Taking the Train

Via Ryan Avent, it seems that train ridership is way up: "Amtrak set records in May, both for the number of passengers it carried and for ticket revenues — all the more remarkable because May is not usually a strong travel month." Nevertheless, "the railroad, and its suppliers, have shrunk so much, largely because of financial constraints, that they would have difficulty growing quickly to meet the demand."

We could, however, expand train service at a medium pace to meet the demand were we so inclined. It's also worth noting a few things about the state of passenger rail in the United States. One is that outside the northeast corridor the general quality of service is pretty poor. The other is that outside the northeast corridor most of the focus is perversely on long-distance routes rather than on the short routes where the demand is. And last, on the northeast corridor where a decent train runs on a reasonable route the supply is so limited that the fares are absurdly high.

Nevertheless, ridership is growing. If we were to invest money in expanding capacity on the Acela corridor, and servicing the shorter inter-city trips (Miami-Tampa, Chicago-Milwaukee rather than NY-New Orleans) for which rail is well-suited, then we'd really be getting somewhere. This is to say nothing of adopting Barack Obama's goal of actually having the fastest trains in the world.

Photo by Flickr user red arrow used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Kinda unsurprising in light of the rapid contraction of the airline industry. Unfortunately the adjustment period is going to be painful, but eventually we will in fact have suitable intercity train service where it makes sense--and probably sooner rather than later as people realize the airplanes are not coming back.

Posted by DTM | June 23, 2008 5:28 PM

Interesting stuff. But before Mixner comes and mucks it all up, with Amtrak ticket revenues up does this mean it won't need as much in the way of subsidies? It seems like it would be easy for a train to boost capacity, like adding extra cars and whatnot.

Posted by freddiemac | June 23, 2008 5:32 PM

i definitely think we should do more in terms of improving every area of amtrak (more routes, more cars, better movies). having recently taken the train from seattle-portland, for what i considered a good deal ($60 round-trip), i was heartened to see that the train was relatively full and made it to my destination on schedule, which was the same cost in both time and money as it would have been to drive, but with the benefit of not having to drive. i definitely think that the emphasis should be on a regional approach, in this example, making it faster, cheaper, and more frequent options to get from seattle to portland. this could work in certain hubs like the northwest, southern california, texas, florida, etc etc. it's interesting, at the national level, that there is an emphasis on making gas cheaper, but not necessarily on making transportation cheaper.

Posted by alex | June 23, 2008 5:43 PM

Outside the northeast Amtrak seems to be pretty much pork. The trains are routinely many hours late, and in my experience (some of it not recent - maybe it has improved) it has a very third world feel, with stations opening and closing when the folks there feel like it.
This (plus the crazy route selection Matt points out) indicates bad management, or at least management focused on one train through every congressional district rather than trains people really want to use. Once we get our first MBA president out of the way a management shakeup might result in some relatively fast improvements.

Posted by peter | June 23, 2008 5:43 PM

In addition the the rail links you mention above, don't forget about the proposed high-speed rail line between SF and LA. It looks like a bond measure for the project is finally going to make it on the fall ballot in CA. I look forward to riding it if the project can ever get off the ground.

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/

Posted by jrc | June 23, 2008 5:44 PM

In addition the the rail links you mention above, don't forget about the proposed high-speed rail line between SF and LA. It looks like a bond measure for the project is finally going to make it on the fall ballot in CA. I look forward to riding it if the project can ever get off the ground.

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/

Posted by jrc | June 23, 2008 5:45 PM

Amtrak already services the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor, even stopping at Milwaukee airport. It's a lovely ride and, clocking at just over 90 minutes, at least as fast as driving. Considering the frequent delays from roadwork/Six Flags/you-name-it, it often may be faster than taking the car. Fare's $42 round-trip.

Posted by Judy | June 23, 2008 5:52 PM

"This (plus the crazy route selection Matt points out) indicates bad management, or at least management focused on one train through every congressional district rather than trains people really want to use."

It has nothing to do with management and everything to do with the US Senate. The political price of any service at all in the Northeast is the maintenance of ridiculous routes through the mountain west.

Posted by Bloix | June 23, 2008 5:54 PM

Amtrak already services the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor, even stopping at Milwaukee airport. It's a lovely ride and, clocking at just over 90 minutes, at least as fast as driving. Considering the frequent delays from roadwork/Six Flags/you-name-it, it often may be faster than taking the car. Fare's $42 round-trip.

Posted by Judy | June 23, 2008 5:55 PM

with Amtrak ticket revenues up does this mean it won't need as much in the way of subsidies?

Eventually. The more immediate metric to watch is the efficiency of the subsidies. For 60 years we've had a rail system just to have a rail system in most parts of the country. Car culture and cheap plane tickets obviated practical train travel outside the NE corridor. Its a comfy, safe way to travel, but not as convenient as hopping in a car or on a plane. So just to keep it afloat meant heavy subsidies. As more and more people are priced out of air travel, ridership can increase and improve efficiency in re the per rider subsidy. The total cost of subsidies will not go down as more people ride, but the overall efficiency of money spent will improve. There should be a tipping point where ancillary benefits (environmental, reduction in road maintenance, not building more airports, improvements in service) will offset the subsidies in meaningful ways to the taxpayer.

But that's a long way off. In order to realize a higher level of efficiency, a lot of infrastructure building has to take place. We need to build a lot of trains. Fortunate point: There are a lot of folks in Detroit staring glumly at closed factories that could be converted into train building factories. Unfortunate point: its going to be expensive and we should have started years ago like everybody else on the planet.

Posted by RoboticGhost | June 23, 2008 5:55 PM

In the 60's the railroads has the passenger equipment to add trains when needed. That capacity is gone. Amtrak does not have that many additional cars to increase the number of trains with any ease. More can be built of course, but that is what would be necessary. I suspect Amtrak cannot do much beyond the NE because it owns pretty much only the NE corridor. The rest is owned by the railroads. There have been plans for "high speed" (not sure how that is defined) rail lines for various parts of the country. For example Washington to Charlotte (or as far as Atlanta). These have never gone anywhere. They might now, but most of these rails are already heavily used, so resolution would not be easy.

Posted by Pierre de Fermat | June 23, 2008 5:55 PM

Being that I HATE flying, and have for some time, I once rode Amtrak from Chicago to San Francisco to visit my grandparents. It was a great three days - incredibly relaxing, and the scenery was breathtaking. Additionally, I met a lot of train enthusiasts on that trip, who liked to take long trips on Amtrak for precisely those reasons.

I think a lot of the reason Amtrak is so focused on the long trips are for those riders, who, in the days of cheap quality airfare were the only folks who could be counted upon to ride Amtrak. And those people's demands aren't compatible with short trips on the fastest trains in the world.

Which isn't to say that we shouldn't do that. But it is to say that in rebuilding our rail infrastructure, it'd be a shame if we completely removed long-distance slow rail.

Posted by DJAnyReason | June 23, 2008 5:56 PM

In the 60's the railroads has the passenger equipment to add trains when needed. That capacity is gone. Amtrak does not have that many additional cars to increase the number of trains with any ease. More can be built of course, but that is what would be necessary. I suspect Amtrak cannot do much beyond the NE because it owns pretty much only the NE corridor. The rest is owned by the railroads. There have been plans for "high speed" (not sure how that is defined) rail lines for various parts of the country. For example Washington to Charlotte (or as far as Atlanta). These have never gone anywhere. They might now, but most of these rails are already heavily used, so resolution would not be easy.

