenery was amazing, and I could actually look at it rather than trying desperately not to become part of it, as I would if driving. (The train crossed Idaho and Montana in the daytime and North Dakota at night, a good choice.) So this summer I looked into taking a train from Corpus Christi to Las Vegas for the national bridge tournament. The route goes through Illinois. Chicago would be easy. LA would be possible. Vegas essentially involves going to Chicago or LA first. That would be OK if it were, you know, fast, but it isn't. Doesn't high speed rail have a problem with track alignment? Or has a solution been found in the decades since I last looked at the problem?
Mixner's always good for a laugh- "Unlike American cities, most European cities were established long before the rise of motor vehicles..." So, Mixner, which American city was established after the rise of motor vehicles? I'm having a hard time figuring out which American city that would be. It may be a moot point, considering that European cities were rebuilt hugely after the bombing of WW II, and since then have undergone continuous upgrading based on rational thinking about maintaining a high quality of life without having to go to war for oil. Maybe Mixner is referring to the changes in American cities that have accompanied massive government spending on roads- spending made possible by property tax levies and the federal income tax. Of course, in the heyday of the freeway builders they also used eminent domain to crush viable neighborhoods and seize property at far below market value, but we know now that would be wrong. The US enjoyed a brief period when oil was cheap, the dollar was strong, and we were the undamaged winner in WW II. It's over. Is we learning yet?
Yep, the Midwest is nearly ideal for high speed rail, and similar routes in Europe have taken large market shares from the alternatives. By the way, densities per se are a pretty much useless measure for these purposes--you need to use weighted densities. Moreover, doing that on a national level makes no sense unless you are talking about a national high speed network (which hopefully no one is doing, because that would indeed be a bad idea). And if you have ever looked at a population density map of the U.S., you know it isn't close to being uniform across the country. In fact, although it is correct that the U.S. overall has about 31 people per km2, there are 10 states (plus DC) over 100/km2, and another 7 states over 60/km2 (including states like California and Michigan, which would be higher up if the less dense parts (e.g., desert and UP respectively) were not included). And not surprisingly, many of the most populous states are on this list (and again that isn't including the denser parts of Texas, which if separated from the sparse parts of Texas would also qualify). In fact, we can do a little crude weighted density analysis using this data. If my math is right, about 88 million people live in those ten states (plus DC) with a density over 100/km2. Another 84 million live in those seven states between 60/ and 100/km2. So, yes, a nationwide high speed rail network makes little sense. But regional high speed rail in the dense parts of the United States is an entirely different matter.
DTM- I don't think weighted densities are going to help either. They are probably helpful for looking at city-local densities, but not necessarily regional densities. I don't think these kind of 'averages' make much sense when you are talking about regional rail networks. The best thing to do is just to take the region your are looking at, figure out its size, or at least the length of rail you are contemplating adding, and then consider it's population. The distribution and shape of a region are important in subtle ways. Obviously, CA deserts do not count against transportation usage there, but the fact that the populated area of the state is a long skinny corridor makes it simple to just ask: does it make sense to have X people on a 400 mile rail track (or something). In the east, the regional density of New England, the midwest or Easter seaboard are the relevant regions. The difference is that city local transportation networks are replacing cars with train+walking. These regional networks are replacing cars or flying with train+rental (or local transit).
On the one hand, we generally agree that Americans don't have the technical ability or social skills to attempt more than regional high speed rail, and that's a big maybe. Yes, supposedly we can roam the world with nuclear subs and aircraft carriers, menacing everyone with a 30-second launch capability to vaporize the recalcitrant, but building a railroad would be really hard- people could get hurt! Still, doesn't it seem obvious that, at some point in the future, the US will be crossed by really high-speed rail lines? Granted, nobody thinks any more that the US could be a leader in adopting new technology. You get a situation where 1% of the people own 50% of everything, and by definition you have major resistance to change, a calcified and inbred elite readier to perish in a revolution than to open their hand and leave some jelly beans in the jar. Maybe it's just because I've already seen the "freeways" become something so totally not what we thought they would be, that to me a jetliner looks as antique as the Wright Brothers plane. People still jet from city to city to discuss important things like the shape of the next iPhone? Gee, I wonder if they'd do that if they didn't have an expense account. Seems to me that, not really that far off, you will cross the country in one of two ways- by high speed train, or in a ballistic trajectory, in an "airliner" shot from a large electro-magnetic gun. You can probably guess how I would travel.
