Dragoman Why do people have to give up their cars, as if this should be an eithe/or proposition? I doubt I will ever "give up" my car, but I will use transit -- and especially rail -- when it is available & convenient. It's having the choice that is important. It seems to me that where people have that choice, they have used rail (and still keep their cars!)..
Why do people have to give up their cars, as if this should be an eithe/or proposition? I doubt I will ever "give up" my car, but I will use transit -- and especially rail -- when it is available & convenient.
It's having the choice that is important. It seems to me that where people have that choice, they have used rail (and still keep their cars!)..
The usual hyperbole is that "People will not give up their cars" to take a train. In that sense, people do give up their cars to ride trains - not that they would sell their car.
Phoebe Vet I guess you have forgotten how quickly the 1973 oil embargo brought us to our knees. In 1973 we imported about 30% of the oil we consumed. Today it is over 50%
I guess you have forgotten how quickly the 1973 oil embargo brought us to our knees.
In 1973 we imported about 30% of the oil we consumed. Today it is over 50%
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
A big-picture view of economics, energy, and history may be illuminating to the advocacy community in pursuing our goals.
Certain Middle Eastern states and especially Saudi Arabia placed an embargo on oil exported to the United States in response to President Richard Nixon in effect saving Israel with an emergency shipment to replace losses in the October 1973 Egyptian and Syrian attack on Israel.
Besides saving Israel as a nation state, one of the other actions taken by President Nixon was the imposition of "wage and price controls", I believe the executive order was given in August 1971.
It has been said that oil is "fungible", meaning that it is a pourable liquid held in barrels or in the holds of tanker ships, and it does not have a bar code or a serial number on it. So, Saudi stops selling to the U.S. but continues selling to Japan? What is to prevent Japan from selling some of its "other oil" to the U.S.?
This is not to say that the embargo did not have a direct effect. Not all kinds of oil are interchangable with all refineries, and there are routes and manifests of the tanker ships that cannot be altered overnight. There is documentary coverage of President Nixon complaining to the Saudi King that the embargo hurt the war effort in Vietnam, which was still going at that late date, and that the King opposed Communism, now, didn't he?
But it is also said that the real culprit in the 1973 gas crisis were the price controls on oil and petroleum products that were held over from the 1971 wage and price control executive order, controls that led to the 1978 gas crisis in conjunction with the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and that were lifted by President Ronald Reagan -- we have suffered from spikes in gas prices since then, but we haven't seen people forming long lines at gasoline stations on the same scale.
As to being "brought to our knees", a person is entitled to their own descriptive language, and I was old enough to drive in 1973 and old enough to need to drive to work in 1978. Queueing up for gas was mighty inconvenient and I found it unpleasant, but there weren't widespread food shortages or people freezing in the cold, which constitutes "bringing brought to one's knees" by, say, the standards of England under the Blitz, which is to say that as Americans, to think we were brought to our knees compared to what other societies had to endure as hardship in recent times, that is to say we are pretty "soft."
Along the idea of the United States being at risk for "being brought to its knees" on account of the high percentage of oil that is imported, the United States Air Force had this idea of building coal-to-oil plants. The notion is that coal-to-oil is not price competitive with oil-from-a-well at this time, but the Air Force could pay for the construction of these plants to have them available in a national emergency, presumably to keep the Air Force planes supporting our troops flying in a crisis, with the civilian population being subject to rationing as mentioned regarding WW-II.
Well, the Honorable Henry Waxman of California, Member of Congress and Committee Chair would have none of this, because you see, defending the United States in this manner by having operational coal-to-liquids plants in reserve would increase carbon emissions, and the environment can tolerate none of this. So what it comes down to is the real reason we don't have "energy security", which some economists think is a little uncertain given that oil is "fungible" anyway, is that as a society we trade off protection of "the environment" over "energy security." Oil protects the environment, you ask? You bet it does, compared to dirty, CO2 belching coal-to-liquids.
