What are the prospects for a three-tiered rail transit system in the U.S.?

Great Debates
61

I think you’ve got it backwards . . .

What Kay meant by “external costs” are things we do pay for in money, but not directly and obviously. E.g., a lot of our income tax, sales tax, and property tax payments go for auto-related things such as road building and maintenance. Some of those taxes also go to cover even less obvious things like the social costs of accidents, environmental cleanup, etc. Of course, individually, even persons who own no automobiles pay for those “external costs” to the degree they are personally liable for particular kinds of taxes. Which would suggest it’s actually better to be a car owner, since you get the benefits that you probably would be paying for anyway – just as, with a public school system, a parent gets the benefits even non-parents are paying for, if those non-parents also happen to be owners of taxable real property (property tax being what funds most public school systems).

Of course, it’s not that simple. There are enormous direct, personal, financial costs to being a parent, and there are enormous direct, personal, financial costs to being a car owner. If I lived in a dense urban area with good mass transit and very expensive parking costs, it might be a better economic decision for me not to own one, even if I am paying taxes to support the automotive system.

But the point I was trying to make when I brought up this whole subject is this: Many posters on this thread have argued that if a mass-transit system can’t pay for itself out of its farebox revenues, that is proof that it is uneconomical and, therefore, not worth creating, or not worth expanding. But it that’s wrong. It is mistaken to think of the automobile as “private” transportation and the subway as “public” transportation, just because individuals can own and operate cars but not subways. Either way, society as a whole is paying for the system.

62

For those of you who keep saying airport security is such a time-consuming hassle.

Why do you think security on a high speed train carrying 200 or so passengers will be any different. True, you can’t hijack a train, but you can sure blow one up, and as the bombings in Madrid showed, trains can be a very tempting target.

The only reason train and bus passengers aren’t undergoing the same crutiny that airline passengers are, is because the government hasn’t yet deemed it necessary.

If you have ten train departures and arrivals a day, each train with 200 passengers, and each passenger carrying luggage, you can bet there will be metal detectors and x-ray machines in train stations, as well.

This is still a worthy topic for debate, but you can’t just stipulate that because it’s a high-speed train…

  1. we won’t have to hassle with security
  2. a train station is autmatically in a better place to serve more long-distance travelers than an airport
  3. high speed trains will automatically operate at full speed every second of the trip, while airplanes will automatically be delayed because of overcrowded airports, weather, etc.

Which leads me to a question. If I understand correctly, Amtrak owns its own tracks in the Northeast corridor, so its trains have priority over frieght. Here in the Midwest, Amtrak uses the same tracks the (freight) rail lines use, and the freight trains get priority. That’s why in my previous post, I noted the Chicago-Kansas City run takes 12 hours in the daytime, but only 7 at night.

Will high-speed passenger trains automatically get priority on shared lines? Will they require an entirely separate set of tracks?

63

Airliners are unique in that they are small, confined environments and relatively easy to take control of. They are also highly mobile and can double as getaway vehicles (defection) or manned cruise missiles. As such, they deserve a high level of security.

Trains are more analogous to office buildings, tourist destinations, freeways and sports events: it’s a place where one bomb could do the most damage and generate the most publicity. But nothing more. I personally think searching every railway passenger is as pointless as searching every car that crosses the Golden Gate Bridge.

64

Airport-style access control to trains would be utterly impossible, so any sensible government does not even consider them. After all if you cannot blow up long-distance trains you choose commuter trains, and the passenger volume of those (and the relative low revenue per journey) make checking each passenger prohibitively expensive.

Consider France: They have run high-speed trains for more than two decades, with 368-545 seats per trainset. France has been the subject of terrorist bombings from various groups in those decades. In 1983 they had a train bombed, with 5 fatalities. This year a curiously polite terrorist/extortionist group called AZF threatened to lay bombs on tracks.

Result: Measures to protect the stations against bombs deposited in lockers or trash cans are in place, but no access control to trains. If a train gets bombed the people near the bomb die (as they did in Madrid, with apparently a lot of bombs involved), but that’s the extent of the threat. A hijacked train obviously cannot be driven into random buildings, and even at terminals automatic safety systems limit the speed at which you can drive a train into the buffers.

65

Nope. I’d rather take the plane, get there quicker, and spend less time dealing with public type transportation.

Looking at Amtrak’s site today, I find out that I could take a train from Pittsburgh to NYC’s Penn Station that would depart at 7:15 am and arrive in NYC at 4:35 pm. The return trip would take from 6:35 am to 4:05 pm. It takes about an hour to get from where I live to the Amtrak station in Pittsburgh in average traffic.

Having made the drive several times, I know that it takes me 7 hours to drive the same distance that it would take me 9 hours, 15 minutes to make in a train. Train fare, round trip, is 119$, where cost of driving is approximately 60$ if including gas, tolls and an oil change.