Density, rail. Density, rail. Density, rail.
DTM, Yep, the Midwest is nearly ideal for high speed rail, Yet another bold assertion without any supporting facts or data. How would the cost per passenger-mile of HSR in the midwest compare with the cost of air and highway alternatives? What percentage of that cost would need to be subsidized by taxpayers rather than funded through ticket sales? The economic and political viability of HSR in the midwest depends crucially on the answers to those questions, among others. In fact, given that HSR, even with massive subsidies, is barely competitive against air and road alternatives between DC, NYC and Boston, it seems rather unlikely that it could be made to work in the midwest. Serial catowner regularly makes comments calling for a national high speed rail network. He just did it again. In fact, hilariously, he thinks it's "obvious" ("Still, doesn't it seem obvious that, at some point in the future, the US will be crossed by really high-speed rail lines?") eric k also appears to want a national HSR network, and thinks it's "absurd" to argue that the U.S. is too big to support one.
mpowell, I agree what you really need are full-blown route studies. That said, indirectly weighted densities capture some of what you would be looking at in such high speed rail studies (e.g., a notable question is whether you can serve a lot of travellers with a limited number of stops, since stops are an impediment to speed, and weighted densities can help give you a better sense of whether the people in the relevant area are clustered or dispersed). serial catowner, What makes you think high speed trains capable of safe and efficient operational speeds of about 900 kmh are "not really that far off"? Because that is how fast they would have to be to compete effectively with jetliners on longer routes. And there are lots of reasons to believe it will be quite difficult to develop vehicles that can move that fast along the ground safely (that last word being key).
Mixner, Nothing has changed since the last time I explained why I am not going to have these conversations with you. But in case anyone else is interested, here is a relatively recent cost-benefit study on Midwest high speed rail: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/state/docs/mwrri-economic.pdf
Mixner, I want to know what coach airplanes you ride on that have bigger seats and more leg room than trains:-)
Just remember Washington's plan for a four hundred million dollar bridge to nowhere. That wasn't big faceless "Washington's" plan, that was longtime Alaska Republican Senator Ted Stevens' $400,000,000 bridge to nowhere. Specifically, it was a $400,000,000 bridge, almost as long as the Golden Gate Bridge and taller than the Brooklyn Bridge, to save the people of Ketchikan (pop. 7,410) from having to use a ferry ($5.00, runs every 15 minutes during the summer) to get to their airport.
Milwaukee *is* connected to Chicago (and the Twin Cities) via Amtrak, albeit not exactly high-speed. But Madison? Not at all. If I want to get to Chicago, I can take a 4-hour bus (2.5 hours to drive), or I can drive north 30 minutes to Columbus to take the train south. And forget about trying to get to Mpls w/o driving or flying--unless, again, I drive to Columbus. Yes, high-speed rail btwn large metro areas is a good thing, but let's not forget those smaller (but growing) cities that were barely a speck worth mentioning when the rail system was laid out.
eric k actually gets it: the point is not to force people onto trains, but to provide people with time- and cost-competitive choices. (And yes, that includes the public cost of such choices.) Take together the social/environmental costs and the vast sums lost by public and private entities on behalf of cars and airlines, and their accounts look a lot worse. And already, many people are using the existing choices. Twice as many people take the train from Milwaukee to Chicago as fly the distance; train ridership between Chicago-St. Louis nearly doubled in 2007. The distances aren't nearly as vast as people assume, either. Metro Chicago is about the size of metro Paris, metro Milwaukee about the size of metro Lyon -- and yet the French cities (linked by the first TGV line, which consistently runs operational profits) are much further apart (about 250 mi.) than Chicago-Milwaukee (90 mi.). 250 mi. gets you from Chicago to St. Louis or Detroit, in fact, both of which are much bigger than Lyon. Paris-Marseille is nearly 500 miles, further than Chicago-Minneapolis (400 mi.).
