« Happy Thanksgiving! | Main | Pass The Green Beans »
November 22, 2007
Rail!
I fear that, when talking about rail, some folks make it seem like they're trying to preserve some fascinating bit of American arcana -- a museum on wheels. As Paul Weinstein writes, it just ain't so:
Contrary to popular opinion, since the mid 1990s, we have seen an explosion in rail demand and service, primarily focused among commuter and short to medium intercity routes. From 1995 to 2005, commuter rail usage grew over 20 percent, from 352 to 423 million passenger trips. Over the same period, 421 miles of new commuter and light rail track has been built.
Nearly half of the 21 commuter railroads in North America did not exist 15 years ago. Most of those new systems are based in Chicago and several Northeastern cities, including New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. Today commuter railroads are located in metropolitan areas across the nation, including Miami, Los Angeles, Nashville, the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., and Dallas. And many more are on the way.[...]
In fact, where there is a strong passenger rail presence in densely populated areas, with trains that are modern and fast (by U.S. standards), rail is more than competitive with the airlines (Amtrak handles about 50% of all New York-Washington airline/railroad traffic).
This is, in other words, an alternative worth strengthening, particularly given the environmental benefits. Weinstein goes on to suggest three ways for imrpoving the rail infrastructure: Invest in densely populated corridors first, focusing on the creation of an effective and efficient commuter rail system; pump money into high speed rail, which has proven attractive to riders; and give Amtrak a dedicated funding source, in much the same way that highways and airports have dedicated funding streams (the gas and ticket taxes, respectively). Weinstein suggests a "4.3-cent gas tax paid by the railroad industry on diesel fuel, a ticket surcharge on all passenger rail systems (including commuter rail systems), and a match contribution from states in which the rail system operates," all of which sound reasonable enough.
November 22, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Weinstein suggests a "4.3-cent gas tax paid by the railroad industry on diesel fuel, a ticket surcharge on all passenger rail systems (including commuter rail systems), and a match contribution from states in which the rail system operates," all of which sound reasonable enough.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In other words, lets make rail travel even less competitive than air travel by making the passengers pay for improvements. That pig don't fly. Rail travel rates already exceed air fares where both are available, yet travel times on rail are equal to or slower than bus travel on many Amtrak routes.
What would make more sense is an across the board transportation fuel tax increase (gasoline, diesel, & jet fuel) dedicated primarily toward high speed rail infrastructure, along with a matching funds formula from participating states. A side benefit would be consumer reduction in use of these fuels, resulting in a cleaner environment. Of course, this would also require justifying the cost/benefit ratio to the voters.
Posted by: bob in fla | Nov 22, 2007 2:11:55 PM
If I were commuting in these densely populated corridors I'd much rather ride the train than fight traffic. I know that 'studies' show otherwise on the part of the pubic but I do believe that is changing and the change could be accelerated by a fact based advertising campaign.
Keep in mind that everything, everything traditional economists say about how folks will react is wrong. Flat, dead wrong. Read The Origin of Wealth for a primer on why.
Posted by: A.Citizen | Nov 22, 2007 2:24:30 PM
Remember, most rail is freight, so that tax wouldn't be mainly borne by direct rail commuters, but by companies shipping and, indirectly, by the consumers of their products.
Posted by: Ezra | Nov 22, 2007 2:35:04 PM
"a museum on wheels"
Unfortunately, the rail network in the U.S. is something of a museum on wheels, technologically.
The long decline of American railroads has left a rail net in a serious state of decrepitude and obsolescence. The safety of rail transportation has been seriously compromised, making intercity rail and freight rail, by an order of magnitude, the risky transportation modes. (Urban mass transit, by contrast, is extremely safe, statistically.)
The problems of Acela don't need to be rehearsed, but the point is that high-speed service is almost impossible to implement, given the state of the freight rail net.
Think bigger, much BIGGER. A plan, which frames the renewal of the whole rail network, including freight, would serve the interests of the country.
Posted by: Bruce Wilder | Nov 22, 2007 2:59:15 PM
I'm glad to see this issue being brought up and talked about.
Have any of the ppl running for president said anything about it?
Posted by: gregh | Nov 22, 2007 2:59:34 PM
I'm sure I'd be counted as a 'museum on wheels' type, but that's only a short-term perspective: given the existing network, the existing services and the existing level of investment, how do you make the best of what you've got? Lipstick on a pig, sure, but how, exactly, does a House working on a two-year cycle and a White House on a four-year cycle start something that, if done properly, is a twenty-year effort?
