Last week USA Today carried an op-ed piece by Randal O'Toole on President Obama's high and moderate speed rail plans. O'Toole is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute. Outlined below are some of the points that he made.
The administration's high and moderate speed rail plans would cost billions of dollars but would do little to improve traffic congestion or the environment.
Studies in Japan and France have shown that high speed rail is not about serving the common citizen. Instead it is used largely by foreign tourists and in-country elites.
Many if not most of the folks who patronize the Acela (business and first class accommodations only) appear to have better than median incomes or are traveling on expense accounts. Most of the common folks are on the regional trains, buses, airplanes or in their cars.
To date the administration has committed approximately $13 billion for moderate and high speed rail. This represents somewhere between 2.5 and 25 per cent of the estimated cost of these plans, although no one really knows how much the proposed systems would cost.
Investments in passenger rail will not cover the capital costs and in most instances will only cover a portion of the operating costs. California wants half of the committed funds to build a high speed line from scratch, as opposed to most other states where the plans are to upgrade existing rail lines for moderate speeds. If California is successful in getting significant federal funding for its high speed system, the other states will clamor for similar funding. And that could drive the cost of the proposed rail improvement plans above $500 billion. By comparison, according to O'Toole, the inflation adjusted cost to build the Interstate Highway System was approximately $425 billion. Interstate highways cover all 50 states; the rail plans will only provide service to 33 states.
Whether the proposals to improve passenger rail will reduce congestion is debatable. California estimates that its high speed rail line would remove approximately 3.5 per cent of the cars from its highways. Moderate speed rail systems would probably remove a smaller percentage.
As to the environmental arguments for faster rail service, Amtrak's diesel powered trains are only a little more energy efficient than cars. Moreover, cars will become more energy efficient, especially in light of the new CAFÉ standards and the introduction of alternative fuel systems. Also, significantly higher rail speeds will mean greater inputs of energy and pollution outputs.
O'Toole makes several points worthy of a rational response. Most telling, in my view, is no where in the discussions for high and moderate speed rail have I read or heard a detailed, realistic proposal on how to pay for it. Or a realistic estimate of the total cost of the build out or a completion date.
Randal O'Toole indeed. Dontcha know he works for Cato, which is a RIGHT WING think tank and they and he HATE TRAINS. OK, I have gone on record with that, so the usual suspects around here don't have to repeat it.
Metra carries something like 300,000 passenger daily, which means that 150,000 people use it to access jobs in the Chicago Downtown. Their rush hour peak lasts about 2 hours, so say they carry 75,000 people/hour. A freeway lane may be good for 2000 cars/hr, so lets say on average 2500 people/hr. So the Metra network replaces 30 freeway lanes in each direction. I know the Kennedy Expressway has reversible lanes, but they are not duplicated elsewhere, so the Metra network is replacing 60 freeway lanes or perhaps 8-10 major freeways into the Chicago Downtown.
I ran this analysis by Randal O'Toole because he claims that many transit lines barely replace a single freeway lane with their ridership, but his analysis conflates 24-hour freeway capacity with peak-hour freeway capacity. Mr. O'Toole was gracious enough to respond to my e-mail.
His response was that it might be good that Metra supports 150,000 people in the suburbs having jobs in the Downtown, but during some time period around the 1990's, the Chicago Metropolitan area added 600,000 jobs in the suburbs not served by Metra. There are several notions in those statistics. One is that if Metra suddenly went POOF! that those 150,000 people could probably find work closer to where they lived. Another is that a city downtown require commuter rail or a transit system may be an anachronism. Yet another is that automobiles and roads, over a distibuted network of mainly arterial streets and highways and to a lesser extent limited-access tollways and freeways, are handling the growth in employment that is multiples of the total number of people served by the commuter rail network required for density in the city core.
So in one sense, Mr. O'Toole would not graciously own up to the somewhat misleading comparisons he makes between the ridership of transit systems and the 24-hour capacity of certain roads. On the other hand, I don't see transit or train advocates owning up to the fact that even the most optimistic projects for train networks and train ridership would barely put a dent in the enormous number of passenger miles that are handled in one form or another by cars.
I guess my question for many of the people around here, are there a variety of problems out there, oil dependence, global warming, paving over land, social isolation, etc to which trains are a particularly good solution, or are trains intrinsically meritorious and that if trains make even minor contributions to solving these social problems, we need to have them.
There are two factors that have moved me from foamer enthusiasm for passenger trains to a kind of guarded skepticism. One is that the energy efficiency just isn't there -- the best discussion of that is on David Lawyer's Web site, and David Lawyer does not work for the Cato Institute. David Lawyer is a self-described environmentalist who set out to evaluate trains as a solution to the energy crisis instead of a passenger train advocate who set out to show people that trains are energy efficient.