DTM, Nothing has changed since the last time I explained why I am not going to have these conversations with you. In other words, you have absolutely no information on costs or subsidies to support your claim that "the Midwest is nearly ideal for high speed rail." You can't even make a case that it would be any more viable than the current Acela service between DC, NYC and Boston, which requires huge subsidies and is still barely competitive with air and road. But in case anyone else is interested, here is a relatively recent cost-benefit study on Midwest high speed rail: It's not a high-speed rail study. It's a study of expanded conventional rail. Practically the first thing the study says is that it assumes 80% of the funding will come from the federal government. It provides no passenger-mile cost or subsidy comparisons with air or road alternatives, and no overall cost-benefit comparisons with alternative transportation modes.
Yes, that was a random comment based on what appears to me to be the final outcome in the not-as-distant-as-it-used-to-be future. (As usual, Mixner is wrong, I do not "regularly" advocate a national HSR system, and I'm not doing it here, just describing what seems to be the obvious future.) Who believed, in 1920, that the passenger train would vanish from the landscape, and that millions of people each year would cross the US in a few hours? Crazy people, that's who. Certainly not the experts, who didn't figure out for another 25 years that sweeping the wings might make a big difference. I'm just making a reasonable guess that, if Maglev trains go 250 mph now, they might reasonably go 400 mph in the future, and that ten hours is not an unreasonable travel time from NYC to LA, especially if you can enjoy good views from a good diner car, and other on-board amenities. With sleeper cars it would be a good night's sleep, compared with today's ten hours spent on check-in, delays, hub cities etc etc. I won't dispute that other countries may well do it first. Expecting the US to innovate at this point is about as likely as expecting the Spanish Empire to take a big lead developing steam power in the year 1800. Still, stranger things have happened- nobody expected us to take a big lead in developing steam power in 1800 either.
That wasn't big faceless "Washington's" plan, that was longtime Alaska Republican Senator Ted Stevens' $400,000,000 bridge to nowhere. Specifically, it was a $400,000,000 bridge, almost as long as the Golden Gate Bridge and taller than the Brooklyn Bridge, to save the people of Ketchikan (pop. 7,410) from having to use a ferry ($5.00, runs every 15 minutes during the summer) to get to their airport. And you seriously think federal spending on intercity rail projects isn't subject to the same kind of pork-barrel politics? Here are the most recent data on federal subsidies for various modes of passenger transportation: Net Federal Subsidies per Thousand Passenger-Miles by Mode: Highway: -$1.00 Anyone care to explain why they think it makes sense for the government to subsidize rail passengers by $210 for every $6 in subsidies to airline passengers? As shown above, the highway "subsidy" is actually negative. Far from subsidizing highway users, the federal government actually makes a profit from them.
As shown above, the highway "subsidy" is actually negative. Far from subsidizing highway users, the federal government actually makes a profit from them. Mixner: You're not seriously asserting that the true cost of the automobile infrastructure system are explicitly paid for, are you? If you add in the costs of climate change, pollution, traffic delays, environmental degradation (exacerbated by the sprawl made possible by the automobile), highway deaths and medical costs (automobile travel is far more deadly than other transport modes), labor market rigidities, household financial pain and debt, urban decay, and various other things that make us poorer, surely the American nation is not currently benefiting financially from its high degree of dependence on cars.
People always throw out density numbers. The 'acela' states are [on average] denser than France. This includes upstate NY, this includes rural pennsylvania, this includes western Mass. Still denser than France. Specifically 420 people/ square mile. France is 295 people/ sq mile. Put all of New England, and Virginia in there: 325. Still denser than France. All my number are from a census bureau spreadsheet, regional numbers come from adding states up. East of the mississippi: the density is 210/ sq mile. 70% as dense as France. Can't we have (East of the Mississippi) trains that are 2/3rds as good as France?
Discusion with mIxner is poitnless, but for anyone else reading: No I'm not saying we need a nationwide rail system. I'm saying that the US can be viewed as a series of regions that are roughly akin to Germany within Europe just to use one example. What I porpose is a series of regional rail networks linked by airports. For example the Vancouver BC - Salem, OR. You'd have regional rail connecting them with robust local Light Rail for each metro area. There'd be a similar Netwrok in the upper midwest. You'd fly from Seattle to Chicago and use the regional rail system once you are there. Today if I fly form Seattle to Dayton I fly to Cleveland and then connect to Dayton, I probably lay over in Cleveland longer than the flight. Under a air/rail network I'd fly to Cleveland and take the train to Dayton.