Posted by Pierre de Fermat | June 23, 2008 5:58 PM

It might be worth noting that some of the reasons why train travel is so much more pleasant than air travel would probably go away if and when rail becomes much more popular. I'm thinking here of seat comfort (and the likelihood that you can snag an extra seat) and the ease of boarding without onerous security checks, for instance.

Posted by Cliffy | June 23, 2008 6:18 PM

with Amtrak ticket revenues up does this mean it won't need as much in the way of subsidies?

By way of illustration, let me just point out that the New York City MTA announced today that it would be running a larger-than-expected deficit due to increased ridership. That is, because more people are taking the subway to work in New York instead of driving in and paying (high) bridge tolls, overall revenue is down (and subway fares, they proposed, should be increased to make up the shortfall.)

I'm not sure what mass-transit conclusion to draw from this (or to dismiss it as another of the MTA's frequent funding-sob-stories.)

Posted by James Gary | June 23, 2008 6:20 PM

James Gary,

Not sure what to make of the MTA, but out in Chicago the CTA is running into similar problems. This is due to more people riding on the CTA but taking the bus rather than the train. Prices for electricity are fairly static, whereas prices for diesel have been shooting up and the buses run on the latter (as you are I'm sure well aware). So my point is that the situation with the MTA might not be analogous to Amtrak despite the inherent similarities. Though it might be the case since Amtrak trains probably run on diesel too. I guess I am trying to run through the logic mentally and don't really know what to make of it.

Posted by freddiemac | June 23, 2008 6:33 PM

I'm thinking here of seat comfort (and the likelihood that you can snag an extra seat) and the ease of boarding without onerous security checks, for instance.

In Europe, seat comfort is much lower, but that's largely because of the bizarre European fascination with having each row of seats face another row of seats, so as to prevent either from having any foot room. One imagines this wouldn't catch on here. I've seen no problems with security checks, though.

Posted by John | June 23, 2008 6:35 PM

Matthew,

The federal government already subsidizes Amtrak by something like $200 per thousand passenger-miles. This compares to an air travel subsidy of about $6 per thousand passenger-miles?

Why is even the current vastly disproportionate level of subsidy to Amtrak justified, let alone even more?

Posted by Mixner | June 23, 2008 6:38 PM

This (plus the crazy route selection Matt points out) indicates bad management, or at least management focused on one train through every congressional district rather than trains people really want to use.

No, it's not bad management. Or, at least, not only bad management. It's the politics of pork. In order to attract enough congressional support to keep the taxpayer money spigot flowing, Amtrak has to run trains through lots of states and congressional districts. If it stopped doing that, the free money would dry up, and it wouldn't be able to run anything. Even Acela can't pay for itself.

Posted by Mixner | June 23, 2008 6:46 PM

I still like the idea of involving the airlines in rail service. Downstate Illinois has numerous small airports where the flights often lose money in and of themselves, and are just a way of tapping into the local market for the runs that do make money, between the major cities. These are also the flights getting cut. But why couldn't American or someone have some sort of code-share agreement with Amtrak? When you add early airport arrival and layover time, passengers themselves would lose little or no time.

Posted by Brian Ulrich | June 23, 2008 6:50 PM

"Even Acela can't pay for itself."

Sources?

Posted by freddiemac | June 23, 2008 6:58 PM

The problem I've always found with Amtrak service is not that it serves too many states but that in whatever area it happens to serve, it is required to stop at every piddly little town along the way.

In a world where the economy of scale is such that there are lots of trains on a given route and some combination of local and express service, then stopping at every little piddly town probably makes sense. But stopping at Plant City, Florida on the way from Orlando to Tampa so that one little old lady can board just makes no sense at all. Even without "high-speed" rail, you could get from one major city to another in a reasonable amount of time if you didn't have to stop along the way. Thus, I propose non-stop Amtrak service from Miami to Tampa and then from Tampa to Tallahassee (sounds like a small town, but with the universities and state capitol there's a lot of travel) and then on to Atlanta.

Mixner said Even Acela can't pay for itself.

I have no doubt that this is true, but I defy anyone to point to any transportation sector that can be said to pay for itself, once all costs and subsidies are accounted for.

Posted by Rob Mac | June 23, 2008 7:01 PM

By way of illustration, let me just point out that the New York City MTA announced today that it would be running a larger-than-expected deficit due to increased ridership. That is, because more people are taking the subway to work in New York instead of driving in and paying (high) bridge tolls, overall revenue is down (and subway fares, they proposed, should be increased to make up the shortfall.) I'm not sure what mass-transit conclusion to draw from this

That expansions of mass transit are self-limiting. Local governments can barely afford the massive subsidies that even their existing transit systems require. Higher fuel costs are making this bad situation even worse. That's why they're raising ticket prices and cutting services. They simply wouldn't be able to afford a significant increase in services.

Posted by Mixner | June 23, 2008 7:02 PM

Hey -- what about the bus!! Boltbus.com is pretty awesome (wifi!)
as is MVP bus.

Posted by HR | June 23, 2008 7:05 PM

Hey -- what about the bus!! Boltbus.com is pretty awesome (wifi!)
as is MVP bus.

Posted by HR | June 23, 2008 7:06 PM

I have no doubt that this is true, but I defy anyone to point to any transportation sector that can be said to pay for itself, once all costs and subsidies are accounted for.

Amtrak receives about $200 in subsidies for every $6 in subsidies that air travel receives. Why is this justified? How can consumers make remotely rational transportation choices when the government distorts the market to such an absurd degree?

Posted by Mixner | June 23, 2008 7:09 PM

I just wish rail service was viable in Texas. I wanted to visit a friend in Houston without the hassle and expense of driving there from Dallas. There is no direct train from Dallas to Houston. You have to take a 10 1/2 hour train to San Antonio (which is only a 5 hour drive) and then a 4 1/2 hour train to Houston. It takes two days by train; it only takes 4 hours by car. Urgh.

Posted by LL | June 23, 2008 7:11 PM

Put your money where you mouth is, Matt - invest in a company willing to fund such things.

Oh, wait - you want government to do everything

Posted by James Robertson | June 23, 2008 7:13 PM

Amtrak receives about $200 in subsidies for every $6 in subsidies that air travel receives.

This statistic could use a little context. Is this an absolute figure or per passenger, per passenger mile, or what? Is the legacy cost of airport construction and maintenance included?

James Robertson, were a private company to start up offering intercity rail service, the first thing they'd do, if they're at all sensible, would be what all large companies do--seek out government subsidies.

That said, if the government were to simply build railroad terminals and grant access to rail lines to private railroad companies (this being reasonable because most rail lines in private hands were originally given away by the government in the first place) then you might actually have a viable space in which private railroad companies could operate and compete on a level playing field with other transportation sectors.

Posted by Rob Mac | June 23, 2008 7:23 PM

This statistic could use a little context. Is this an absolute figure or per passenger, per passenger mile, or what?

Per thousand passenger miles.

Is the legacy cost of airport construction and maintenance included?

What legacy cost of airport construction and maintenance?

That said, if the government were to simply build railroad terminals and grant access to rail lines to private railroad companies (this being reasonable because most rail lines in private hands were originally given away by the government in the first place) then you might actually have a viable space in which private railroad companies could operate and compete on a level playing field with other transportation sectors.

Huh? If the government funds all station and track construction and maintenance, and none of those costs are borne by the private companies operating the trains, it obviously would not be a level playing field. Unless you're also proposing to eliminate all taxes and fees the government imposes on gasoline, jet fuel, airline tickets, etc. that are used to fund road and airport construction.