The second factor, believe it or not, is the airline travel experience. Yes, trains may not have the same weather delays, and trains may not ever get the level of social regimentation as the airline travel experience, and yes, trains may have increased leg room offset by having to occupy the seats for longer periods of time for the same distance. But if trains become a mass market, someone has to convince me that train travel operated on an economic basis won't be yet another kind of bus as air travel has become.
The one question to which I have not seen a proper response from anyone around here disagreeing with my perspective on this is the fuel economy one. That present-day Amtrak offers a minor fuel economy improvement, on average, over driving just doesn't cut it. Where is the large fuel savings from trains going to come from? What are fuel-efficient trains going to look like, from the standpoint of weight per seat, aerodynamics, propulsion? What is the seating density and situation with regard to non-revenue seating (dining, lounge, crew dorms) going to look like on fuel-efficient trains? What kind of load factors are required to make trains fuel efficient, and would those load factors impose inconvenience on travellers (always full trains with long boarding times, short space for luggage, required to take a train at a less convenient time or to book reservations weeks in advance).
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I am not going to quote in order to keep my reply down in size. I do agree with some of what you quote Sam, however, I also disagree with some of the premises that Mr. O'Toole appears to base his points on, and by inference you appear to concur.
The CATO Institute is a consisently, some would say relentlessly, libertarian think tank. "Let the market take care of it" is practically a home creed If the government is wasting money to build or improve passenger rail, how on earth are private enterpreneurs to try in this cash-poor era? Perhaps that's the point: the USA is such an exceptional society with its rugged individualism that we citizens have "chosen" to have a RR system most of whose technology is not beyond the mid-1950s. Hah!
The Interstate Highway program was a great idea for its time. Back when it was being debated (actually the bill passed in several sections but roughly 1960), the primary aim was to make driving safer, and that it has done. The secondary reason was to speed up truck travel, and that it has done. What finally got the thing passed, though, was a putative military use: hauling tactical atomic cannons quickly between cities. As far as I know, that never happened, but the military aspect helped "sell" the program to a reluctant public. Some people condemned the gas tax as intrusive and inflationary, and resented the fact that under the program, the Federal gov't bankrolled about 90 percent of construction costs. After all, the Northeast and Midwest had already evolved a system of toll roads; why should the other states get off with ten percent of the building bill?
Some unfortunate and unforeseen consequences of the "Interstating" of America include the inevitable cheesy "strip" that streches from the town center to its Interstate interchange, and the ruination of hitherto viable urban neighborhoods by the encroachment of urban Interstates in the 1960's. (Robert Caro's THE POWER BROKER has a whole chapter about Robert Moses' ruination of a neighborhood in the Bronx.). Even worse, as I think most of us would acknowledge, other unforeseen consequences include these superhighways' being so successful they've become victims of that success with constant overcrowding and rush-hour "parking lots"
It was known at the time of planning that the new superhighways would not physically endure super-long-term; in fact, their subsurface is only about half of what Hitler had his planners use for the German autobahns starting in the 1930's. Highway engineers argued -- unsuccessfully -- that we should have no less but politically there was basically one reason -- money -- that the things were in some ways deliberately underdesigned and now the busiest routes have to be stripped down and re-blacktopped every few years.
Saddest of all for people on these sites, but true: apparently no one estimated accurately how the public's growing fondness for driving medium- to long-distances in private cars over the new highways would decimate rail passenger traffic that was already hurting by the desertion of the business traveler to airplanes. No one would have guessed how much the public would take to Interstate driving, but as we know after the businessmen deserted the rails, so did most of hte public. (Notice that enhanced speed for the privately owned car wasn't stressed among the most important reasons to go Interstate. The irony now is, of course, that the roads have become so durn overcrowded that it almost impossible to set a reasonable driving schedule between major cities or with a big city in between. (Should we allow one hour for Metro Nashville? Or two, like last year. And Atlanta has become unspeakable.) I've you've driven on an Interstate Highway route ending in a zero or a five, you know that even in the country the road can be so crowded as to resemble an urban rush hour of 20 - 30 years ago. But often with hills.
The libertarian think-tanker's analysis had some merit, but it can hardly be called even-handed. For intstance, why aren't rail-passsenger locomotives going to become clearner and thriftier with fuel -- he says that won't happen but it will happen to the private car. And government planning is always wrong -- obviously, I think it's a mixed bag. But we have to try, don't we? His carping is Unfair!
Never mind that, but as happened with the Interstates these new passenger-rail projects will probably turn out a mix of failed planning, woefully pessimtic planning, overly optimistic planning , home runs, and completely unforeseen consequences. Why do we need them?