Highway: -$1.00 Its worth noting that, using data from California, the price of asphalt in 2001 fluctuated between $96-$146 a ton. This year the price started off at $287 a ton and is now hovering around $645 a ton. So the table you are citing really isn't relevant today. Highway maintenance costs go up and down with the price of oil, just like gasoline does. Here's California's chart just for this year. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/asphalt_index/astable.html There are more ancillary costs that are also determined by the price of oil that don't factor in here. The 800 pound gorillas are the war and the environment, but other things like transporting the workers and the tons of asphalt will up the ante as well. Nobody's arguing that rail funding isn't a pork-laden mess. I think everybody agrees on that. It just seems that, going forward, it makes more sense to reform and fund the rail system a bit more than it does to fund the highways AND airways lest a significant number of people lose their ability to get from one place to another. What's the economic cost of having people of strained means who can get around now, albeit painfully, not be able to get around down the line? I don't think anyone can answer that. Its not good news.
Mixner -- let's not forget that states heavily tax gas & fund roads/hwys as well. "Fuel taxes in the United States vary by state. For the first quarter of 2008, the average state gasoline tax is 28.6 cents per gallon, plus 18.4 cents per gallon federal tax making the total 47 cents per gallon (12.4 cents/L)."
Jasper, Mixner: You're not seriously asserting that the true cost of the automobile infrastructure system are explicitly paid for, are you? If you add in the costs of climate change, pollution, traffic delays, environmental degradation (exacerbated by the sprawl made possible by the automobile), highway deaths and medical costs (automobile travel is far more deadly than other transport modes), labor market rigidities, household financial pain and debt, urban decay, and various other things that make us poorer, surely the American nation is not currently benefiting financially from its high degree of dependence on cars. Er, railroads also cause climate change, pollution, and environmental degradation. Do please give me your data on differences in pollution per passenger-mile between highways and railroads that justifies a railroad subsidy of $210 per thousand passenger miles and a highway profit of $1 per thousand passenger miles. Differences in accident costs are reflected in differences in insurance costs. I have no idea what basis you think you have for attributing greater per passenger-mile costs for "labor market rigidities, household financial pain and debt, [and] urban decay" to highways than to railroads. In fact, I would be interested to know how you propose to quantify these alleged costs for either mode of transportation, even roughly. It seems especially bizarre to assert that "household financial pain and debt" is an externality at all, as if households would be incapable of deciding for themselves whether it makes financial sense for them to take the train or the highway.
Mixner -- let's not forget that states heavily tax gas & fund roads/hwys as well. But the subsidy in question here is the federal subsidy. If you travel a thousand miles by rail, the federal government gives you a whopping $210 in subsidies. If you travel the same distance by plane, the feds subsidize you by only $6. And if you travel the same distance by highway, the feds actually charge you an extra $1 on top of whatever you pay yourself. How are these vastly different levels of subsidy remotely justified rationally? How can transportation demand be remotely consistent with Americans' true preferences for different forms of travel when the government gives people such a huge economic incentive to choose rail over air and highway?
The 'acela' states are [on average] denser than France. Yes, the Acela runs through three of the densest states in the country, between three of the densest, most transit-oriented cities in the country, and still is barely able to compete with air and road alternatives even with huge subsidies. If high-speed rail requires huge subsidies to be barely competitive in the densest corridor in the nation, it's unlikely to be remotely viable anywhere else in America.
Subsidies per Thousand Passenger-Miles by Mode This is why we need to jettison the congressman-special routes (and dumb security grants). People that think trains are for europeans, poor people, retirees, and the golden age of cinema love to throw money at Amtrak for routes through the old west that no one wants to ride and "9/11" security procedures that non-flying objects do not require. It's a great cash-spending party until they or others come back foaming at the mouth demanding why so much money total has been spent on so little travel. Our national numbers reflect incompetent (vs. France, Germany, Japan...) government railroad meddling and don't say a thing about the viability of rail in general, least of all inter-city regional. And that's leaving out the fact that the calculation is itself illegitimate, dividing federal funding by all miles traveled including roads and infrastructure built and maintained by other levels of government. May as well divide by your favorite color.