Is reduced energy consumption and the question of energy security the un-negotiable concern on why we need trains? MWHSRA seems to think it is by putting a (false) claim regarding energy saving front and center on their Web site in response to the "anti-train crisis" in Wisconsin?
If this is the case, why was the advocacy community so thrilled about the Vision Report, which proposed spending half a trillion dollars to increase the passenger-mile share of intercity trains to 1 percent? Given that cars use 40 percent of oil, that the Vision Report assumes the trains would cut energy use by 50% (presumably by concentrating on well-patronized intercity trains without baggage, dining, or sleeping cars that depress the "seat count" as Amtrak's improvement over driving is less than that), we are talking about spending half a trillion dollars to reduce oil use by .2 percent. And in the advocacy community, we think that the Vision Report is something that advances our agenda?
Yeah, I remember 1973 and 1978 all too well. That is why I have been skeptical about the general approach of the advocacy movement.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
HarveyK400 Illinois and other states have shown the people will take the train even where speeds currently average less than 60 mph. The "Common Wisdom" that the public will not give up their cars has been dis-proven many times over.
Illinois and other states have shown the people will take the train even where speeds currently average less than 60 mph. The "Common Wisdom" that the public will not give up their cars has been dis-proven many times over.
What trip length are do you cite?? People will start only using their cars for longer trips? I have often wondered if commuters have any idea how much it costs to drive? LD driving just costs so much less!
HarveyK400 Every indication from recent experience in the US is that faster and more frequent service will attract significantly more ridership by orders of magnitude. This should happen and maybe as the new 20 - 40 yr olds commute to work and travel intercity they will want to do billable work or just text to every person in the world?? There should be no doubt that 110 mph inter-city service will reap substantial gains at relatively little cost. Speeds over 110 mph begin to increase costs substantially with full grade separation, electrification, and new very high-speed alignments with the attendant dislocation of homes and businesses that needs to be weighed against ridership and the value of diversion and accommodation of travel on rail.
Every indication from recent experience in the US is that faster and more frequent service will attract significantly more ridership by orders of magnitude.
This should happen and maybe as the new 20 - 40 yr olds commute to work and travel intercity they will want to do billable work or just text to every person in the world??
There should be no doubt that 110 mph inter-city service will reap substantial gains at relatively little cost. Speeds over 110 mph begin to increase costs substantially with full grade separation, electrification, and new very high-speed alignments with the attendant dislocation of homes and businesses that needs to be weighed against ridership and the value of diversion and accommodation of travel on rail.
Of course it is not the top speed that is as important as reducing the slow orders. Just think even the NEC is not 110 average speed yet! Hopefully the new Electric motors Amtrak has ordered will have enough HP to quickly accelerate trains to the top allowed track speeds. I wonder if the CHI - STL MSR (110 MPH) will require 2 P-40s (being rebuilt to 110mph) or P-42s to achieve optimal acceleration?
A big unknown is the passenger demand that will occurr on this route. Since ridership figures have proved so fickel the # travelling over the CHI - STL route especially CHI - Springfield cannot be acurately predicted. The demand could be off by an order of magnitude! How can equipment ever be properly allocated?
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
daveklepper I honestly believe that the USA may very well be deprived of Mideast oil very soon, much sooner than any planners for USA energy-independence are anticipating. This is the message from the recent Wikipedia expose. (I did not need the message, however.)
I honestly believe that the USA may very well be deprived of Mideast oil very soon, much sooner than any planners for USA energy-independence are anticipating. This is the message from the recent Wikipedia expose. (I did not need the message, however.)
That wouldn't seem to be a major deal, to me. Wouldn't it just shuffle the deck of what oil goes where? ...unless the Saudi's just aren't going to export as much oil, the total world supply and demand would be the same. The middle east oil would go to the Pacific Rim and the Alaskan Oil would come here, for example. It would raise overall transport costs, but that's not the same as turning off the spigot.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
I honestly believe that the USA may very well be deprived of Mideast oil very soon, much sooner than any planners for USA energy-independence are anticipating. This is the message from the recent Wikipedia expose. (I did not need the message, however.) The political leaders who seem so proud to block passneger rail expansion will be pilloried for their lack of foresight when and if this happens. Instead of devoting energy to blocking passenger rail expansion, they should really study how the USA could handle loss of Mideast oil and what the implications are for both freight and passenger transportation.