Because.All.Other.Means.of.DomesticTravel.Are.Too.Crowded.To.Add.Capacity.
Can Atlanta add more ring roads? (No.) Can Houston and SoCal alleviate their crowded Interstates with more privately-build toll roads? For a while, but even they will fill up. Rail is about all that's left, and I for one think that the standard of living in this country has not yet declined to a point where we should put up with a warmed-over, Fifties technology and extremely skeletal service that is Amtrak anywhere west of the Appalachians. In this sense, if we're planning to do nothing, we're planning for failure.
beaulieu I am not going to quote in order to keep my reply down in size. I do agree with some of what you quote Sam, however, I also disagree with some of the premises that Mr. O'Toole appears to base his points on, and by inference you appear to concur. I think Mr. O'Toole bases his points on assumptions that are no longer valid, the most important of which is cheap oil that will allow us to go on like we have been.
I think Mr. O'Toole bases his points on assumptions that are no longer valid, the most important of which is cheap oil that will allow us to go on like we have been.
I read through your response quickly and then went to another site. When I returned to read it again, most of it had been deleted. Did you delete it or has some else deleted most of it?
Paul, SNCF's TGV Dayse with 186 mph. capability weighs 0.7 tonnes per seat. If you would be satisfied with 110 mph. max speed I would think that you could either get down to 0.6 tonnes per seat or expand the seat pitch (leg room).
The car of the future that will meet the announced CAFE standards will be much smaller, more expensive, and have less power.
If we are going to have a viable rail PASSENGER transportation system in this country, it cannot share tracks with the freight railroads because it will be unviable if it has to meet collision standards that make no sense except for the fact you might hit a freight train head-on.
Wait until cars that meet the new CAFE standards begin to hit fully loaded semi-trucks. At least on the rails a collision avoidance system is practical, we are nowhere near to a similar system for the highways, especially where the individual is responsible for the maintenance .
Sam1beaulieu I am not going to quote in order to keep my reply down in size. I do agree with some of what you quote Sam, however, I also disagree with some of the premises that Mr. O'Toole appears to base his points on, and by inference you appear to concur. I think Mr. O'Toole bases his points on assumptions that are no longer valid, the most important of which is cheap oil that will allow us to go on like we have been. I read through your response quickly and then went to another site. When I returned to read it again, most of it had been deleted. Did you delete it or has some else deleted most of it?
Sam, sorry I took so long to post it and then I read Paul's post, and I was not satisfied with what I written.
beaulieu I think Mr. O'Toole bases his points on assumptions that are no longer valid, the most important of which is cheap oil that will allow us to go on like we have been.
And how are we in the advocacy community any different in our thinking about cheap oil, when we support high rates of subsidy to save maybe 20 percent on oil usage per passenger mile? How are we any different than Mr. O'Toole when our most ambitious plans would replace auto travel at the single-digit level and result in net oil savings that are a fraction of a percent of total usage?
For intstance, why aren't rail-passsenger locomotives going to become clearner and thriftier with fuel -- he says that won't happen but it will happen to the private car.
Since the initial 1970's oil shocks, cars have increased in fuel economy although perhaps not as much when oil got cheap in the 1990's. Airlines have had steady increase in fuel economy -- partly through improved airplane designed, improved engines, largely because of packing passengers into the airplane. Trains have had hardly any change worth noting -- fuel usage has moved up and down, but there is no discernable improvement over time.
I suppose people are going to turn around and say that we "underinvested in trains." But Amtrak has been around since the 1970's and has received billions in subsidies over the years, but little has changed in their fuel economy when it had been a priority for everyone else.
I am one who is in favor of rail passenger service but not as enthusiastic about HSR being the panacea for all passenger rail transportation problems; I think it is highly over stated or hyped. However, that being said, what a good HSR system will do is alliow the rest of the passenger system be utilized with connecting and lesser intermediate services. Thus the "less elite" also can have more and better services.
The facts lie in the statistics and statistics can lie when improperly applied.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Sam1 wrote:
"Studies in Japan and France have shown that high speed rail is not about serving the common citizen. Instead it is used largely by foreign tourists and in-country elites."
Please provide a primary source for this statement.
I found contradictory examples after a brief Google search. "Four years after the Paris/Lyon TGV route opened, rail passenger trips increased 90 percent for personal travel and 180 percent for business travel. Both increases came at the expense of air and automobile travel." Also: "British Airways reported a loss of 30 to 40 percent of its passengers on its competing one hour London to Paris flight" (after inauguration of Eurostar). From
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
Paul Milenkovic And how are we in the advocacy community any different in our thinking about cheap oil, when we support high rates of subsidy to save maybe 20 percent on oil usage per passenger mile? How are we any different than Mr. O'Toole when our most ambitious plans would replace auto travel at the single-digit level and result in net oil savings that are a fraction of a percent of total usage?