I had to travel from Midtown Manhattan (52nd&1st) to Shelton CT. There's train service to Shelton (about 2x in the AM at inconvenient times). Bridgeport gets many more trains. But wait! The cost of the 8 -mile cab ride to Shelton. ($22!) The roundtrip cab fare is almost twice the train fare. Before we spend an enormous amount of money building new dedicated RoW between St. Louis and KC think about how easy/difficult it will be for the passenger to get to his final destination in Clayton or Overland Park. Before we obsess on European-style hi-speed rail, let's work on European-style local transit. BTW I was in Shelton working on a new technology to cut down emissions and oil consumption for diesel buses. So I am down with the transit message.
Mixner conspicuously fails to note that the NE Corridor for Amtrak is profitable. He also fails to note that only air travel from Boston to Washington is effective. Air travel between those cities and New York is a choice whose worth is only under special circumstances superior when compared to the alternatives. If the Boston-Washington corridor had effective, true high-speed rail, then air travel between Boston and Washington would be a similarly ambiguous proposition. Air travel between Boston and Washington is only the most effective option as long as there is no high speed rail option. It requires a stubborn and mindless anger at the possibility of laying high speed passenger rail tracks along the northeast corridor to claim that air travel is a good option along that route.
Tyro, Mixner conspicuously fails to note that the NE Corridor for Amtrak is profitable. Tyro conspicuously fails to note that it is "profitable" only if you ignore the huge capital costs--buying the locomotives and passenger cars, building the track, power lines, etc. He might like to pretend that these costs don't matter, but they do. It's a bit like saying that an airline is "profitable" as long as fares cover only operating costs, as if the planes themselves and all airport facilities were free. He also fails to note that only air travel from Boston to Washington is effective. Air travel between those cities and New York is a choice whose worth is only under special circumstances superior when compared to the alternatives. You really are just an endless source of falsehoods. New York-Washington and New York-Boston are among the busiest air routes in the country. As someone pointed out in response to Matthew's BoltBus post, for the privilege of shaving an hour and 10 minutes off a 4-hour bus ride, you'll pay between 6 and 10 times as much to travel by Acela. It's no wonder 80% of Acela riders are business travelers. And that's with Acela's huge subsidies. If Acela riders actually had to pay anything close to the cost of providing the service, ticket prices would be dramatically higher still. It requires a stubborn and mindless anger at the possibility of laying high speed passenger rail tracks along the northeast corridor to claim that air travel is a good option along that route. It requires a stubborn and mindless ignorance, not to mention a wanton disregard for truth and honesty, to continually present guesses and hopes as if they are facts.
You really are just an endless source of falsehoods. New York-Washington and New York-Boston are among the busiest air routes in the country. True. The train route and the bus route and the auto route along those same corridors are also among the busiest in the country. Why? Because flying over those routes are not always the best options. Were my statement, "Air travel between those cities and New York is a choice whose worth is only under special circumstances superior when compared to the alternatives," not true, then you would not have the alternatives along those corridors find such popularity. In addition, those air routes along that corridor are well-represented among the most-delayed (a particular problem compared to other routes because delays on such short-haul flights make it much less worthwhile to fly on). What is fascinating is not only that we have a commenter who specializes in obsessing over why there shouldn't be more public investment in intercity rail, but how impervious he is to thinking about the issue.
Tyro, True. The train route and the bus route and the auto route along those same corridors are also among the busiest in the country. Why? Because flying over those routes are not always the best options. Sorry, you're not allowed to move the goalposts. You didn't claim merely that flying over those routes is "not always the best option." Of course it's not always the best option. Your absurd claim was that "only air travel from Boston to Washington is effective" and that the other routes are superior alternatives only under "special circumstances." Your claim is just a joke. NYC-DC is the sixth busiest air route in the country. In addition, those air routes along that corridor are well-represented among the most-delayed So what? That shows just how much value people attach to flying. It's an argument against your position, not for it. The fact that the routes are so popular despite having frequent delays demonstrates how advantageous flying is in other ways that people value. The train route and the bus route and the auto route along those same corridors are also among the busiest in the country. Yet another argument against the viability of high-speed rail anywhere else in the country. If HSR is barely competitive along the most-travelled corridor in the country, it is unlikely to be remotely competitive anywhere else. And, of course, it's not actually competitive in any meaningful sense of the word even on the Boston-DC corridor, because it requires the government to subsidize its entire capital costs just to bring in enough ticket sales revenue to cover operating costs.