Every indication from recent experience in the US is that faster and more frequent service will attract significantly more ridership by orders of magnitude. There should be no doubt that 110 mph inter-city service will reap substantial gains at relatively little cost. Speeds over 110 mph begin to increase costs substantially with full grade separation, electrification, and new very high-speed alignments with the attendant dislocation of homes and businesses that needs to be weighed against ridership and the value of diversion and accommodation of travel on rail.
Without HUGE increases in gas prices and/or rationing the public outside of the established passenger corridors, they will not give up their cars. And, unless they do, non-corridor rail passenger service will never run without a large subsidy. Can politicians summon up the courage to advance railroads as a cure to more than unit coal/container trains? I doubt it. Several posts ago I suggested that the largest city triads be connected by a minimum of three daily trains each way. The condition was that the triads had to compete directly with a :90 flight time in both price and door to door timing. Long distance travel could be done, but changing trains was necessary. I believe this is the best way of addressing the issue of New York to Kansas City by train for those who really want to do it.
Good point. And oen of the reasons \i am a passenger rail advocate, inlcuding long distance, is a memory of WWI and A-cards and gas rationing.
When it comes to transportation, rail transportation especially,
Political foresight is about 20/400000
Real time political sight is about 20/400
Political hindsight however, is 20/10!
With political hindsight being what it is, it is amazing they can't convert any of the knowledge gained from the hindsight into foresight.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I first noticed that back is 1974 traveling Europe. The West Coast Main from Euston to Glasgow had been recently upgraded to 100 mph and the trains screamed by like so many ball bearings on a concrete floor. The sound was loud in the coaches too with the with top vents open (Mk I's?). I had gone up on a Sunday and returned overnight. The sleeper upgrade was only 2 pounds.
Similar noise was experienced in France. The RTG's were going as fast as 124 mph; but I didn't get a chance to plan a trip. I stumbled on the RTG's at lower speeds on various lines leading out of Paris. I did ride to Bordeaux at 99 mph on the line where the record was set at 186 mph.
On a side note, this being Thanksgiving, an earlier post mentioned noise problems with rail in Holland. I learned today that the Thanksgiving Day hymn, sung by many: "We gather to gether to ask the Lord's blessing, was originally composed in Dutch to celebrate a 16th Century Durch military victory.
Phoebe Vet Many places have multi community agencies at the local transit level, where many users live in the suburban communities but work in the central community. It is much harder to do at a travel level. You only need one community along the way to opt out and the project becomes nearly impossible to do.
Many places have multi community agencies at the local transit level, where many users live in the suburban communities but work in the central community. It is much harder to do at a travel level. You only need one community along the way to opt out and the project becomes nearly impossible to do.
Atlanta has this problem with MARTA. Why pay into a system when the affluent residents can drive to the neighboring county that has a station and save a few tax dollars? It's a similar problem with Kenosha on the UP North at Kenosha (WI) and at Fox Lake, McHenry, and Harvard (IL) near the border. Parasites.
Midwest hsr has the problem with Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin not providing material support for multi-state corridors. Not that the Hammond-Whiting station was well situated for corridor and long-distance travel from Northwest Indiana; but the number of trains stopping there has dwindled and maybe the station should be closed. With more trains stopping at New Buffalo, Michigan, the stops at Michigan City (IN) could be discontinued. End the free lunch as much as possible; but New York and Washington, DC long-distance trains would be compromised and pose a dilemma by not stopping in Indiana and Ohio (as it is, they stop in the middle of the night).