Paul these people are more in line with my thinking.
Securing America's Future Energy
As for "foreigners," let's not forget that our cheap dollar makes things cheap for them. It may indeed be worth the extra money to them to ride a train (Acela) which is almost the equal of the bullet trains, the TGV, and the German InterCity network." Saves time and cleaner equipment, etc.
The whole idea that "we can't afford high-speed rail" is out-of -context in this world today...
Facebook Gets $200 Million Backing From Digital Sky
By Joseph Galante
"May 26 (Bloomberg) -- Facebook Inc., the world’s largest social-networking service, received an investment from Russia’s Digital Sky Technologies that values the company at $10 billion, more than Starbucks Inc. or Safeway Inc.
Digital Sky will buy $200 million in preferred stock, gaining a 1.96 percent stake in the company, Palo Alto, California-based Facebook said today in a statement..."
I posted excerpts from Mr. O'Toole's column because they represent a contrarian point of view, and I believe that they are worthy of a rational discussion.
I have never been to France or Spain. If you want Mr. O'Toole to support any of the assertions that he made in his column, you are free to contact him. I understand that he has responded to e-mails and letters from interested parties.
I have ridden the Acela on several occasions. Most of the people that I met on the trains were business people traveling on expense account. Moreover, I have looked closely at the fares for the Acela and have compared them to the regional fares, as well as those for competing buses and airlines. The differences are particularly dramatic between Philadelphia and New York, for example. They are less so between Washington and New York. The fare structure, coupled with my experience, plus the accommodations on the Acela (first and business class only), tell me that the Acela service is intended primarily for persons traveling on an expense account or higher income patrons. To further buttress this argument, most of the discounts that are available on other Amtrak trains are not available on the Acela.
The fact that rail travel experienced an upsurge in personal and business train travel following the introduction of TGV service tells us nothing about the incomes or class of the riders. In fact, it does not tell us whether they rode the TGV or a non-TGV service. Who are these personal users? Who are the business users? What criteria were used to define the categories? Did the personal rail users ride on the TGV or a non-TGV service? Did the business travelers use the TGV or a non-TGV service?
It is interesting to note that business travel increased 180 per cent whilst personal travel increased 90 per cent. It is possible that the business travelers went on the TGV, whilst personal travelers went on non-TGV services. What was the base? What per cent of intercity travel in France was by train prior to the introduction of the TGV service. What was the per cent after introduction of the TGV? What is the per cent today?
Just to keep the record straight, I favor moderate speed passenger trains in high density corridors where the cost of expanding the highways and airways is prohibitive. I supported the implementation of commuter rail between Fort Worth and Dallas, although the subsidy required to operate it is very high. I also support the Austin commuter rail service and will be a regular rider when they get it going. I support the development of train service from Austin to San Antonio if it can be done for a reasonable cost.
I have not bought into the argument for TGV style high speed rail. It is a very costly alternative that will be used by a small percentage of the population.
Re: "The fact that rail travel experienced an upsurge in personal and business train travel following the introduction of TGV service tells us nothing about the incomes or class of the riders."
What are you saying? As early as the early Eighties SNCF had a program called "la democratisation de Vitesse" (the democratization of Speed) during which luxury, first-class-only trains, were opened up to second-class seating and riders as well. When TGV was new it was extra-fare, first class only. This became over time a public issue when the "new" wore off the technological miracle of super-fast passenger trains and the French gov't (or at least SNCF, which is government-owned) realized there was a tension between offering a brand-new, high-tech service in which there was room only for the elite (1st class passengers); and the mass democracy of the public on the other hand, that wanted its democratizaztion of speed on TGV and thought it only fair, as fellow members of the taxpaying public, to be included in the new trains.
SNCF may not have inquired about the income or class background of its TGV riders when they bought their tickets, but it did bow to public will and start offering second-class seating on the TGV a few years ago. Upshot? The original TGV route now has double-decker trains which carry many more people -- in first and second class both. I must remark that I never heard of any French people whining about how there wasn't enough money, or that equipping the world's fastest trains as bi-levs was so technologically improbable as to be impossible, or that French technology just didn't run that way, or that the French people didn't really like trains all that much. I realize it makes a big difference that France, while large, is not huge and Continental (it's about the size of Texas actually), and that private rates of car-ownership are much lower than here in the USA (and Canada). The country has an excellent system of superhighways, too, some of which started out as toll roads (again, the elite) but trickled down to all car-drivers when the roads were paid for and became free of charge to use.