High speed rail makes an immense amount of sense. Remember that a 4 hour train ride is equivalent to a 2 hour flight, because you don't need to get their early to deal with security and check-in, and they're very rarely delayed for weather. Plus, you don't need to travel between the central city and an airport located 20 miles away, you just go downtown to downtown. I was on a flight from New York to Washington two weeks ago that was delayed 2 hours. It took about 45 minutes from Midtown to LGA, which I arrived at 30 minutes before scheduled departure. Then the two hour delay, and an hour or so flight, then waiting for a cab at the airport and traffic into Georgetown. All in, it took way longer than the Acela. And the Acela isn't even top notch high speed rail by European, Japanese or soon to be mainland Asian standards.
Moving the goalposts, silly glibertarian boy? That's your job in these threads. But please, keep arguing why the existence of three-legged donkeys means no horse can ever outrun a man.
By the way, the Northeast Corridor is not actually ideal for BUILDING true high speed rail, which is part of why it doesn't yet have true high speed rail (Acela not really counting, particularly in its current form). The basic problem is that the Northeast Corridor is actually too dense between the major city centers, which means the land needed for true high speed rail is going to be very expensive. In contrast, if we did build out true HSR in the Northeast Corridor, it would then easily have the highest surplus over operating costs of any potential HSR in the United States.
DTM, In contrast, if we did build out true HSR in the Northeast Corridor, it would then easily have the highest surplus over operating costs of any potential HSR in the United States. More speculation presented as fact. Of course, "surplus over operating cost" is not a meaningful measure of competitiveness, anyway. It's like pretending you can measure the competitiveness of an airline by ignoring the costs of aircraft and airports. The true measure of competitiveness would be surplus over total cost. Since the cost of building the new track for a "true" HSR would be enormous, a "true" HSR in the Northeast Corridor is not likely to be competitive with airlines and buses, either.
DTM is right about that, but then rail travel in Acelaland is already pretty good. The Midwest and California are great places to start a HSR initiative because available land is fairly cheap outside urban cores (desert and farmland) and the terrain is flat for the most part. Part of the challenge of establishing regional rail systems are cities that are economically significant, but are outside an easily identifiable regional corridor like Kansas City and Chattanoga. Fine cities with awesome potential and struggling neighbors. In cases like these connectivity makes sense but an immediate return on investment cannot be expected. HSR is a loss leader in these places. A hard sell.
Mixner, How many times do I have to say this? I'm not going to engage you in these conversations since you lack a basic understanding of relevant concepts.
DTM is right about that, but then rail travel in Acelaland is already pretty good. The Midwest and California are great places to start a HSR initiative because available land is fairly cheap outside urban cores (desert and farmland) and the terrain is flat for the most part. Part of the challenge of establishing regional rail systems are cities that are economically significant, but are outside an easily identifiable regional corridor like Kansas City and Chattanoga. Fine cities with awesome potential and struggling neighbors. In cases like these connectivity makes sense but an immediate return on investment cannot be expected. HSR is a loss leader in these places. A hard sell.
How many times do I have to say this? You can say it as many times as you like. It's not going to stop me from rebutting your false and misleading claims and specious arguments. If you don't want to respond, then don't. You don't have to keep telling me you're not going to respond. I got that the first time you said it.
roboticghost, It is true that even at current speeds, Acela is fairly competitive on the shorter routes, but something like the entire Boston-Washington run is taking too much time. And I think the lack of true HSR in the Northeast Corridor will really becomes an issue if and when a Midwest network is built, because it will likely make sense to eventually link up that network to the Northeast Corridor, but then a relatively slow Northeast Corridor could become a serious liability (particularly since the crossing from Pittsburgh to Philly is likely to be a bit of a time drag anyway).
The point of my density post is that the Acela states are substantially denser than France. Yet we are stuck with a sub 100 mph train (sure there are stretches that go faster, but on average noticeably slower). One 450 mile route that average 70 miles an hour. East of the mississippi this is a rather dense country; Density is something people like Mixner throw out. Despite being fake HSR, its still faster than flying (DC to Newark especially). Even an airline (continental) thinks that people should come from Philly to Newark by train. Prices are high because the demand is there for Acela. Maybe HSR won't work in this country. But crumbling bridges, 135 dollar oil, airline bankruptcy, the TSA, and gridlock show that the current transportation model isn't that great.