By analogy, once you're up and running, momentum's in your favour. That's why congresscritters will fall over themselves to bail out airlines, because they don't want services to stop on their watch. It's the getting started that's the problem.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Nov 22, 2007 3:37:46 PM
I hope they continue paying attention to rails. I've been using the train to get up from school to home at a decent price compared to buses. It's fast, convenient, not to mention helpful in alleviating our need to drive cars. Huzzah!
Posted by: Peaches | Nov 22, 2007 3:43:25 PM
"Have any of the ppl running for president said anything about it?"
Richardson's a pretty big rail advocate, having built up a pretty successful rail system in NM.
Posted by: Frank | Nov 22, 2007 4:13:38 PM
"Contrary to popular opinion, since the mid 1990s, we have seen an explosion in rail demand and service, primarily focused among commuter and short to medium intercity routes. From 1995 to 2005, commuter rail usage grew over 20 percent,"
Population growth over that time was 16.3%, so this hardly counts as an explosion. I lived in England and loved the rail system, but it doesn't help the discussion to overblow the demand.
Posted by: DM | Nov 22, 2007 5:40:12 PM
The "museum on wheels" concept gets a lot of talk from people using it as a straw man type of argument, some of whom may be sincerely confused about why we still have Amtrak long-distance runs.
When buses were deregulated some time ago, the first thing that happened was the discontinuance of most rural bus service. Rural communities that still had rail service became frantic to keep that rail service, as otherwise there would be no public transportation at all to or from their towns. That is the major reason we still have long-distance runs on Amtrak- representatives in Congress defending, as you would hope they would, the transportation serving their constituents.
Posted by: serial catowner | Nov 22, 2007 7:14:16 PM
When buses were deregulated some time ago, the first thing that happened was the discontinuance of most rural bus service. Rural communities that still had rail service became frantic to keep that rail service, as otherwise there would be no public transportation at all to or from their towns. That is the major reason we still have long-distance runs on Amtrak- representatives in Congress defending, as you would hope they would, the transportation serving their constituents.
Well, if that is true, then it would not be a problem at all to just subsidize some bus routes and get rid of the long-distance trains, right?
Look, we need a lot of rail service, and we should spend a lot of money on it. But we need zero long distance rail service; those truly are museums on wheels.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | Nov 22, 2007 7:33:49 PM
Well, as a matter of fact, there are other reasons for continuing the Amtrak long distance routes.
If you think they are bad reasons, you will find no shortage of rightwingers to agree with you.
As for myself, I've had all the privatization I can take for one decade, and no interest at all in subsidizing any bus route that isn't run by a public agency.
Posted by: serial catowner | Nov 22, 2007 8:16:15 PM
Bah! I thought this article was going to be about a bird.
:-)
Posted by: little green | Nov 22, 2007 8:24:35 PM
I live in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and we're currently watching them tear up the median on I-25 for the RailRunner commuter train.
I look forward to the day when I can catch a train to the airport in Albuquerque, and avoid the 60 mile drive, and parking hassles!
Posted by: Dana | Nov 22, 2007 10:16:39 PM
Posted by: Dilan Esper | Nov 22, 2007 7:33:49 PM
Well, if that is true, then it would not be a problem at all to just subsidize some bus routes and get rid of the long-distance trains, right?Look, we need a lot of rail service, and we should spend a lot of money on it. But we need zero long distance rail service; those truly are museums on wheels.
Whatever gives you the idea that long distance rail routes primarily provide long distance travel? The reason that long distance route perform better, on a dollar per hundred passenger miles basis, than the middle distance routes, is because of the overlapping series of middle distance trips provided by the long distance routes.
Oh, wait a minute ... you were aware that a comparison of Amtrak long distance routes and Amtrak middle distance routes shows that the long distance routes are more effective at providing transport services? And were talking on the basis of that?
Or were you, just perhaps, talking on the basis of an pair of assumptions, one justified and the other not, directly to a conclusion, without bothering to permit any interference from the facts on the ground?
Andrew Selden explains the Value of Long Distance Trains (YouTube)
Posted by: BruceMcF | Nov 23, 2007 11:12:26 AM
There are only 21 commuter rail services in the entire United States? Less than one every two states? Jesus.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Nov 23, 2007 12:12:07 PM
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Nov 23, 2007 12:12:07 PM
There are only 21 commuter rail services in the entire United States? Less than one every two states? Jesus.