Posted by Mixner | June 23, 2008 7:34 PM

It's actually useful to think of developing Rail transport in regional cluster nets, because one of the key advantages of Rail over Air, is that Rail can provide service "between" hub destinations. An air shuttle gets a passenger from Boston Logan to New York LaGuardia is pretty fast. A fast train from Boston South Station to New York Grand Station can achieve comparable or better times for a passenger travelling from business district to business district. But, the beauty part of rail, is that a fast train from Boston to New York can also improve transportation access in Connecticut. People taking the plane cannot get on or off in Hartford.

Clever rail net design can rescue a lot of ex-urban development left high and dry by high commuting costs. Fast trains between L.A., Palm Springs and San Diego could do a lot for those cities, and even more for in-between places like Temecula, which have been hit hard by the unfavorable real estate economics of high gas prices.

Really fast trains make L.A. to Las Vegas to Phoenix feasible, as well as L.A. to S.F. Kansas City to St. Louis to Chicago to Indianapolis to Detroit to Cinncinnati to Cleveland to Pittsburgh. There's a lot of "in-between" to building cluster nets of rail across eastern Texas and Arkansas and Louisiana, or around the Great Lakes rustbelt or across Upstate New York and southern New England or across the Southern highlands from Birmingham through Tennessee to Atlanta. And, that's the key to building sufficient political support.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | June 23, 2008 7:39 PM

Umm, the entire rail system was built from huge subsidies well over 100 years ago. As technology changed, rail lost the competition with other forms of transport. It's not as if this is new.

Posted by James Robertson | June 23, 2008 7:44 PM

Really fast trains make L.A. to Las Vegas to Phoenix feasible, as well as L.A. to S.F. Kansas City to St. Louis to Chicago to Indianapolis to Detroit to Cinncinnati to Cleveland to Pittsburgh.

Not at a price anyone would be willing to pay. If Acela riders had to pay anything like the true cost of actually providing the service, they'd fly or drive instead. Even with its massive subsidies, Acela is still very expensive compared to buses and discount flights, which is why most of its riders are business travelers. Apparently, liberals now favor taxing average Joes in order to subsidize train tickets for affluent businessmen.

Posted by Mixner | June 23, 2008 7:49 PM

A code-share for small cities could make sense (Lufthansa does exactly that with Deutsche Bahn on some routes out of Frankfurt), but you'd have to find a way to get Amtrak into, e.g., O Hare. Deutsche Bahn has a station in the FRA terminal to make things easy. Maybe there's a rail line close enough to ORD that a spur could be built into the terminal -- I just don't know offhand.

My understanding is Amtrak has some spare cars, but they're awaiting serious maintenance in the repair shop at Beech Grove (near Indianapolis) because of lack of funds for the necessary repairs, so to that extent meeting the new demand would require more subsidies.

Presently, Amtrak has three trains from Chicago to Detroit (continuing on to the northern Detroit burbs where I live), all timed between 5:30-6 hours (about 6 hours-6:30 from the station closest to me). Not terribly uncompetitive with cars (I could probably make the drive in 4:30-5 hours, depending on construction delays), so if I were going for a weekend in the city itself I probably would take the train, whereas if I were visiting friends or relatives in the burbs I probably would drive. Back in my business travel days, though, I could catch the 7:00 plane to ORD, take the subway to the Loop, and make an 8:30 meeting, then get a plane back at the end of the day that would have me back in my own bed that night. Until Amtrak can compete with that on midwestern runs, it won't be able to compete for business travel, which is where the money (meaning high fares) is.

Now, a Shinkansen/TGV style (300 kph) train could do it in about 2 hours, even with some intermediate stops, which would be perfect. Even 3 hours would be okay. Either one, though, would mean major reconstruction. Separating passengers from freight traffic, eliminating grade crossings, enhanced traffic control, probably some easing of curves to allow higher speeds. All of this is expensive and will take time to do.

Posted by Don K | June 23, 2008 8:04 PM

I'm aware that high-speed trains is a particular fascination for Matt, to the point that he seemed oblivious when he switched the subject of a post on Obama's plan for metro areas. But I'm still not really seeing what he's got in mind. Seems to me the goal should be to get people out of cars, not out of planes, both for its own sake and to promote the growth of urban regions with a more sensible per person ecological footprint.

But honestly, what is the point? Maybe it's a nice side issue, maybe not, but we need to see it articulated. It's not obvious to me that if trains were faster, I'd take the overnight to Chicago from New York rather than fly (or how great the ecological benefit would be). It's not obvious to me that disparate midwestern cities would become metro regions, rather than at most places for business travelers to need to commute occasionally much further afield. It's not obvious to me most of all that it wouldn't in fact divert funds away from commuter-intensive zones.

I'm all for dissing Washingtonians and other business types who get special treatment, at least in theory, as long as there's a northeast corridor. I do, however, see a plan behind it and a GOP wish to defund it.

Posted by John Haber | June 23, 2008 9:00 PM

Seems to me the goal should be to get people out of cars, not out of planes, both for its own sake and to promote the growth of urban regions with a more sensible per person ecological footprint.

Get people out of cars "for its own sake." What's that supposed to mean? What's wrong about people in cars? Why is it worse than people in buses and trains?

And what, exactly, is a "sensible" ecological footprint supposed to be? How do you decide?

Posted by Mixner | June 23, 2008 9:13 PM

James Robertson is wrong. The railroads were not built by "huge subsides well over a hundred years ago"- unless you're counting the flim-flams of characters like Jay Gould, Standard Oil, &tc, which proved to us that regulation was needed.

Robertson may be referring to the land-grants, perhaps believing the land was given to the railroads. Actually, the railroads purchased the land from the government, which accepted freight haulage as an in-kind payment, and used up all that was owed the government in WW I, when the railroads were managed by the USRA.

The land, of course, was worth almost nothing until a railroad was built through it. You may have seen a very misleading map with large bands showing the land that was "given" to the railroads (this map was created in the 30s by a pro-road lobbying group). The land was actually sold in alternate sections, so the government benefited as much from increased value as the railroads did when the railroad was actually built and the railroads promoted the lands to immigrants. Nor, in fact, was the entire line of the railroad bordered with the land-grants, as the map wrongly depicts.

The land-grants were a small part of the capitalization of the railroads, about 1/10th of the amounts invested by 1920.

And, in actual fact, the railroad passenger business lost out to airlines that weren't paying any landing fees, were provided with air controllers and navigation signals by public money, and landed at public terminals that paid no taxes, while the railroads were paying downtown taxes for their passenger stations. Of course, air travel might have boomed even if it had to pay its own way- we'll just never know.

Posted by serial catowner | June 23, 2008 9:26 PM

You mean higher fossil fuel prices are the solution, rather than the problem? Imagine that!

Posted by kafka | June 23, 2008 9:53 PM

If you want to define some subsidies as magically not subsidies, sure. The reality is, the government paid for much of that work - in particular, it paid for most of the first transcontinental line. The history on that is clear for anyone who cares to go read about it - try "Empire Express"

Posted by James Robertson | June 23, 2008 9:55 PM

As usual, serial catowner is making up "facts" out of thin air.

Posted by Mixner | June 23, 2008 10:06 PM

Electric cars are the future! Especially if you think other people are icky!

Posted by Dixner | June 23, 2008 10:08 PM

Re:Thus, I propose non-stop Amtrak service from Miami to Tampa and then from Tampa to Tallahassee

Since the route would pretty much have to parallel I-75 (you would never get the permits to cut cross-country through the Everglades) it would make some sense to stop at places like Fort Lauderdale, Naples, Fort Myers and Sarasota-- none of which are piddly little towns. Those are all significant and growing cities which could also benefit from train service to the destinations on the route.