Flying PIT to BUF to LGA would cost me 300$ and take 4 hours plus about 2 hours to deal with getting to the airport and going through security on the Pittsburgh end.

A non-stop flight would take 1 hour, 20 minutes. Allowing two hours for travel to the airport and security, this brings total time of travel up to 3 hours and 20 minutes for 539$.

Plane’s not economical for that trip, but the car is by far preferable to the train which will take me more than 10 hours considering my travel to the train station. Three hours longer than driving, and twice the price.

Any wonder I’d rather drive to my destination?

66

catsix: I think the hypothesis of the OP was a train system traveling a little faster than Amtrak currently does.

No, but we can make some assumptions about these issues. On security, I agree with scr4: Trains are not inherently as tempting a terrorist target as airplanes are, solely because both are moving vehicles. Trains can offer terrorists a ‘target-rich’ environment, sure, but so can any location where you find crowds of people. Given that, I think the cost-benefit analysis of anti-terrorist measures for train stations would come up in the same ballpark as those for stadiums, movie theaters, shopping malls, etc. So I think it’s safe to say train stations wouldn’t have the same long screening lines seen at airports.

Also, another issue with time spent traveling is how long it takes to get everyone on and off the damn plane. With trains, you hop on and find an empty seat.

Second, regarding train stations: in many cases, they haven’t been built yet. (Same with the tracks, BTW; most high-speed rail uses their own sets of tracks, although there are some variants that use regular tracks, but don’t go as fast.) Hypothetically, they could simply be added on to existing transportation hubs, like commuter train stations and airports.

Third, no, you’re correct when you say that we can’t just assume that trains will always run at peak efficiency, and airlines will not. But it is safe to say that airline passengers are far more vulnerable to travel delays caused by weather than train passengers. (I don’t even think trains are delayed by weather, are they?) And another advantage of high-speed rail is that it allows the development of “decentralized airport systems”, which are basically HSR links between regional airports. So someone in West LA who needs to fly somewhere can hop on one of these trains and go to underutilized Ontario Airport, instead of the much closer (and already congested) LAX, as suggested on page 24 of this pdf file from Calmaglev.org.

67

I really don’t know. Everything I’ve read about this discusses high-speed rail as a passenger system and does not mention its use for shipping freight. I do not know whether the high-speed rail lines in Europe and Japan carry freight as well as passengers; nor, if they do, whether they use the same trains for both, or use separate trains for freight and passengers on the same tracks; nor, if the latter, which kind of train gets track-usage priority.

Are there any Euro or Japanese Dopers who can answer these questions?

If I were making the rules, I guess I would always give priority to the passenger trains, on the grounds that freight is, well, freight, and has infinite patience, does not notice the passage of time, and any delays probably will not be long enough to cause perishable cargo to spoil.

But since you raise the subject . . . should high-speed rail be used for shipping? I see no reason why not, but, since freight is infinitely patient, what are the advantages of shipping it by HSR over slower and more flexible trucks? Well, two possibilities:

  1. Economies of scale – once an HSR system is in place it might prove to be cheaper than trucking. Rail cars can carry a lot of freight. But I’ve never seen a study weighing the costs and benefits here.

  2. Trucks burn deisel fuel – a fossil fuel. HSR runs on electric power, which might be nuclear power – less polluting (at least in terms of gas emissions) and, just as important, independent of the chancy fossil-fuel supply.

But I do see a possible snag. If we use HSR for freight, that would take business away from the trucking lines. I wonder how they, and the Teamsters Union, would feel about that? (“How many Teamsters does it take to change a light bulb?” “Twelve. You got a problem with that?”) That might present a real political problem. Here in Tampa, the taxicab companies have done everything they can to block plans for a light-rail system.

Of course, even if we reach a point where most or all of our shipping is done by high-speed rail, trucks will still be needed for regional distribution. E.g., a shipment of kitchen tables made in Kansas City (or wherever they’re being made these days) could be shipped by HSR to a depot in Atlanta, then offloaded and distributed among dozens of trucks, and then delivered to furniture stores all over the sprawling Atlanta metro area. And we’ll still need truckers for that. Until such time as Atlanta has a regional rail system that carries freight as well as passengers . . . and even then, trucks will be needed for neighborhood deliveries.

68

If separate tracks need to be built for high-speed rail, that imposes enormous infrastructure costs for a lot more than just new tracks – right-of-way, urban land clearance, bridges, tunnels, etc. Particularly in urban areas, existing housing and business patterns will be disrupted, just as they are when a new highway is built. Has anyone prepared a cost-benefit analysis for that?

Airblairxxx , your West LA to Ontario example may work on a regional basis. Travelers in downtown New York and Chicago have rail access to JFK/LaGuardia and O’Hare/Midway, for example. It could even be practical in the Baltimore-Washington region. But I fail to see a justification for long-distance, high-speed, inter-city rail service to link airports. Would any traveler prefer to travel from New York to Philadelphia, Chicago to Milwaukee, or Los Angeles to San Diego (and those are all relatively short distances) to use a less-crowded airport?