So, yes, SNCF and Amtrak can draw some pretty good inferences about who is riding their trains by keeping credit-card data, especially when correlated with surveys. They'll know if somone's VISA was American or Japanese or German or French. And FWIW Japan National Railways offered its original bullet train (1964) with both first- and second-class seating and to my knowledge has never offered any daylight high-speed trains without both kinds of seating. - a.s.
al-in-chgo Re: "The fact that rail travel experienced an upsurge in personal and business train travel following the introduction of TGV service tells us nothing about the incomes or class of the riders." What are you saying? As early as the early Eighties SNCF had a program called "la democratisation de Vitesse" (the democratization of Speed) during which luxury, first-class-only trains, were opened up to second-class seating and riders as well. When TGV was new it was extra-fare, first class only. This became over time a public issue when the "new" wore off the technological miracle of super-fast passenger trains and the French gov't (or at least SNCF, which is government-owned) realized there was a tension between offering a brand-new, high-tech service in which there was room only for the elite (1st class passengers); and the mass democracy of the public on the other hand, that wanted its democratizaztion of speed on TGV and thought it only fair, as fellow members of the taxpaying public, to be included in the new trains. SNCF may not have inquired about the income or class background of its TGV riders when they bought their tickets, but it did bow to public will and start offering second-class seating on the TGV a few years ago. Upshot? The original TGV route now has double-decker trains which carry many more people -- in first and second class both. I must remark that I never heard of any French people whining about how there wasn't enough money, or that equipping the world's fastest trains as bi-levs was so technologically improbable as to be impossible, or that French technology just didn't run that way, or that the French people didn't really like trains all that much. I realize it makes a big difference that France, while large, is not huge and Continental (it's about the size of Texas actually), and that private rates of car-ownership are much lower than here in the USA (and Canada). The country has an excellent system of superhighways, too, some of which started out as toll roads (again, the elite) but trickled down to all car-drivers when the roads were paid for and became free of charge to use. So, yes, SNCF and Amtrak can draw some pretty good inferences about who is riding their trains by keeping credit-card data, especially when correlated with surveys. They'll know if somone's VISA was American or Japanese or German or French. And FWIW Japan National Railways offered its original bullet train (1964) with both first- and second-class seating and to my knowledge has never offered any daylight high-speed trains without both kinds of seating. - a.s.
The post that I referred to did not tell me anything about the class of people who ride the TGV. It did not tell me who makes up the personal class; it did not tell me who makes up the business class; it did not tell me how much they pay; it did not give me any hard data. Neither did O'Toole. You can take his comment for what it is worth. I do, however, from fare data and experience have a pretty good idea of who rides the Acela, which at the end of the day is the most important insight for me.
Is second class service on the TGV akin to business class on Acela? How much does it cost? Who uses it? You have not provided any hard data about the fare structure.
I am pleased that the French are happy with their TGV, although I don't know what percentage of the population uses it, which would be a better indication of their happiness. Having reviewed the SNCF financial reports, I know that the system requires a very large subsidy from the French Government. You can find the numbers in the annual financial report, although they are a tad difficult to dig out.
I don't care whether the French are happy with the TGV or the Japanese are happy with their bullet trains. I am interested in what is the best solution for the United States, which by the way staged a little revolution a couple of hundred plus years ago to distance itself from the Europeans.
I am concerned with what will work best for the U.S. And how to pay for it.
Re: "You have not provided any hard data about the fare structure."
Nor can I, not will I. My evidence, which was enough to persuade me, was based on a TV report, a longish (45-minute) MySpace video, and similar mention; and reason.
What is your idea of "hard evidence"? Physically bound printouts from the cost accounting or marketing departments at SNCF? They wouldn't send them to me and probably wouldn't to the average French citizen. If you actually have hardcopy French statistics, shouldn't you be the one to share them with us? With actual numbers, I mean? And policy and operating decisions?
The examples from other countries are to show a couple of things: (1) by reason of analogy, what has worked there might work here; and (2) no major industrialized country that has set at least a basic HSR network as a priority has failed to achieve that. Deficits of funding and technology can be made up for if the political will and social support are there.
I personally don't think we have the room (all those suburbs) or the dough to plan and execute a full system of 200 mph trains with no crossings or slow orders anywhere beyond the stations (even the French run the TGV at lower speeds on more conventional track, and there's a lot of it). I do think that we might want to follow something similar to the German model, which was a program of steady upgrades and rising average speeds of their IC trains, but very little brand-new track in new places. Over the past thirty-five years their best trains have gone from a GG-1 top cruising speed (ca. 85 mph) to an almost Japanese one (speeds approx, 140 mph). It cost a lot of money and took a lot of time but the proof is in the pudding--they are popular.