Posted by JonF | June 23, 2008 10:17 PM

I'm all for dissing Washingtonians and other business types who get special treatment, at least in theory, as long as there's a northeast corridor.

The thing is that it's not the NE corridor that's getting special treatment in the form of beaucoup subsidies-- it's the midwestern and southwest-southeast corridors that are kept on life-support by pork-addicted congressmen.

The Republican solution to this problem, of course, is to dismantle the only part of Amtrak that makes sense.

Posted by Tyro | June 23, 2008 10:17 PM

Re:Thus, I propose non-stop Amtrak service from Miami to Tampa and then from Tampa to Tallahassee

Since the route would pretty much have to parallel I-75 (you would never get the permits to cut cross-country through the Everglades) it would make some sense to stop at places like Fort Lauderdale, Naples, Fort Myers and Sarasota-- none of which are piddly little towns. Those are all significant and growing cities which could also benefit from train service to the destinations on the route.

Posted by JonF | June 23, 2008 10:17 PM

LL, I'll join you in cheerleading for rail in Texas. My parents live near Dallas and I live in Austin. It's a lousy drive and expensive to boot. I will note, in the credit-where-credit-is-due category that our Senior Senator, Ms. Hutchinson, is a big advocate of rail and has single-handedly kept Amtrak in the state. Now, she hasn't been able to get decent routes, as you've noticed, but it's still HERE. Maybe, with a better President we could get more trains.

Posted by Karen | June 23, 2008 10:18 PM

Folks:

if you think in 10 years that Domestic air travel will not be nationalized, you are kidding yourselves. The fact is, air travel cannot continue at current energy prices and current ticket prices.

This will lead to the following:

A - a significant # of airlines will have to go out of business
B - Those remaining will have to significantly increase their ticket prices, pricing out all but business travelers who HAVE to travel, and do not have the time to drive or take the train and cannot teleconference.
C - The tourism industry as well as businesses paying the higher fees are going to complain about disruptions to the economy.
D - Government, in the interest of "Keeping America Going" is going to have to come in and subsidize air travel in order to keep it going.
E - Major resorts are going to have to begin to essentially pay a portion of someone's travel costs or else risk going out of business. You already see it in Colorado, where resort hotels in the mountains are giving out gas vouchers to customers to entice them to drive.
F - Or: places like Disney World are going to have to provide their own air service. I can envisions Disney keeping a small fleet of planes (trust me - once Frontier, Jet Blue, US Air and United go out of Business, there are going to be a ton of planes available on the cheap [hint: short Boeing...]. I can envision Disney offering packages where they essentially fly to certain cities on certain days, soaking up the cost as they will have no other options. I can see they will always have flights from NY, Boston, Chicago and then other citites occasionally (St. Louis, Pittsburgh). Essentially requiring anyone not living in a major city to have to drive first to a major city in order to pick up a Disney flight).

In other words - Airlines in the deregulated era is OVER.

Posted by Brad | June 23, 2008 10:20 PM

Again, what is happening in many cases is that it is no longer really a question of whether regional high speed trains could compete with regional airline service, because those regional airline routes are being discontinued as a result of current jet fuel prices. That fundamentally changes the economics, and the politics too.

Posted by DTM | June 23, 2008 10:29 PM

Brad,

Umm, not so much. You might notice that competently run airlines (Southwest) are profitable. The problem that the legacy airlines have is that they never really adapted to deregulation. Their management stupidity levels are equally matched by the stupidity levels of their unions, which feeds a perfect downward spiral.

Posted by James Robertson | June 23, 2008 10:31 PM

James Robertson,

You might notice that many previously profitable small airlines have gone belly up recently. You might also note that Southwest wisely hedged fuel prices prior to the worst of the recent runup, but those hedges are unwinding and will be mostly gone after 2009.

Posted by DTM | June 23, 2008 10:40 PM

I don't think I'd bet against Soutwest remaining profitable. I'd also bet that after 2009, the current oil bubble will have burst.

Posted by James Robertson | June 23, 2008 11:01 PM

James,

We shall see.

By the way, for all I know Southwest will remain profitable in some form--it is not like airplanes are going to completely go away. We just know already that their current business model will be unsustainable if you are wrong about fuel prices coming down dramatically in 2009, since absent the hedges they would already have been operating at a loss.

Posted by DTM | June 23, 2008 11:27 PM

DTM,

Again, what is happening in many cases is that it is no longer really a question of whether regional high speed trains could compete with regional airline service, because those regional airline routes are being discontinued as a result of current jet fuel prices.

Which "regional high speed train" routes that you have in mind have had airline service discontinued?

You need to go back over to the "exurbs" thread, DTM. I'm making mincemeat of your claims over there about population.

Posted by Mixner | June 23, 2008 11:57 PM

Mixner,

I answered you in the other thread. As I noted there, you are using the wrong data set for this purpose.

As for my discussing trains with you, you should know better.

Posted by DTM | June 24, 2008 12:04 AM

DTM,

I answered you in the other thread. As I noted there, you are using the wrong data set for this purpose.

And as I just explained to you over there, you have misread your own link. You seem to do that a lot. The Census Bureau explicitly warns that the numbers you gave are incomplete, and directs you to its tables of official population estimates. Didn't you notice? The data in those tables directly contradict your assertions.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 1:01 AM

DTM,

We just know already that their current business model will be unsustainable if you are wrong about fuel prices coming down dramatically in 2009, since absent the hedges they would already have been operating at a loss.

We know no such thing. If fuel prices remain high, Southwest will probably have to raise its fares to remain profitable, but the idea that we "know" that its "business model" will be "unsustainable" is nonsense. In fact, of all the major U.S. carriers, Southwest Airlines' business model is probably the one most able to respond effectively to fuel price increases.

As for my discussing trains with you, you should know better.

Translation: DTM doesn't know of any "high speed rail routes" on which airline service has been discontinued.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 1:17 AM

And Southwest's way ahead of the skeptics. I and many others travel SWA not so much for the low fares anymore as that they sell me a more flexible service alot like what they say it'll be - that is to say, rarely very late, and virtually never canceled. And they treat me like a mass transit passenger rather than like cattle. E.g., I'm paying more for a better service than, say Delta.

Posted by Jon Kay | June 24, 2008 1:30 AM

Horseshit, I tell you! It's a resource that will never run out!

Posted by Granpa Dixner, c. 1900 | June 24, 2008 2:21 AM

Hi there,

How about we make building up our cities' light rail (LRT) infrastructure our first priority.

To me at least, from a user experience perspective, it doesn't seem to matter whether or not the big aluminum tube carrying you to your destination flies or rolls along on rails. In both cases you have to start and end your journey at a terminal of some sort.

If one destination or the other (or both) doesn't have a good intra-city transit system what difference does it make? Take cab to terminal (or drive, park, pay), take train/plane to destination, take cab rest of way.

By investing more in LRT infrastructure we can make an impact in maybe a dozen cities simultaneously. And, no matter whether or not your home or favorite destination gets a HST line, travel becomes:

Walk to light rail/subway stop, ride to terminal, take train/plane to destination, take light rail/subway to neighborhood, walk rest of way.

Posted by MarcInSeattle | June 24, 2008 2:32 AM

How about we make building up our cities' light rail (LRT) infrastructure our first priority.

Urban light rail generally produces only small benefits, at great cost. It's not a cost-effective solution to urban transportation needs.