P.S. – anyone who thinks train service can’t be delayed by weather has never taken Amtrak between Chicago and St. Louis. :slight_smile:

69

You aren’t from the Midwest, are you?

Freight does not automatically have infinite patience. One of the largest uses of rail service is to transfer unimaginably huge amounts of coal from mines in the West to power plants in the East. This takes days, and requires a considerable amount of coordination among the railroads and powerplants to schedule shipments. No coal, no power. Too much coal at once, no place to put it. Much the same with those tanker cars full of petroleum, and the hopper cars with grain headed for seaports.

This was “just in time” delivery 50 years before the manufacturing plants and warehouses ever dreamed of it.

I will grant that the railroads and truck lines have made their peace with each other via piggyback cars. Take 100 semi-trailers, put them on flatbed rail cars, take them to strategic rail hubs and off-load them for shorter, regional runs.

Of course, when you mix passengers and freight, how do you load the trains? Go to one railyard and attach the freight cars, then go to the passenger depot and load the people, and do the opposite at the other end.

There are reasons passenger rail service died out in the U.S. – and they can’t all be eliminated just with trains that go 150 mph.

70

Yeah, well . . . we aren’t going to be able to go on burning coal much longer, either. Even if the supply lasts, the CO2 emissions are too destructive. But that’s another discussion.

71

My understanding was, passenger rail service in the U.S. died out because the automobile became widely available and the people liked the flexibility. Quite understandably. I like it too. But just because we want to go on living a certain way indefinitely doesn’t mean we can. Junkies like their heroin, but sooner or later the side-effects catch up with them, their veins collapse, and so on . . .

72

Once again, I just want to shout look at Europe!!!…France, Germany, Spain, all building massive high speed networks over land equally as densely populated as much of the parts of the US we’re talking about…and even the Channel Tunnel link to London is getting completed, through the most densely populated part of the most densely populated nation in Europe.

73

BTW, there are now HSR technologies that go well over 200 mph. See the New Trains website.

74

That’s the way I feel as well. I don’t think many of the city dwellers realize how populated the ‘remote’ country areas really are.

In the county that I work for, and live next to, there are about 25,000 people in 640 square miles. I could afford to live closer to work, but it would be a stretch (It’s a resort community and a modest house is about $400,000). My Wife sold her 700 sq. foot pre-built (read mobile home with siding, that’s what it was) for $106,000 five years ago. It just sold again for $150,000. For the tinniest lot in the subdivision, a 12’ x 60’ mobile home.

I would MUCH rather live 25 miles away and have some room and no neighbors. It takes me 35 minutes to get to work.

Some people would rather live in the city. By default, real estate is more expensive in the city because there is a limited amount of room. They see that the convenience of being closer to things balances out the higher costs.

I prefer to live in the country. Lower real estate prices. But higher travel costs. For myself I also incur costs like needing a plow truck and a 4x4. And a 25 mile drive to work. But it balances out for me, because frankly, I don’t enjoy the city (in my case we are talking about a few small towns to choose from).

It’s also interesting what I consider a city. I guess that anything that is an incorporated town with lots under an acre a ‘city’. There are a lot of different people in the US. Many of them do live in the country, and support the ‘land’. Ranchers and farmers mostly. Toss in recreation as well.

75

But as already pointed out, your “higher travel costs” would be even higher without subsidies. Why should public transport commuters subsidize your lifestyle? What are they getting in return? The only way to achieve equality and “freedom of choice” is if roads and public transport get fair shares of governmetn subsidies, so people can choose which one to rely on.

76

Does 3 feet of snow on a train track delay or cause cancellation of the train?

There’s also a serious comfort factor to having my own vehicle that no form of public transportation can match.

77

Usually not - it would be plowed before it gets to 3 feet, just like on major highways. Of course it depends on how much the railway company spends on maintenance and snow-removal equipment.

Not everyone enjoys being strapped to a seat for an hour, or having to find a place to park it, or having to finance and maintain one’s own vehicle.

There’s also the safety factor. Since the high-speed train started service in 1964, the number of passenger fatalities is zero.

78

Oops, that fatality number is for the high-speed train system in Japan, not worldwide. Also by “high-speed train” I mean trains running on dedicated high-speed tracks.

79

I enjoy traveling at my pace, in an environment dictated by me, following the route I choose, and then having the freedom to be mobile once I’ve reached my destination also.

If I wish to go to Cincinnati, I could take a bus, or a train, and then not have any way to get to Dave & Buster’s or some other locale filled with fun when I arrive. But why?

And let’s not even discuss the places trains will not be anywhere near, such as the lovely camping area that I enjoy pitching a tent at near Brookville, PA.

80

Any figures available for Europe?