While its not great, its not as bad as it sounds ... the term commuter rail, here, is being used as a fairly specific category of passenger rail ... as Wikipedia notes:
Commuter Rail services in the United States, Canada, and soon Mexico provide common carrier passenger transportation along railway tracks, with scheduled service on fixed routes on a non-reservation basis primarily for short-distance (local) travel between a central business district and adjacent suburbs and regional travel between cities of a conurbation. It does not include rapid transit or light rail service.
Given cost considerations, many places that are putting rail without existing rail rights of way focus on light rail at the outset.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Nov 23, 2007 2:01:26 PM
Has anyone been shouting that we have pretty much tapped out the roads and air corridors, but population will keep on growing? How are people in the U.S. going to travel from city to city in 30 years? Aren't the Europeans totally cleaning our clocks in building livable societies?
Posted by: urbanlegend | Nov 24, 2007 12:07:18 AM
as a recent rail passenger, we are missing something big here. the Amtrak stock is really comfortable, far better than any plane, the scenery amazing (those old rights-of-way were well-chosen). the fact that the service is slow and not alway timely is due to the lack of maintenance on the tracks (those 350 mph French trains wouldn't go any faster here) and the fact that the rails are shared with freight. a 200 mph long distance rail service would be a serious competitor to short plane service (since trains take you into town, not to some desolate concrete eyesore on the outskirts).
if you haven't tried it, you ought to.
Underlying all this are some serious structural issues, though. The French run electric trains, using the power they get from their nuclear plants that they built when they decided to get away from oil. I'm not a nuke advocate, as I'm not confident in the power industry to manage them well: something about safety and "for-profit" that doesn't always mesh, especially if the risks are largely invisible, unlike a plane crash.
Posted by: paul | Nov 24, 2007 11:54:34 AM
Structural issues? Here in the Northeast (CT suburb) the train tracks Amtrak buys space pretty much were all placed by George Pullman himself. No wonder the Natl Register of Historic Places wants to put plaques up!
Politically, its enemies find more use for Amtrak in its starved-for-capital, yearly begging mode than if it were actually dead. (And yes, I probably did post this previously.)
Posted by: ThresherK | Nov 24, 2007 2:01:29 PM
on a dollar per hundred passenger miles basis
I just want to flag this so that everyone knows what an abject liar Bruce McF is.
He is saying that long distance trains are more efficient IF you measure efficiency "on a dollar per hundred passenger miles basis".
But think about this. If you need to go 25 miles and you want a train to circumvent a highway that is stopped in the rush hour, do you care about the "dollar per hundred passenger miles basis"? No, you don't, because the point of the train isn't how many miles it covers, it's how many people it helps beat the traffic!
So, yes, I agree, if you stack the deck in such a way that long distance trains are favored, then yes, they come out ahead. (If you want better statistics on long-distance trains, consider that the California Zephyr (Oakland to Chicago) arrives within 30 minutes of schedule about 10 percent of the time, and the similar statistic for the Sunset Limited (Los Angeles to New Orleans) is 19 percent.
the overlapping series of middle distance trips provided by the long distance routes
I understand that the Coast Starlight train (Los Angeles to Seattle) is probably the best way to get from Dunsmuir, CA to Klamath Falls, OR, two intermediate stops a few hours apart.
But the problem with that argument is NOBODY WANTS TO GO FROM DUNSMUIR TO KLAMATH FALLS! So yes, if you are interested in transportation that inconsistently and poorly fulfills unimportant transit needs while ignoring pressing problems, long distance trains are your thing.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | Nov 24, 2007 7:45:57 PM
if you haven't tried it, you ought to.
I've tried it. I love it. Indeed, I recommend Amtrak to anyone who wants to see the country. I especially love the dining cars.
But you know, the rides at Disneyland are fun too. They aren't, however, a serious attempt at solving US transit problems, and if someone asked me to subsidize them, I'd tell that person that he or she was crazy.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | Nov 24, 2007 7:49:36 PM
Posted by: Dilan Esper | Nov 24, 2007 7:45:57 PM
on a dollar per hundred passenger miles basisI just want to flag this so that everyone knows what an abject liar Bruce McF is.
Cool, I haven't been flagged as an abject liar for quite a while.