Mixner, To prevent similar confusions in the future, if you aren't directing your posts to the attention of a particular person, you might want to avoid addressing those posts to that person.
DTM, I wasn't directing it to you in particular (unlike this post). I was identifying you as the author of the quoted text.
Kiran, The point of my density post is that the Acela states are substantially denser than France. Yet we are stuck with a sub 100 mph train (sure there are stretches that go faster, but on average noticeably slower). One 450 mile route that average 70 miles an hour. Because even in that dense region, a faster train wouldn't make sense. If France wants to throw away billions of dollars of taxpayer money on a transportation system that isn't remotely justified by its benefits, that's its business. We don't have to make the same mistake here. Despite being fake HSR, its still faster than flying (DC to Newark especially). Whether that's true would depend on all sorts of variables. Prices are high because the demand is there for Acela. No, prices are high because there are limits to even Amtrak's obscenely high subsidies. If the costs of the trains and the tracks were also reflected in ticket prices, they would be astronomical. No one would use the system.
Mixner, Again, to prevent similar confusions in the future you may want to avoid placing a poster's name alone in the first line of your post followed by a comma, if in fact all you are intending to do is identify them as an author of a quote.
DTM, DTM: DTM writes, you may want to... Well, no, actually. I don't want to. (thought I'd include a variety of forms of identifucation in this one).
DTM wrote: Despite being fake HSR, its still faster than flying (DC to Newark especially). Mixner wrote : Whether that's true would depend on all sorts of variables. Mixner, I lived very close to both Newark International Airport and Penn. Station Newark. Cab ride to either was the same give or take a few minutes. I traveled to Philadelphia frequently. NJT and Septa local trains would get me there faster than any airline. Faster than any bus. Cheaper too. If speed was important, the fastest way to get to Metro Philadelphia from Metro Newark was on a Clocker or one of the other Amtrak trains, mostly because they made so few stops. Newark to D.C. was a no brainer, every time I checked my options. Fastest way was on Amtrak. I never took the Acela because Acela only saves 15 minutes between NYC and DC. True I was going to downtown DC but even to places like Carrollton, Amtrak was faster. Now that I live in the Adirondacks the train is only marginally slower than flying. I don't have to drive to Albany, I don't have to park the car 30 minutes away from the terminal, I don't have to go through security, I don't have to get from one of DC's airports into downtown. As an added bonus I get to have a leisurely lunch in a real restaurant in Penn. Station NY instead of a bag of peanuts on the leg from Albany to a hub and a bag of peanuts from the hub to DC. Once they finish the upgrades between Albany and Croton Harmon the train will be faster. Mixner, you also said "NYC-DC is the sixth busiest air route in the country." It's filled with people going from cities served by the hub airports in DC and NYC. For instance people going from DC to Hartford. Or Richmond to NYC. Or Albany to Pittsburgh. While it may be busy it's not filled with people from those two metro areas traveling between the two. Amtrak is faster, even the bus is faster if you are going downtown to downtown.
Mixner, Since apparently you do know how to distinguish a salutation from a quotation, I can now safely conclude you were just lying previously about your intent.
Adirondacker, Individual experiences are not a reliable guide to general patterns. Intercity rail routes generally terminate in or close to city centers. Most Americans do not live in city centers. Most Americans do not work in city centers. They live and work on the edges of cities or in suburbs. The average transfer time between homes/workplaces and central train stations may well exceed the average transfer time to airports. If you're travelling into or out of the city at rush hour, you're also contributing to congestion. If you're travelling by car, parking may also be an issue (city center parking tends to be expensive and in short supply). These are some of the reasons for doubting that average total travel times would be lower by rail than by air even for routes in the "sweet spot" for high-speed rail. You're right that some of the air traffic into NYC (not so much DC) is transfer passengers. But that fact again highlights the benefits of air travel. We already have an integrated national air route system, and if you're travelling between DC and NYC or Boston and NYC in order to connect to a flight to a different destination, it wouldn't make sense to use HSR instead even if the train were faster.
Comments closed July 01, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
It's nice, too, to see the intercity rail vision expanded to beyond the Bos-Wash corridor.
Posted by Jasper | June 17, 2008 11:32 AM