Dave,
Some cities already do. For smaller cities, it's usually been created to support local bus service. Chicago has its RTA which includes buses, the EL, and Metra. With federal largesse diminishing, our city and others are trying to create authorities to tax the locals to avoid public transit cuts.
daveklepper Maybe this is the thread to make the suggestion: In the event of cancillation of a state funded rail projects, why cannot the effected communities that really want and are willing to help pay for the service form a transportation authority, vote to pay the necessary taxes, real-estate/added-value on purchases, parking, and apply for the Federal funds and take over the project?
Maybe this is the thread to make the suggestion: In the event of cancillation of a state funded rail projects, why cannot the effected communities that really want and are willing to help pay for the service form a transportation authority, vote to pay the necessary taxes, real-estate/added-value on purchases, parking, and apply for the Federal funds and take over the project?
Good luck with the inevitable court fights with the NIMBYs and the BANANAs. They do a pretty good job of paralyzing local projects as small as cell phone towers and highway exits. Can you imagine how much fun they would be with a rail line? You really need a broader base of supporters to help fight the battle.
It's not the proportion of travel by mode with respect to the total; but the travel by mode in a corridor linking two or more areas.
It's also not just running trains; but attracting a sufficient and viable level of ridership to be more effective than the alternatives considering the myriad purposes and needs in making the trips.
I haven't looked for the Wisconsin studies showing proposed schedules and projected ridership. One concern is whether discrete timing is considered in modeling ridership so people can get to destinations when they need to.
Maybe there should be separate Wisconsin and Ohio threads.
I have just read a short article in the Israeli general road transport magazined. ONly 0.6% of trips of 500 meters or more, roughly 1700 feet, were taken by rail. Private auto accounts for about 45%, walking is next, followed by public bus, then charter or private bus, then bicycle, then motorcycle. Yet Israel is forging ahead with a high-speed Tel-Aviv - Jerusalem link, Jerusalem Light Rail's first line will open in May, and construction started on Tel Aviv light rail. There is a definit push to get people to use more public transportation, and improving rail service is part of the plan. Of course distrances are shorted, and rail does now have a substantial portion of the Tel Aviv - Haifa public transportation market and does compete with the private automobile there. At least one Haifa friend does say he leaves his car at the train parkiing lot and uses the train to and from Tel Aviv.
Paul Milenkovic 46 billion railroad passenger miles puts them at 10 times Amtrak. I only remember the rough breakdown for EU rather than Germany in particular, but their auto passenger miles in proportion to EU would work out to about 20 times more or about 1 trillion passenger miles. The U.S. total is around 4 trillion auto passenger miles, so all of those number sound about right in proportion. The Vision Report proposes spending 10 billion/year to get to about 46 billion railroad passenger miles for the entire U.S., for a similar rail expenditure of Germany, putting us at parity with Germany on rail passenger miles, but spread across the U.S. When I was a charter member of NARP at age 11, I saw the battle between cars and trains in Manichean terms, i.e., epic struggle between good and evil. My namesake was said to have written (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_13) "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." I am of the opinion that to get public support for more trains service, one has to understand the limitations of trains as well as the advantages of trains. remember reading a few chapters over from what I have quoted above a parable about a general, facing an adversary with 50,000 soldiers while commanding only 20,000 soldiers, reflects on the situation and decides to send emissaries to discuss truce terms rather than sending his men in to face likely defeat. This thread is about the "Future of Passenger Trains in North America." I think those trains have the best future if the resources are concentrated in markets where there is the greatest public support for trains and the greatest potential for ridership, and this may mean conceding defeat on the Madison train. It is not productive to call opponents of passenger trains "ignorant" or "misinformed" (the local advocacy group) or "stupid" (Isthmus Newspaper's cover page editorial). I don't think it is productive to represent trains as requiring one fifth as much energy as cars (MWHSRA Web site) when the trains under consideration may at best cut the energy use in half. I don't think it is helpful to point to EU or Germany as places where trains are a dominant form of transportation when cars are dominant as they are here.