He is saying that long distance trains are more efficient IF you measure efficiency "on a dollar per hundred passenger miles basis".But think about this. If you need to go 25 miles and you want a train to circumvent a highway that is stopped in the rush hour, do you care about the "dollar per hundred passenger miles basis"? No, you don't, because the point of the train isn't how many miles it covers, it's how many people it helps beat the traffic!
Yes, precisely. If the job of a train is to make motor vehicle traffic move more rapidly, it should be judged, as the Department of Transport, one of our primary oil pushers judges rail, in terms of reduction in congestion.
However, if the job of a train is to provide transport, then as we pass peak oil and struggle to cope with the necessity of reducing the CO2 emitted while we do things, then reduction of congestion is not the be-all and end-all of investment in rail infrastructure.
So, yes, I agree, if you stack the deck in such a way that long distance trains are favored, then yes, they come out ahead. (If you want better statistics on long-distance trains, consider that the California Zephyr (Oakland to Chicago) arrives within 30 minutes of schedule about 10 percent of the time, and the similar statistic for the Sunset Limited (Los Angeles to New Orleans) is 19 percent.
If you follow the link, you will see that this particular comparison regards the commercial performance of medium haul and long haul routes, and does not, in fact, address commuter rail, rapid transit, light rail, or any other local rail transport technologies at all. It is an Amtrak route to Amtrak route comparison ... that is, a comparison of performance under an information management system that is systematically biased in favor of shorter routes, and yet even under the heavy burden of Amtrak management, the long haul routes perform better.
And further, it is clear that measuring rail performance in terms of boardings alone, with no consideration at all for how many miles of transport are provided, is stacking the deck in favor of rapid transit and against interstate rail in a way that is simply unjustifiable if the target is to reduce oil dependence and CO2 emissions.
Finally, note the rhetorical trick here: where convenient, treat Amtrak's performance, on infrastructure that has operated since the 1930's on the "Your On Your Own" principle in competition against heavily subsidized road and air transport services, as representing the best that can be done with interstate rail transport.
I understand that the Coast Starlight train (Los Angeles to Seattle) is probably the best way to get from Dunsmuir, CA to Klamath Falls, OR, two intermediate stops a few hours apart.But the problem with that argument is NOBODY WANTS TO GO FROM DUNSMUIR TO KLAMATH FALLS!
Here we find out why it is necessary to label me an abject liar, which is that it supports the continued practice of avoiding actual reference to any facts, preferring to make up examples and then use the made-up examples to arrive at a conclusion.
If, in fact, nobody wanted to go between any intermediate points on the long haul routes, then given the fact that their patronage is dominated by trips of six hours and less, and the fact that nobody wanted to take any of those trips, they would be outperformed by the medium haul routes. However, they outperform medium haul routes. Therefore, since I agree that the logic is sound, and the conclusion contradicts what we observe, the assumption that was used in lieu of evidence must have been fallacious.
So yes, if you are interested in transportation that inconsistently and poorly fulfills unimportant transit needs while ignoring pressing problems, long distance trains are your thing.
Given the pittance that interstate rail receives, compared to the massive infrastructure and operating subsidies received by the road and air transport systems, the wonder is that it continues to perform any transport tasks at all.
The practice of trying to keep the focus on Amtrak when discussing the role of interstate passenger rail in the US interstate transport system is best understood as a red herring, to avoid the danger of actually taking off our blinkers and looking around at best practice around the world, and at the opportunities that rail offers in a variety of roles in an integrated transport system.
In that context, the relevance of comparing long haul Amtrak routes to medium haul Amtrak routes is that they give the lie to the assumptions of American exceptionalism, that Americans somehow behave fundamentally differently from other people of the world when faced with the same choices, as opposed to the reality that, by heavy investment of government resources, Americans have been presented with a substantially different set of choices than other people have been presented with.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Nov 24, 2007 8:35:52 PM
However, if the job of a train is to provide transport, then as we pass peak oil and struggle to cope with the necessity of reducing the CO2 emitted while we do things, then reduction of congestion is not the be-all and end-all of investment in rail infrastructure.
Bruce, I could save far more CO2 than could be saved by the most ambitious long distance train subsidies simply by requiring that the airlines fly 747's and other large planes on the most well-traveled routes, and by taxing private planes to get rich people back into the commercial system.
Further, CO2 isn't the end-all and be-all of transit planning. Long distance trains are too slow to be practical means of transport. Buses and planes are faster. Given we aren't talking about a lot of people going between these towns and small cities anyway, there's no real reason to subsidize the WORST method of transporting people between far off places.