Walk to light rail/subway stop, ride to terminal, take train/plane to destination, take light rail/subway to neighborhood, walk rest of way.

Maybe you don't realize this, but light rail systems serve only a tiny fraction of the neighborhoods in the cities that have them. Unless your origin and/or final destination happen to be within walking distance of a light rail station, which is unlikely, it's probably not going to be of much value to you. You're probably going to use a taxi or shuttle or bus or rental car or a ride from a friend/family member for airport transfers instead. Subways are similarly limited. The only American city that has sufficient density to support a large subway system is New York, and even that isn't useful for most journeys outside Manhattan.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 2:57 AM

And Southwest's way ahead of the skeptics.

Yes. Southwest Airlines has made a profit every year since 1973. This includes the period between 1973 and 1981 when the inflation-adjusted price of crude oil tripled. And Southwest didn't just make a profit during those years, it grew dramatically. So the idea that the recent increase in oil prices makes Southwest's business model "unsustainable" is just typical DTM nonsense.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 3:05 AM

MarcInSeattle,

I agree that in larger cities, there are significant benefits to integrating intercity terminals with local public transit networks.

However, larger cities aren't the only places that can be served by high speed rail. Take, for example, Youngstown, OH, which is scheduled to lose all commercial airline service at the end of the year. Youngstown would likely be a stop on a HSR line between Pittsburgh and Cleveland, continuing on to Chicago. But light rail is not going to be coming to Youngstown.

Posted by DTM | June 24, 2008 7:04 AM

This site's readers must really be east cost centric, but what about Caltrain? Its a commuter train that has daily service that runs between San Jose and San Francisco. I think it does a good job, and is proof that decent train service doesn't stop at Ohio, or whatever.

Posted by Amanda in San Jose | June 24, 2008 9:41 AM

Mixner sez:

The only American city that has sufficient density to support a large subway system is New York, and even that isn't useful for most journeys outside Manhattan.

More Mixner-level analysis. I live in Brooklyn, do not own a car, and take the subway and bus on all my intra-Brooklyn trips. Well, except for the ones I make on foot.

What's more, his previous "point" in that comment is specious. Sure, few transit systems can connect every possible departure-destination pairs, but that's not necessary for a successful system. A paper in Science from last year suggests that travel to destinations within a city is linked to a power law--the most popular destinations receive the lion's share of the trips. Building a system that links the only most popular destinations and the only most populous areas won't be any good if you live in your mom's basement in East Bumfuck, but it will serve most people's most commonly occurring travel needs.

Posted by jlw | June 24, 2008 11:04 AM

How about we apply the common "it will take too long to drill/build nukes/do anything" analysis to light rail and subway systems?

How long did DC work on completing the green line? How long has Baltimore plodded away on the mostly useless light rail system they now have? Ho many years have been spent on the subway LA is still throwing money at?

If you think it will take "too long" to drill or build nukes, then there's no way you should favor rail systems - they define the phrase "take too long"

Posted by James Robertson | June 24, 2008 11:12 AM

Having spent many years learning things from books before the web snared us, it's interesting to see if actual history can be found on the web. I'm sure as hell not going to spend a lot of time looking stuff up in books for Mixner or James Robertson. Fortunately, the web actually can work, if you use a little common sense and logic.

For example, James Robertson seems to think that building the first trans-continental railroad was a large part of America's investment in railroads. It took me about 30 seconds to google to a reference stating that in 1920 there were 260,000 miles of mainline track in the US.

IOW, using the very generous figure of 2,000 miles for the first transcontinental railroad building, that amounted to less than one percent of the railroad building by 1920.

From the responses to Matt's posts on passenger rail (excluding the Mixners and the Robertsons) it seems obvious that many of us have little familiarity with the subject. Not to put too fine a point on it, lots of people have only ever seen a train from a distance- often, a very great distance.

In this case, Matt is more right than he knows. Washington State DOT, never a hotbed of pro-rail activism, has been working patiently with Oregon and British Colombia, and has already built a rail corridor that, some riders report, is time and price competitive with driving or flying from Seattle to Portland.

And here we're at the far end of the scale from books- those reports were made in comments on blogs in the great PNW, and no, I am not going to find the links for our resident quibblers. That's the conversation part of the web, but in this case you can't see whether the guy talking to you is clicking a couple of steel balls nervously in his hand and wiping a perspiring brow.

Each of us gets to choose what we believe, but when Mixner and James Robertson start to get you down, it can't hurt to google a little and see if some other authority, such as the US Census Bureau or some actual historian, is telling a different story. In my experience, that's usually the case.

Posted by serial catowner | June 24, 2008 11:47 AM

It's not a cost-effective solution to urban transportation needs.

You try building a new freeway through the middle of L.A. and tell me how much it's going to cost. And how effective it would actually be to solving urban transportation needs.

Posted by Adam Villani | June 24, 2008 12:19 PM

DTM,

However, larger cities aren't the only places that can be served by high speed rail. Take, for example, Youngstown, OH, which is scheduled to lose all commercial airline service at the end of the year. Youngstown would likely be a stop on a HSR line between Pittsburgh and Cleveland, continuing on to Chicago.

Just when I thought your proposals couldn't get any more laughable, you outdo yourself. Pittsburgh and Cleveland are both old, shrinking rust-belt cities, and they're only about 100 miles apart. HSR would have virtually no time advantage compared to driving or bus service even for city-center to city-center travel between these locations. Youngstown is a small, shrinking city about 50 miles from each, of no commercial or tourist significance. The idea that HSR would be remotely feasible between any of those cities is a fantasy.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 12:49 PM

More Mixner-level analysis. I live in Brooklyn, do not own a car, and take the subway and bus on all my intra-Brooklyn trips.

As I said, the subway (not "subway and bus") isn't useful for most journeys outside Manhattan. Even if your origin and destination in Brooklyn are both close to subway stops, they are probably not on the same line, and you will likely have to travel far out of your way, possibly even into Manhattan, in order to transfer between lines. And this is in the city with the most extensive subway system in the country. In other cities, the subway is even less useful.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 1:01 PM

All I can say to serial catowner is, read "Empire Express" (and other such sources). You'll learn a lot of things you are apparently unaware of.

Many of those miles of additional track never would have existed without the transcontinental railroad. IMHO, that could have been built w/o government aid, but that's not the point. The point is, it was built with government aid.

Posted by James Robertson | June 24, 2008 1:14 PM

Mixner,

Again, I am not discussing trains with you. You can try as many times as you like, it just isn't going to happen.

Posted by DTM | June 24, 2008 1:25 PM

James, I read a book once that you might enjoy. It said that the railroads should never have been built at all, because canals would have been more efficient. It had all kinds of figures and everything to prove the thesis. Unfortunately, I threw it in the trash after reading it, never dreaming that in later life I would encounter people who could actually believe such things.

Speaking of things you are apparently unaware of, you might want to take a look sometime at where the railroads were built before the transcontinental- and where they continued to be built after the transcontinental. To imagine that the Midwest and the Northeast would have withered on the vine without a rail connection to SF is just silly- and betrays an incredible ignorance of what the railroads carried, and where they carried to.

Posted by serial catowner | June 24, 2008 1:43 PM

DTM,

Again, I am not discussing trains with you

Again, you don't need to keep telling me that. Again, I will continue to point out your false claims and irrational arguments as I see fit. Again, whether you choose to respond or not is entirely up to you.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 1:51 PM

I should say that the book James recommends sounds, from the reviews, like a good choice for more interested readers. Developing an idea of how railroads were financed is essential.