Nowhere in my prior postings have I argued that we should build HRS just because they have it in Japan, France, Germany, England, Hungary, Austria, Sweden........etc etc etc. But I will say that if it makes sense to us, one op-ed from a tunnel-visioned Libertarian should not throw off what could be a national program of infrastructure improvement, as the Interstate Highway program did in the 1960's to early 1970's.
For the record, I think the next best step is moderate speed trains with about the level of service (daily frequency) of 1959. Is it too much to ask to move only fifty years backwards?
I gave up on supporting maglev; the future is way too far for most Americans to consider. The rest of the developed world is taking leaps and bounds: the cover of this week's Nature (which along with Science, The New England Journal of Medicine, and of course Trains is among the most important of our planet's publications) features the fifth dimension. 100 mph in three dimensions (but three times a day) would be okay for most purposes in this country....
[See "Digital Storage in Five Dimensions: How to cram 1.6 terabytes on a DVD sized disk," cover of Nature volume 459 (issue number 7,245), 21 May 2009.)]
I agree with you that maybe too much attention is paid too soon on high speed rail, before Amtrak service is brought to all large city pairs in the 48 states.
Mailman brought new Amtrak timetable which shows some of the same old disappointments:
- no connections Albuquerque-El Paso. I've thought for many years that an Amtrak train from El Paso - Denver would succeed, given the great Latino migration northward. Now there's a report that Gov. Richardson (NM) wants to extend his RailRunner trains, already serving Santa Fe (!!) to those end points.
- poor connections Phoenix-Flagstaff. And why not a Thruway bus Phoenix-Maricopa? I just don't understand that one.
- speaking of Phoenix, isn't it time for a maglev train Phoenix- San Bernardino area, connecting to MetroLink?
- and why no more routes for Auto Train, all these years? NY-Phila.-Chicago, Chicago-Denver, Chicago-St. Louis-Texas, and many many more.
- Here we sit in Allentown, PA, and the best we can hope for appears to be an extension of NJ Transit the few miles over the border. They did run bus services to NYC for a number of years. Another operator took over. Not even Amtrak here!
- Has Amtrak EVER undertaken a comprehensive, professional, national survey, to see what markets are not currently served, and where any expansion should take place first? Isn't the best place to start increased frequency on existing routes?
I do hope the stimulus addresses and solves these needs.
James E. Bradley
Lehigh Valley Chapter N.R.H.S.
I
Maglev The whole idea that "we can't afford high-speed rail" is out-of -context in this world today... Facebook Gets $200 Million Backing From Digital Sky By Joseph Galante "May 26 (Bloomberg) -- Facebook Inc., the world’s largest social-networking service, received an investment from Russia’s Digital Sky Technologies that values the company at $10 billion, more than Starbucks Inc. or Safeway Inc. Digital Sky will buy $200 million in preferred stock, gaining a 1.96 percent stake in the company, Palo Alto, California-based Facebook said today in a statement..."
Facebook, Inc. is a for profit business. It is able to attract private capital because the investors believe that it is a going concern that will return their capital with interest.
Unfortunately, most passenger rail projects, including operations, depend on taxpayer monies because they are money losing propositions and cannot attract private capital.
As for the idea that France has the right population density and the midwest does not I've a question. How does the population density of France compare with Illinois and Indiana? Then add the MKE - Chi route?. In the east what is the density from BOS - RIC? Add Albany - NYP? Pittsburg - PHL? San Diego - Santa Barber?
Population density is not the question here. France, and the rest of Europe, have over the past two centuries, developed their transportation system into what it is. So have we ours. At this point it is not sensible to apply our standards to them or thier standards to us. Compare, yes, But you cannot draw similar conclusions.
May I add my cent's worth from the other side of the Atlantic. As ever there are arguments on both sides, and I'd certainly not wish to argue that what works in Europe will work in the United States. That said American cities, even some of the most conservative and decentralised ones have adopted Light Rail, based to some extent on European practice, and it works.
Issue 1. High speed rail is for the rich. Partially true, but only because the poor don't travel. If you have no money you can't travel, whether by high speed train, bus, plane or car. You don't have a job, so make no journeys to work and on behalf of work. You don't go and see your friends in the next state and can't afford those weekend breaks to pop away to the city, or indeed countryside. Thus the pool of travellers is already biased towards the richer end of the population.