Plus, this is a zero sum game. Give me the Amtrak subsidy and let me apply it to a high-speed train between LA and Las Vegas, and I can save more CO2 and help far more people than the entire Amtrak national network does currently. What really gets me about the long distance trains is that they are stealing money from more worthy rail projects.
And further, it is clear that measuring rail performance in terms of boardings alone, with no consideration at all for how many miles of transport are provided, is stacking the deck in favor of rapid transit and against interstate rail in a way that is simply unjustifiable if the target is to reduce oil dependence and CO2 emissions.
No it isn't. Because we are talking about moving PEOPLE. The object is to help PEOPLE, not to roll the trains over as long distances as possible.
Finally, note the rhetorical trick here: where convenient, treat Amtrak's performance, on infrastructure that has operated since the 1930's on the "Your On Your Own" principle in competition against heavily subsidized road and air transport services, as representing the best that can be done with interstate rail transport.
The point is, we aren't going to nationalize long distance rail trackage. Nor should we. If we did that, we would end up having to spend a huge amount of money subsidizing a small number of train passengers.
So the question is whether we should steal money that could go to high-speed rail to subsidize the current Amtrak system, which has a 1 in 10 chance of getting you on time on a long distance route. That answers itself.
If, in fact, nobody wanted to go between any intermediate points on the long haul routes, then given the fact that their patronage is dominated by trips of six hours and less, and the fact that nobody wanted to take any of those trips, they would be outperformed by the medium haul routes.
Bruce, "nobody" is rhetorical. But let's be clear here, the Coast Starlight has ONE train a day. Some long distance routes are even less frequent. So the fact that on this handful of routes, there are a fair percentage of passengers traveling relatively short hauls means nothing. It's a large percentage of a tiny total.
More people fly out of terminal 1 (one of nine terminals) at LAX from 6 a.m. to noon each weekday than who use the entire Amtrak long distance network in a week.
You act as if the country's transportation problem is that people can't get from Del Rio, Texas to Alpine, Texas (which can be done on the Sunsat Limited). It isn't.
Given the pittance that interstate rail receives, compared to the massive infrastructure and operating subsidies received by the road and air transport systems, the wonder is that it continues to perform any transport tasks at all.
If long distance trains disappeared tomorrow, we'd never miss them (except for their aethetic pleasures). If the interstates or the air transport system disappeared tomorrow, society would come to a screeching halt.
The wonder isn't why we subsidize the air and road systems. It's why we give even a penny to long distance trains.
In that context, the relevance of comparing long haul Amtrak routes to medium haul Amtrak routes is that they give the lie to the assumptions of American exceptionalism, that Americans somehow behave fundamentally differently from other people of the world when faced with the same choices, as opposed to the reality that, by heavy investment of government resources, Americans have been presented with a substantially different set of choices than other people have been presented with.
Actually, Bruce, the big reasons long distance trains are popular in other parts of the world are (1) people are too poor to take airplanes (e.g., India, China) or (2) the airline industry lacks competition (e.g., Europe until recently). Indeed, now that you can finally get around Europe cheaply, I will suspect that long distance trains are going to decline there too (though intercity high speed rail, e.g., the Eurostar, will continue to do well).
Posted by: Dilan Esper | Nov 24, 2007 10:09:42 PM
Posted by: Dilan Esper | Nov 24, 2007 10:09:42 PM
Actually, Bruce, the big reasons long distance trains are popular in other parts of the world are (1) people are too poor to take airplanes (e.g., India, China) or (2) the airline industry lacks competition (e.g., Europe until recently). Indeed, now that you can finally get around Europe cheaply, I will suspect that long distance trains are going to decline there too (though intercity high speed rail, e.g., the Eurostar, will continue to do well).
So airline competition will undermine demand for rail services providing trips of under three hours, but HSR, which depends heavily on demand for rail trips of under three hours will do well? Can you run through that again?
Regarding travel cost, competition is only one factor ... competition hit the US air industry in the middle of the last hurrah of ultra-cheap oil. Oil has now risen to being moderately priced, and we are going to be passing through the era of moderately priced oil in the direction of the era of expensive oil. And fuel costs an even bigger component of the operating costs of air transport than for our other heavily subsidized road transport system.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Nov 25, 2007 11:03:25 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