However, Chapters from the Erie, by Charles F Adams Jr, is a shorter and much more enjoyable read. Serious students, of course, will augment these flamboyant (Credit Mobilier, Jay Gould) stories with financial histories of actual railroads. "How the railroad was built" should include, for example, bond issues and reorganizations (and the inevitable trusteeship). This can be stiff reading, but you can sometimes find this in books with lots of photos also, which helps somewhat.

In any case, James seems to be showing stout spirit in wading through this, so if he has staying power as well, things may come right in the end.

Posted by serial catowner | June 24, 2008 2:32 PM

Southwest will probably have to raise its fares to remain profitable, but the idea that we "know" that its "business model" will be "unsustainable" is nonsense. In fact, of all the major U.S. carriers, Southwest Airlines' business model is probably the one most able to respond effectively to fuel price increases.

I like Southwest. But you conservatives are really overselling it.

Southwest is successful in part because it chooses its routes and city pairs very carefully, and has avoided the hub-and-spoke model that has gotten other airlines into trouble. I suspect it may continue to be successful; however, it clearly made a smart play to temporarily maintain profitability by hedging on fuel.

BUT:

1. You can't run the entire airline industry on a Southwest model. We need hub-and-spoke airlines because those allow people residing in smaller cities to get anywhere they want to go. For instance, if you live in Chatanooga, Tennessee, you are dependent on hub-and-spoke airlines, which get you to a hub from which you can then continue on to most of the US and the world. Southwest doesn't work like that-- not only do they not fly to hubs, but they don't have baggage interchange or ticket interchange with other airlines so it is a pain to connect even when a connection is available.

So when you say "properly run airlines survive", what you are really saying is that ONE airline that is able to cherry pick routes is able to survive because the rest of the industry is forced to provide the service that people need. But that means that if those airlines go bankrupt, a lot of places will be left without good transportation options, and Southwest isn't going to change its business model to provide them.

The reality is Brad is right. If hub-and-spoke airlines start collapsing, there is going to have to be a government intervention, because the private sector won't be able to step in on its own.

2. You guys are way, way too confident about fuel prices. I suspect we have seen the last days of cheap oil, because of the demand of India and China. You have countries with a combined population of 2.3 billion people, 7 times that of the US, buying huge numbers of cars for the first time.

So oil isn't going to go back down, and Southwest is going to have to start buying the oil at full price in 2009.

Posted by Dilan Esper | June 24, 2008 3:01 PM

Mixner sez:

Even if your origin and destination in Brooklyn are both close to subway stops, they are probably not on the same line, and you will likely have to travel far out of your way, possibly even into Manhattan, in order to transfer between lines.

Mixner clearly thinks everyone is as Cheezy-Poof addled as he is, and just as mired in his mother's basement. He also has zero--abso-freakin'-lutely zero--first-hand experience on how people in Brooklyn navigate the borough.

Open up, Mixner, because here comes the choo-choo: if your destination isn't close to the train you start out on, you transfer at one of the stations where many, many lines come together. Such as Fourth Avenue or Atlantic Avenue or Borough Hall. This is not a big deal. I see semi-retarded people accomplish this task every day. Even you might be able to do it, with practice, if you ever left your Mom's basement.

You know what's time consuming? Trying to find a place to park. More than half of the traffic in the neighborhood next to mine consists of people trying to find a parking space. I don't understand why some people insist on driving in the city, but they are suckers, let me tell you.

Mixner obviously has low transportation costs, sitting in his mom's basement, but for you full-fledged adults, let me give you a number: $81. That's how much my basic transportation costs are a month. Add in a some cab rides (occasionally, mostly to and from the airport) and train trips to the burbs and I'd estimate my total transportation costs for the year is under $1,500. And if you lived in a city with a decent transportation system, you could be saving all sorts of money, too.

But instead, you live in a place where people who sound like like Mixner--but not Mixner himself, for obvious reasons--hold sway.

Posted by jlw | June 24, 2008 3:09 PM

jlw,

if your destination isn't close to the train you start out on, you transfer at one of the stations where many, many lines come together. Such as Fourth Avenue or Atlantic Avenue or Borough Hall.

Right, and as I said, you addle-brained Cheezy-Poof illiterate tosspot, the need for such transfers is likely to take you far out of your way. Not only are you likely to have to travel much further by subway than you would if you used road transportation instead, but the additional waiting time at your transfer point will add even more time to your journey. Are some journeys within Brooklyn quick and easy and convenient to make by subway? Yes. Are most of them? No.

Even in Manhattan, taxis are often much quicker and much more convenient than the subway, which is why people who can afford to generally use taxis instead.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 3:27 PM

dilan esper,

1. You can't run the entire airline industry on a Southwest model. We need hub-and-spoke airlines because those allow people residing in smaller cities to get anywhere they want to go. For instance, if you live in Chatanooga, Tennessee, you are dependent on hub-and-spoke airlines, which get you to a hub from which you can then continue on to most of the US and the world. Southwest doesn't work like that-- not only do they not fly to hubs, but they don't have baggage interchange or ticket interchange with other airlines so it is a pain to connect even when a connection is available.

Southwest is not as dependent on hub-and-spoke routing as other airlines, but it most definitely does have hubs. The larger share of direct flights is a benefit to passengers. Small cities are more expensive to serve than larger ones because of efficiencies of scale, but airlines will serve any market for which there is sufficient demand.

So when you say "properly run airlines survive", what you are really saying is that ONE airline that is able to cherry pick routes is able to survive because the rest of the industry is forced to provide the service that people need.

No, I didn't say that at all. In case you haven't noticed, there are many "surviving" airlines in the U.S. apart from Southwest. There are also a number of highly successful low-cost airlines in Europe, notably Ryanair and Easyjet, and many others around the world. There are also many highly successful non-U.S. full-service airlines.

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

Unfortunately, debates about rail in the U.S. always end up veering into the inter-city travel realm with the inevitable critiques of Amtrak, and comparisons to Europe and Asia.

Meanwhile, commuter rail within regions in doing very well in America, and is expanding. You can go from Ogden to Salt Lake, or Sacramento to Oakland, or Baltimore to D.C. without ever having to mess with Amtrak-managed service.

This is where most trip making occurs: in the day to day commutes and other routines within our own region - not that lone trip each year to Orlando or Vegas. It's the daily grind where we consume most of our petroleum, and produce most of our emissions and GH gasses.

Its also where the congestion is. Its not a crowded drive from San Francisco to Salt Lake City across I-80, unless its the end of a Tahoe ski weekend (did i mention that commuter rail service may go from the Bay to Tahoe at some point)

All this is being lost at the state and national level. Rather than spending $50 billion or so for high speed rail from SF to LA to benefit a few businessmen, why not give $25 billion to NorCal and $25 billion to SoCal for improved transit within each regional. That type of funding would be completely transformative.

The same goes at the national level. Don't blow hundreds of billions on expensive, sealed-corridor bullet trains across Nebraska. Instead, spend that money improving rail transit within regions.

Posted by John | June 24, 2008 4:07 PM

Mixner sez:

Are some journeys within Brooklyn quick and easy and convenient to make by subway? Yes. Are most of them? No.