Issue 2. The democritastion of travel. Al's point is right in principle, but lacks some detail. The fastest trains in the 1950s through to the 1970s were either first class only or 1st and 2nd class but with supplements. This applied to Germany as well as France. Come the mid-late 70s the rail administrations in both countries realised the rail travel was perceived as something for the rich. Germany introduced 2 class intercity services (instead of 1st class only), France the Corail coach (good for 125mph) and of course the TGV. Some TGV sets (less than 1 in 10) were 1st class only, but they ran from Paris to Lyon coupled to a 1st class/2nd class set. I'm pretty sure no trains were 1st class only.
The 1st class only sets were refurbished at mid-life to 1st and 2nd class ones. As you'll all know the orginal Paris to Lyon High Speed Line was a stunning sucess (against considertable scepticism it has to be said). Capacity ran out, leaving bigger trains or better signalling as the only option if the demand was to be catered for. Both were done, from 5 min headways at c160mph there are now 3 minute headways at 186mph. Double deck TGV sets (a stunning technical achievement by the way) were introduced so that each train carried over a quarter more passengers.
Issue 3 Population density. It is an issue, France is actually mostly empty space, with150 miles plus between major cities. Not Western empty space I agree, but to some extent midwestern empty space. Agricultural land is cheaper to build on than an urban environment, so high speed lines in France are significnalty cheaper than in Germany, Belgium and the UK, let alone Japan.
Issue 4 Congestion. There is no solution to congestion, and perhaps never has been, save for short periods when transport provsion gets ahead of mobility needs. That happended in the late 19th centruy with urban trolley systems, in the 1920s and 30s with the first motor cars and in the 1960s and 70s with freeways. But traffifc tends to expand to fill the (road) space avaialble, or in other words you can't build ytourself out of congestion.
What you can do is increase mobility. Urban railways tend to do this by building underground. Congestion reduces for a while, but then the people who would never have dreampt of getting their cars out when it took 30 minutes to go five miles realise the roads are emptier and drive, thereby increasing congestion. Buiding freight capcity takes trucks off the roads so reducing congestion and encouraging new operators to put trucks on the newly uncongested roads thereby making them more congested. As Sam might say - that's the market.
High Speed rail's more subtle. Why would I go to Paris if it took me 5 hours. But if it's 2.5 hours I'll go, because I don't waste my weekend travelling. This is suppressed demand, ie journeys are undertaken that would not have been undertaken before. This applies to business journmeys as well. When it took 4 hours from Paris to Lyon business people did not consider making the trip there and back in a day. Now it's 2 hours each way, and up to every half hour in frequency people travel.
Nothing's simple, perhaps best to think about unintended consequences in all of this.
I like your last paragraph, Cricketer...it says a lot about how transportation means are viewed. Applied to the automobile in the U.S. it is the explanation of its surge. I live in a small urban area 200 miles from New York City. No trains. No planes. Only highways. Before the superhighway it was an all day trek, 6 to 8 hours, but today, three to three and a half. So those who want to go to NYC go by car, maybe bus. But now, as congestion builds toward the larger city, as parking becomes a major problem, as there are more and more trucks on these super highways, the more time it takes again, and the more desirable a fast train is (i.e., 4 hours or less).
Thank you, Cricketer, for making such good counter-arguments and for tactfully offering a much better history of my take on "democratization of speed" in Western Europe. Your whole entry is impressive, but I was particularly impressed with the paragraph that begins, "High Speed Rail's more subtle. . . " It was much more consequential than me flopping around talking about "marketing." and such.
A little OT, but I also want to second Cricketer's impression that the interrelationship of French towns and country has an almost Midwestern feel to it. Climates and regions vary, but I was impressed on my three trips not only how charming the older buildings are and how good even ordinary food is, but at the number of things I've seen that might be considrered "quintessentially American small-town" but are not necessarily. These include Wal-Mart type superstores, but they generally got theirs first; county fairs with tilt-a-whirl machines (which were generally made in Italy and look just like the Italian-build fair rides we have); pheasant hunting after harvest (ordinary French citizens do not legally own pistols but can own longarms and they like sport shooting too); and the "Trans-cereales" (hope I've spelled it right) hopper cars that looked a lot like our BNSF, etc., models and were almost as big. There's an attitude pretty widespread in the USA that all things French are either wilfully perverse or hopelessly sophisticated, but that's very far from the truth, which is more complicated but also more fun! - a.s.