46 billion railroad passenger miles puts them at 10 times Amtrak. I only remember the rough breakdown for EU rather than Germany in particular, but their auto passenger miles in proportion to EU would work out to about 20 times more or about 1 trillion passenger miles. The U.S. total is around 4 trillion auto passenger miles, so all of those number sound about right in proportion.
The Vision Report proposes spending 10 billion/year to get to about 46 billion railroad passenger miles for the entire U.S., for a similar rail expenditure of Germany, putting us at parity with Germany on rail passenger miles, but spread across the U.S.
When I was a charter member of NARP at age 11, I saw the battle between cars and trains in Manichean terms, i.e., epic struggle between good and evil. My namesake was said to have written (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_13) "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
I am of the opinion that to get public support for more trains service, one has to understand the limitations of trains as well as the advantages of trains. remember reading a few chapters over from what I have quoted above a parable about a general, facing an adversary with 50,000 soldiers while commanding only 20,000 soldiers, reflects on the situation and decides to send emissaries to discuss truce terms rather than sending his men in to face likely defeat.
This thread is about the "Future of Passenger Trains in North America." I think those trains have the best future if the resources are concentrated in markets where there is the greatest public support for trains and the greatest potential for ridership, and this may mean conceding defeat on the Madison train. It is not productive to call opponents of passenger trains "ignorant" or "misinformed" (the local advocacy group) or "stupid" (Isthmus Newspaper's cover page editorial). I don't think it is productive to represent trains as requiring one fifth as much energy as cars (MWHSRA Web site) when the trains under consideration may at best cut the energy use in half. I don't think it is helpful to point to EU or Germany as places where trains are a dominant form of transportation when cars are dominant as they are here.
Speaking of the size of one's army, the opposition to the Madison extension boils down to an argument based on relevance irrespective of underlying motives. The opposition to the extension compares the service and ridership of the Hiawatha to travel for all of Wisconsin, or even within those counties. If one looked at Milwaukee and Racine travel to downtown Chicago, I would imagine a healthier proportion of trips would emerge. For example, Metra carries only a small, almost negligible, proportion of all trips in the Region; but over 50% of all travel from the Collar Counties to downtown Chicago uses Metra which is pretty significant if you ask me.
The current Hiawatha's serve stations in Milwaukee and Kenosha County that represents just 21% of the State's population. (I use county populations for an estimate reflecting the reach of Amtrak service coinciding roughly with the area of a county.) I doubt anyone questioned the cost of a highway interchange in Milwaukee with respect to the proportion of drivers who may never use it; but that is what was done.
By comparison, Illinois counties with an Amtrak stop comprise over 75% of the population; so the argument about relevance goes nowhere. With planned extensions to Dubuque (IA) and Moline, the proportion will rise to over 85%; and everyone wants a train regardless of party affiliation.
Now the governor-elect did correctly point out that the Hiawatha's serves mostly inter-state travel between Wisconsin and Illinois. What he ignored was that extending service would open up substantial intra-state travel. The additional county populations served by the extension to Madison would increase by 16%. 37% of the state then would have a viable inter-state travel option in addition to Illinois destinations.
The extension to Madison will cost $810 million; but an additional 3% could be reached for only the cost of a station for Kenosha County. Extending service to the Twin Cities would only serve another 4% between Madison and either La Crosse or Menomonie. Including Green Bay in the plan would add 13% and reach 50% or more of the State's population. Put another way, two corridors to Green Bay and the Twin Cities would offer intra-state travel for 37% and 41% of the population respectively.
Furthermore, Central Wisconsin should not be overlooked either, adding another 5%.
I'm suggesting where Wisconsin advocates can build a bigger army. This battle may have been lost; but a tactical retreat to regroup and attack again may win the war.