One suspects that since Mixner is a monkey-spanking cellar dweller, he has never actually stepped foot in Brooklyn. But for the benefit of people not living on a diet of Cheezy-poofs and Orange Slice, let me reiterate that while its true that there are a lot of random combinations of origin-destination pairs that aren't well suited to subway travel, real life origin-destination pairs aren't random and instead are governed by power laws. Most of the trips taken by people living in Bensonhurst or East New York or Crown Heights aren't to each other's neighborhoods; they are to Downtown Brooklyn or BAM or Coney Island. And the transit system, since it was designed by people who, you know, can hold down a job, works very well at getting people where they usually want to go.

By the way, Mixner earlier wanted to limit discussion of network effects to subways, but that is, of course, a stupid thing to want to do, any more than limiting a discussion of road transportation to freeways would be a stupid thing to do. I transfer from subways to buses all the time because that's the way the system is set up--just last weekend, my wife, son and I transfered from subway to bus in order to get to an enormous Toys R Us in Bensonhurst; dragged a bike home on same bus and train. That's the way its supposed to work.

So, sure, from random point to random point, cars work better than transit. But that's not the way real trips in the real world work, and transit in Brooklyn (and one suspects in most places with well designed systems) is aligned nicely to real world combinations of origins and destinations.

Posted by jlw | June 24, 2008 4:19 PM

Weinstein is right that we shouldn't be trying to blanket the country with expensive rail lines and should focus resources strategically.

He calls for 1) investment in commuter rail corridors, and 2) investment in short-to-medium length high-speed rail corridors.

There is a tension, however, between the above two. For example, Californians are going to be asked this fall if they want to spend about $50 billion on a high speed corridor from SF to LA.

Rather than spending $50 billion to give business travellers another option, why not give $25 billion to NorCal and $25 billion to SoCal to improve rail transit within each region. That type of funding would be completely transformative.

Commuter rail within regions in doing very well in America ridership-wise, and is expanding. You can go from Ogden to Salt Lake, or Sacramento to Oakland, or Baltimore to D.C. without ever having to mess with Amtrak-managed service.

This is where most trip making occurs: in the day to day commutes and other routines within our own region. It's the daily grind where we consume most of our petroleum, and produce most of our emissions and GH gasses.

Its also where the congestion is. Its not a crowded drive from San Francisco to L.A. on I-5 or Hwy 101, or Route 1. It's not crowded until you to come into to the congested regions themselves - the places that should be the top priority for investment.

Posted by John | June 24, 2008 4:37 PM

There are also a number of highly successful low-cost airlines in Europe, notably Ryanair and Easyjet, and many others around the world. There are also many highly successful non-U.S. full-service airlines.

Actually, Mixner, most low-fare airlines fail, and there are a handful of reasonably successful ones in the rest of the world. The Ryanairs and EasyJets of the world are few and far between.

As for "highly successful non-US full-service airlines", the bulk of them are highly subsidized flag carriers.

I am really starting to see how your bias against public transportation affects your judgment on issues you don't know enough about. The truth is that the sustainable business models in the airline industry do not produce a sufficiently extensive transportation network, and the bulk of our air transportation network is provided by legacy carriers who are in deep trouble. Other countries get around this problem by subsidizing the heck out of the legacy carriers.

You would see this, but it would require you to admit that an extensive and comprehensive network of air routes isn't going to be much better at making money than a large network of train routes is, and you can't admit that because it strips you of a key talking point against train travel.

As for your other points:

1. Southwest has mini-hubs, but it doesn't have a hub-and-spoke service model. It has a lot more point-to-point service and relies on frequent nonstop flights between popular cities. Moreover, Southwest isn't necessarily going to get you into a hub where you can change to another airline and go wherever you want.

2. You didn't answer my points about fuel, Southwest's lack of baggage or ticket interchange with other airlines, or Southwest's careful cherry-picking of cities and routes to serve.

3. It is true that smaller cities can be served at higher fares. BUT: (a) Southwest isn't interested in that market, because it wants to keep its fares low and its business model rejects charging a handful of people a lot of money in favor of charging a lot of people less money; and (b) you are ignoring the public utility aspect of the airline network-- we WANT smaller cities to be able to access the network at reasonable prices. This is a public good. And if the hub-and-spoke airlines that provide that service go belly up, you could have cities that are cut off or nearly cut off or where people have to drive long distances to reach an airport with commercial service at a reasonable cost.

You can't play Darwinian survival of the fittest with connections to the air transportation network. Or at least, you shouldn't.

Posted by Dilan Esper | June 24, 2008 4:49 PM

Our local country is thinking about buying an old train right-of-way for a bike trail, but one of the many issues is whether we can build the trail and still leave the heart of the right-of-way untouched, in case they, some day in the future, decide they want to rebuild the old train route as a light rail/interurban route.

I'm annoyed that this question is adding to the delay, but I actually thought it was clever of them to be thinking down the line when we may be a little more desperate for low-energy transportation than we are now.

Posted by sherrold | June 24, 2008 4:59 PM

Dilan,

You might want to look at how Mixner discussed Youngstown, Ohio above ("Youngstown is a small, shrinking city . . . of no commercial or tourist significance."). He is more than willing to just write off such places.

By the way, the Youngstown-Warren MSA contains just under 600,000 people. And I think Mixner and his ilk are about to find out that writing off all the Youngstowns in the United States is not politically feasible.

Posted by DTM | June 24, 2008 5:17 PM

DTM:

The interesting thing is he also writes off New York and other large cities because you can't get around by car. It seems there are quite a lot of places that Mixner wishes just didn't exist, because their existence is inconvenient to his argument that cars, sprawl, and Southwest Airlines are the solution to all the country's transit problems.

Posted by Dilan Esper | June 24, 2008 6:30 PM

jlw,

let me reiterate that while its true that there are a lot of random combinations of origin-destination pairs that aren't well suited to subway travel, real life origin-destination pairs aren't random and instead are governed by power laws.

And let me reiterate that the subway is not very useful for most real life trips in Brooklyn. Only if your origin and destination are conveniently located near subway stops and your route by subway does not involve going out of your way and transferring between lines is the subway likely to be more convenient or cost-effective than some combination of driving, walking, bus or taxi.

By the way, Mixner earlier wanted to limit discussion of network effects to subways,

I didn't limit anything. The claim I was responding to was specifically about "light rail/subway."

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 6:40 PM

Regarding a previous poster's comment about airline codeshares with Amtrak, one of these already exists. If you fly Continental Airlines into Newark, you can board a train right at the airport and get miles for travel along the Northeast Corridor.

Posted by Sbard | June 24, 2008 6:40 PM

DTM,

By the way, the Youngstown-Warren MSA contains just under 600,000 people. And I think Mixner and his ilk are about to find out that writing off all the Youngstowns in the United States is not politically feasible.

Er, the population of Youngstown is 81,000 and falling. The population of Warren is 45,000 and falling. Youngstown is located only about 50 miles from both Pittsburgh and Cleveland, far too close for HSR to make sense even under ideal conditions. And of course conditions are not ideal, they are appalling. Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Youngstown are all old, crumbling, dilapidated rust-belt cities, losing population, losing what little economic importance they still have.

The interesting thing is he also writes off New York and other large cities because you can't get around by car.

Huh? I haven't "written off" New York. I've pointed out that even with massive subsidies HSR is barely competitive against road and air even in the most conducive corridor in the country. It wouldn't even be running there were it not for billions of dollars in federal subsidies. And most of its riders are business travelers. Acela subsidies are corporate welfare on a massive scale. I thought you were supposed to be against that.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 6:57 PM

dilan esper,

Actually, Mixner, most low-fare airlines fail, and there are a handful of reasonably successful ones in the rest of the world. The Ryanairs and EasyJets of the world are few and far between.