al-in-chgo What is your idea of "hard evidence"? Physically bound printouts from the cost accounting or marketing departments at SNCF? Yes! The financial information can be found in the SNCF financial statements, although they are not nearly as transparent as Amtrak's financial reports. If you actually have hardcopy French statistics, shouldn't you be the one to share them with us? With actual numbers, I mean? And policy and operating decisions? I did not challenge Mr. O'Toole's asertions. Data regarding the profiles of people who use the high speed rail systems in Europe and Japan are probably difficult to get. If they are available, they would show hard data, i.e. incomes, type of travel, etc. The examples from other countries are to show a couple of things: (1) by reason of analogy, what has worked there might work here; and (2) no major industrialized country that has set at least a basic HSR network as a priority has failed to achieve that. Deficits of funding and technology can be made up for if the political will and social support are there. If the users will not pay the full cost to use the system, either directly or indirectly, the cost falls on non-users, who for the most part are the taxpayers. The first question is whether the United States should build high speed rail to solve a real transport problem. The second question is whether it can afford it. If the answer is yes, then looking at what other countries do to get ideas that may be applicable here is appropriate. But building high speed rail because the Europeans and Japanese have done so is akin to adopting the budget of the family down the street irrespective of whether it meets your needs. With the exception of a few rants about Mr. O'Toole's political views, which are irrelevant, most of the folks who have responded to his views with some worthy ideas. However, no one has put forth a realistic plan of how to pay for the proposed high speed rail or a concrete cost/benefit analysis. In the business world where I spent all of my working career, if I had proposed a major project without a reasonable projection of the cost and benefits, I would have been on the street looking for another job.
What is your idea of "hard evidence"? Physically bound printouts from the cost accounting or marketing departments at SNCF?
Yes! The financial information can be found in the SNCF financial statements, although they are not nearly as transparent as Amtrak's financial reports.
If you actually have hardcopy French statistics, shouldn't you be the one to share them with us? With actual numbers, I mean? And policy and operating decisions?
I did not challenge Mr. O'Toole's asertions. Data regarding the profiles of people who use the high speed rail systems in Europe and Japan are probably difficult to get. If they are available, they would show hard data, i.e. incomes, type of travel, etc.
If the users will not pay the full cost to use the system, either directly or indirectly, the cost falls on non-users, who for the most part are the taxpayers.
The first question is whether the United States should build high speed rail to solve a real transport problem. The second question is whether it can afford it. If the answer is yes, then looking at what other countries do to get ideas that may be applicable here is appropriate. But building high speed rail because the Europeans and Japanese have done so is akin to adopting the budget of the family down the street irrespective of whether it meets your needs.
With the exception of a few rants about Mr. O'Toole's political views, which are irrelevant, most of the folks who have responded to his views with some worthy ideas. However, no one has put forth a realistic plan of how to pay for the proposed high speed rail or a concrete cost/benefit analysis.
In the business world where I spent all of my working career, if I had proposed a major project without a reasonable projection of the cost and benefits, I would have been on the street looking for another job.
re: "[B]ut building high speed rail because the Europeans and Japanese have done so is akin to adopting the budget of the family down the street irrespective of whether it meets your needs."
Why are YOU allowed to make facile analogies based on the individual nuclear family when you are so insistent I can't analyze like agents by relating one nation's HSR system to another's? -- a.s.
al-in-chgo re: "[B]ut building high speed rail because the Europeans and Japanese have done so is akin to adopting the budget of the family down the street irrespective of whether it meets your needs." Why are YOU allowed to make facile analogies based on the individual nuclear family when you are so insistent I can't analyze like agents by relating one nation's HSR system to another's? -- a.s.
You have missed my point. You appear to be looking at other countries for a solution that will work in the U.S. without analyzing the problem, i.e. where is high speed rail a good fit. And how will we pay for it.
As I stated in my post, the first question is whether the U.S. should build high speed rail, i.e. what problem will it solve better than any alternative. The second question is whether we can afford it, which again no one posting to this forum, at least, has answered in detail. If the answers to these questions is yes, then it would be appropriate to look at what other countries have done and determine whether their solutions or modificatons would be a good fit here.
It is a matter of timing.
I have been reseving further comment on this topic until I receive my July Trains...
Maglev I have been reseving further comment on this topic until I receive my July Trains... The Truth About Trains Is what you know about railroading accurate? We asked the experts to set the record straight about myths, costs, societal influences, technology, fuel efficiency, and more
Whether Trains, which has a vested interest in all things railroad, will produce an objective assessment of the railroad industry, including the argument for high speed rail, presumably, in the United States or beyond, is questionable.
I too will read the article(s). But I will be mindful of the biases that will probably leak into the reporting. I suggest that there are better sources of information.
If I want to know how Amtrak is performing, I dig the information out of their financial and operating reports that contain objective, primary source data (Energy Information Administration) or data that has been audited by an independent auditor (Amtrak Annual Report). If I want to know how much the French Government subsidies the TGV system, I pull the information from the system and government financial reports. If I want to know the energy footprint of passenger rail compared to alternative modes of passenger transport, I go to the Energy Information Administration. And lastly, but not least, if I want to know the subsidies required to run a light rail system, I go to National Transit Database.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.