Passenger Travel Mix in 2004 EU-25 (%) United States (%)Air 8.0 10.9Auto 76.0 85.3Intercity rail 5.8 0.1Urban rail 1.2 0.5
Bus 8.3 3.2
Source: National Transportation Statistics (Washington: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2008), Table 1-37;Panorama of Transport (Brussels: European Commission, 2007), p. 102.Note: Auto includes motorcycles; bus includes both intercity and urban buses.
As you may see, passenger rail use is much higher (13X) in Europe (and even higher in Germany and France) than here. Auto use is lower.
So pretty clearly developing real services (fast, frequent) in the appropriate (relatively short with dense populations) corridors could generate demand and take some pressure off the fixed route highways (they aren't random) and airways.
Madison Milwaukee made no sense to me except as part of a CHI-Minn corridor.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
[quote user="Paul Milenkovic"]
I am of the opinion that to get public support for more trains service, one has to understand the limitations of trains as well as the advantages of trains.
This thread is about the "Future of Passenger Trains in North America." I think those trains have the best future if the resources are concentrated in markets where there is the greatest public support for trains and the greatest potential for ridership, and this may mean conceding defeat on the Madison train.
[/quote
I feel the same way, Paul.
I think Wisconsin would be better off if the funds could be used toward bringing Hiawatha service to its potential. I think that would raise eyebrows.]
I think it's important to keep in mind the inherent differences in structure that transportation modes present. Autos/roads make possible a random route structure with much flexibility. Trains/rails invoke an inflexible, fixed route structure. The underlying transportation structures impact location economics greatly which in turn impacts the mode of transportation that's preferred.
A couple weeks ago, we drove I-55 from Bloomington, IL to I-270 (northeast St. Louis) on our way to our destination in west suburban St. Louis. UP's Alton (Amtrak) line parallels the interstate most of the way. On the way back, we saw an Amtrak push-pull with five coaches north of Lincoln. No freight trains at all either way.. (Also saw that UP was installing welded rail and concrete ties north of Springfield). The Amtrak schedules show the final 27 miles into the St. Louis Station takes roughly 50-55 minutes. I wonder how St. Louis-Chicago passenger train economics would change if push-pull trains ran from a park 'n ride stop where the ROW intersects I-270 (in the Mitchell area) and maybe a park 'n ride Willow Springs stop at I-294 and I-55 in Chicagoland (250 mile trip). Kind of like a coach/auto train with no autos. No big city station cost allocations allowed. (Not talking about train servicing costs that should be included). For the traveler, using Amtrak's current schedule, train trip time would be cut roughly 80 minutes (25%). Access to trains for suburban metropolitan travelers greatly improved.
ps. People we know in the Netherlands love their cars and dis the trains. They hate the high decibel levels of the HSR trains that "scream along their concrete canyons".
So what should people do that don't want to drive or can't for medical reasons or can't even
fly for various reasons? Maybe once all passenger trains are eliminated auto drivers will
be required to drive us anywhere we want or maybe we should just stay at home and rot!
Paul Milenkovic In the EU, 80 percent of passenger miles are by auto. In the U.S., the figure is 90 percent. That "most Germans depend on mass transit and intercity trains for everyday purposes, using their autos on weekends for fun" does not square with this. To get societies where trains and transit are front and center and autos are subsidiary, you have to consider Japan and Taiwan.
In the EU, 80 percent of passenger miles are by auto. In the U.S., the figure is 90 percent. That "most Germans depend on mass transit and intercity trains for everyday purposes, using their autos on weekends for fun" does not square with this.
To get societies where trains and transit are front and center and autos are subsidiary, you have to consider Japan and Taiwan.
I was thinking of urban areas where the number of commuters by S Bahn, U Bahn, trams, (buses) and regional trains is high, as opposed to rural areas. Try spending some time in the areas around Hamburg, Frankfurt, Munich or Berlin and you would see what I mean.
I don't quite know where those percentages come from, though I have seen them elsewhere. I do know that in Germany, there were over 46 billion passeger train miles in 2006. For someone who was once a passenger rail advocate, you sure are whistling a different tune these days.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.