So what? Most internet startups also fail. Like the web, the U.S. and European air travel markets are extremely competitive. The costs of entry are low. The potential rewards are high. There's lots of experimentation with different markets and routes and types of service. And as a result, there are lots of failures. That's how competitive markets work.

You would see this, but it would require you to admit that an extensive and comprehensive network of air routes isn't going to be much better at making money than a large network of train routes is,

An extensive and comprehensive network of air routes is exactly what has arisen over the past 40 years through markets and competition. As opposed to rail routes, which have shrunken almost to nothing because they simply cannot compete, even with massive government subsidies.

It is true that smaller cities can be served at higher fares. BUT: (a) Southwest isn't interested in that market,

So what? It obviously doesn't have to be Southwest. If there is a viable market, someone will probably serve it.

(b) you are ignoring the public utility aspect of the airline network-- we WANT smaller cities to be able to access the network at reasonable prices.

Then you can petition the government to subsidize airline service on unprofitable routes that you think should nevertheless be served on "public utility" grounds. Good luck.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 7:13 PM

If you choose to live in a small city, you have to take the bad with the good. One of my co-workers lives between NYC and Albany - he understands that any job with travel requirements will involve long days, as his travel will almost always involve connections (and a limited number of options). I live near both BWI and DCA, so my flying options are, not surprisingly, far better.

You don't get to have optimal everything when you decide to live somewhere; you get to make choices and put values on things. Different people will make different choices.

What Matt doesn't get - and what a lot of the commenters here don't get - is that choosing to live in an area that requires driving is a choice, and - believe it or not - many of us make it consciously. I don't begrudge anyone's desire to live in a city, and I don't think anyone should begrudge my desire not to live in a city.

Rising fuel costs will drive fewer people to dense urban areas than Matt thinks, because that's not something they want.

Posted by James Robertson | June 24, 2008 7:51 PM

If Mixner ever gets his head out of the 1980s and looks at Pittsburgh at present, he'll see a city that is doing a damn good job of revitalizing itself. Health services. Medicine. All that sort of good stuff.

Face it--when gasoline costs get high enough, people are going to stop using cars and go for other form of transportation. We're already starting to see an increase in number of people riding rail.

Posted by grumpy realist | June 24, 2008 11:36 PM

grumpy,

yeah, sure. Those of us who live out in suburbs that can't support a bus system are going to suddenly adopt non-existant rail. And heck, I live in a relatively dense suburb, less than 30 miles from DC - it's not remote. As I've explained before, rail doesn't work when you don't have a mass of people at point A all trying to get to point B. When you instead have a web (which is what we have) - cars are vastly more practical. Cars aren't going away, and neither are the suburbs

Posted by James Robertson | June 25, 2008 12:11 AM

grumpy,

If Mixner ever gets his head out of the 1980s and looks at Pittsburgh at present, he'll see a city that is doing a damn good job of revitalizing itself. Health services. Medicine. All that sort of good stuff.

Population of Pittsburgh, from the U.S. Census Bureau:

2000: 333,804
2001: 330,576
2002: 327,458
2003: 325,075
2004: 320,402
2005: 316,299
2006: 312,819

Notice the trend? Housing in Pittsburgh has also declined. So has the number of workers, which means a smaller tax base. Where are all these people going? Mainly, to the sprawling new car-oriented cities of the south and west. Over the same period that Pittsburgh lost 20,000 people as shown above, Phoenix, for instance, grew by almost 200,000 people--more than half the entire remaining population of Pittsburgh.

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

re: air travel

James Fallows had an interesting article in Atlantic about the future of air taxis. This sort of thing seems much more practical and cost effective for the short inter-city trips of business travelers.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200805/dayjet

Posted by Just Karl | June 25, 2008 12:46 AM

James Robertson,

From the Atlantic review of David Kynaston's Austerity Britain about life in England immediately following WWII

In their diaries and letters as well as in survey after survey, people made clear their strong dislikes in housing (“nothing less than a mass aversion towards the whole idea of flats,” Kynaston characterizes it) and their equally strong desire: a small suburban house with a garden. The planners and reformers would have none of it. Stridently communal, possessed of what Kynaston describes as an “almost visceral anti-suburban bias” and an accompanying conviction that “explicitly identified social virtue and cohesion in living cheek by jowl” in apartments and planned “New Towns” (innovations, Orwell noted, that would tend to break up the family), they wouldn’t let the preferences of the public vitiate their glorious designs. As one of them, the economist P. Sargent Florence, declared, the predilections of “architects and planners” should trump “the inarticulate yearnings of the average working-class housewife.” When addressing an unruly public meeting that opposed his “New Town” planning schemes designed to create “a new type of citizen,” Lewis Silkin, the minister of town and country planning, put it more bluntly: “It’s no good your jeering; it is going to be done.”

Remind you of anyone?

Posted by Just Karl | June 25, 2008 12:54 AM

When you combine the yearning for dense living with the hysteria surrounding "climate change", you start to see a pattern...

Posted by James Robertson | June 25, 2008 7:11 AM

Most internet startups also fail. Like the web, the U.S. and European air travel markets are extremely competitive. The costs of entry are low.

Oh, wow, Mixner. So you think that it is easy to secure slots and gates at crowded airports, and purchase and lease planes? And then when you do, you further think that it is easy to compete against companies with huge capital reserves who will slash fares in competitive markets to drive your start-up out of business (see Legend Airlines)?

The airline industry has HIGH barriers to entry. Extremely high. (Just so people less trained in economics know what we are talking about, a paradigmatic example of a business with low barriers to entry is babysitting.)

An extensive and comprehensive network of air routes is exactly what has arisen over the past 40 years through markets and competition. As opposed to rail routes, which have shrunken almost to nothing because they simply cannot compete, even with massive government subsidies.

It is classic fallacious reasoning to assume that the next 40 years will be like the last 40 years. That was a 40 years that featured airline deregulation, strong economic growth, and low fuel prices. It was also a 40 years in which air traffic got a lot more crowded (especially as private jets came online and airlines switched to more frequent service in smaller planes) and delays and service problems increased. The next 40 years are going to be nothing like the last 40 years.

Then you can petition the government to subsidize airline service on unprofitable routes that you think should nevertheless be served on "public utility" grounds. Good luck.

We already do that. Expect more of it.

Look, you ignore the fundamental point, which is you think that there's nothing wrong with smaller cities having to either pay obscenely high airfares or be cut off from the market entirely. Because you don't want to concede that transportation can sometimes require subsidies, because that would undermine your screed against rail.

In the real world, there are real people whose needs won't be served unless we pour some public money into the network. It is increasingly clear that you don't live in the real world.

Posted by Dilan Esper | June 25, 2008 2:06 PM

dilan esper,

The airline industry has HIGH barriers to entry.

As usual, your argument is completely nonsensical. How can the barriers to entry be so high if, as you claim, so many airlines do enter the industry?

It is classic fallacious reasoning to assume that the next 40 years will be like the last 40 years.

I didn't say the next 40 years will be like the last 40. I said that the last 40 years of markets and competition have given us an extensive and comprehensive network of air routes. I don't expect domestic air travel to grow by nearly as much in the next 40 years as in the last 40, because the market is mature and flying is already extremely common in this country. Air travel probably will grow dramatically outside the U.S., though. Intercity rail travel in the U.S. will probably disappear altogether.

We already do that. Expect more of it.

Er, okay. I haven't noticed a particularly large or powerful lobby for subsidized airline service to small American cities, so I suspect you're likely to be disappointed.

Posted by Mixner | June 25, 2008 9:44 PM