Once again - I’m not trying to take away your car. I (and a few others) are suggesting that public transport supplement the roads, and make cars an option, not a necessity. I already stated I love my car and won’t give it up. I just don’t to rely on it. And I think people - even those who choose not to or cannot drive - deserve to be able to live in an area away from the city center.
Do you all suppose there is a vast conspiricy to keep high speed rail down? Perhaps its by the airline monopolies, or the auto industry? Why do you suppose the US DOESN’T have a highspeed multi-tier rail system?
American’s just aren’t that excited about having one, nor are they willing to use one in any meaningful numbers for all the reasons listed in this thread. I certainly don’t hear a hue and cry from the people to put in such a system.
The bottom line is when/if it becomes economical and profitable to build one, one will be built. Until then there won’t be one in the US no matter how ‘cool’ one would be. Even if we include government subsidies there simply isn’t a market for the system to justify the up front capital cost of putting in the new rail and other safety measures that the high speed portion of the tier system would warrent, not to mention upgrading the existing rail/trains etc the other two tiers would need to provide full coverage. American’s simply wouldn’t use the system unless it cost a lot less than airlines which are generally faster (over long distances) or driving which is more convient (over shorter distances).
Sorry I’m a stickler on this but a system has to pay for itself (mostly), and I don’t think that even with subsidies (unless they were BIG subsidies) rail could compete with our mass transit options except in very niche markets like inner city travel.
-XT
xt: Sorry I’m a stickler on this but a system has to pay for itself (mostly)
But as lots of people here have been pointing out, US automobile and air travel systems don’t pay for themselves—they depend heavily on various subsidies and externalized costs—but we use them anyway.
We can’t assume that just because things currently are a certain way, that’s the way a majority of people would prefer to have them (if so, we’d have to conclude that lots of Americans really like long commutes and daily traffic jams). Unsatisfactory systems do get built and maintained, usually not because of any “vast conspiracy”, but usually out of some combination of short-term thinking, persistent lobbying, and devotion to the status quo.
Certainly, you’re right that we need to take a hard look at the disadvantages of a high-speed rail system as well as the advantages, but that doesn’t mean that we can safely conclude that just because we don’t currently have one, we must not want one or be willing to use one.
And as no one has yet addressed, WHY are airlines and automobile travel subsidized, but not that travel rail system? Are the American people being forced to travel the air or via car when they really want to travel by subsidized rail instead?? Or perhaps air and auto are subsidized because the majority of Americans WANT it that way? Personally I hate subsidies and would cut them all and simply let the market decide what, if any, mass transit systems survive. I think the fact that air and auto travel are subsidized but not rail is kind of telling to be honest.
This is a testable hypothisis. Show me the masses yearning for (heavily subsidized) rail travel. Because frankly I’ve seen no indication of it. Don’t the highspeed (or even lowspeed) rail travel folks have lobbies?
If/when there is a viable market for it, it will be built. Simple as that. And if/when its built I might occationally even use it, as I think occational rail travel is pretty cool…if I’m in no particular hurry, or if the distance is short enough.
-XT
xt: And as no one has yet addressed, WHY are airlines and automobile travel subsidized, but not that travel rail system?
For one thing, they have much better and bigger lobbies; for another, as the director of MIT’s Transportation Center has pointed out,
So at least one of the problems is that too many communities want to participate in high-speed rail systems—the opposite of your diagnosis—and thus create political gridlock that blocks the development of the systems so nobody gets to participate.
- Personally I hate subsidies and would cut them all and simply let the market decide what, if any, mass transit systems survive.*
Except in a completely privatized Libertopia, I don’t see how you’d be able to cut out all subsidies for all forms of transportation. ISTM that transit will always be considered very intertwined with public resources and will always involve public coordination and oversight.
There is also the question of what you do when market failures interfere with efficient decision-making in markets. Sure, ideal theoretical free markets always produce the most efficient and cost-effective solution, but in the real world there aren’t any ideal theoretical free markets.
I think the fact that air and auto travel are subsidized but not rail is kind of telling to be honest.
But as everybody here agrees, rail is subsidized too. Why would you think that it isn’t?
This doesn’t seem like a show stopper to me if there really was a huge market out there of people yearning for rail travel. I’m fairly sure that highspeed rail companies could get rights of way that bypass smaller cities that they did not want to service. As to the size of their lobbies…again, I have to ask WHY they are smaller. If there is the smell of money in the water, they will come. If there was a huge clamor for highspeed rail the lobbies would be there in force.
Being a realist I’m aware that we’ll never have full privatization nor an end to subsidies for things like transportation. Personally I think we COULD work out a viable system where there were no subsidies, but thats a debatable point. That said I have to assume that if air and auto are more heavily subsidized than travel rail there is a good reason for that…its the will of the majority.
I misspoke. I’m fully aware that rail is subsidized, especially goods transportation services, but also personal travel rail. Hell, it always has been…even the original rights of way grants were from the public trust. However rail is not subsidized to the levels that air and auto are anymore, and I think that the main reason for this is there simply is no huge demand by the public for it. All things being equal the US public is going to (generally) choose air travel for long distances and personal auto for shorter distances, except in niche markets inner city travel to large metropolis’s.
-XT
xt: That said I have to assume that if air and auto are more heavily subsidized than travel rail there is a good reason for that…its the will of the majority.
That seems to me kind of naive: you’re basically saying, not quite that “whatever is, is right”, but at least that “whatever is, is the will of the majority”. Is that a defensible position? Seems to me that a lot of people complain about traffic jams and violent movies and expensive byzantine health insurance systems, for example. Does the fact that these continue to exist really prove that a majority of people wants them? Or might it simply mean that a majority is reluctantly willing to put up with them because it can’t find a better alternative at the moment?
Pointing out specific practical problems and disincentives for a high-speed rail syste—and certainly, they do exist—is definitely valuable. On the other hand, arguing vaguely that “it must not be what we really want because if it were, we’d already have it” seems to me like sloppy reasoning.
xt: * However rail is not subsidized to the levels that air and auto are anymore, and I think that the main reason for this is there simply is no huge demand by the public for it.*
Voodoochile: Because the fact that it has to be subsidized means not enough people ride it. And when not enough people ride it, that means society really doesnt want, even though they may like the idea. Its silly of those on here to talk about how society wants it, but then declare it would need to be subsidized. The existance of one is a negation of the other; the two states cannot coexist.
An interesting debate: Vdc claims that if a particular form of transit is subsidized, it means that we as a society don’t really want it, while XT is arguing that the more we subsidize a particular form of transit, the more it means that we as a society do really want it.
You can’t both be right. In fact, I don’t think either of you is right, because I don’t think that the existing structures of society are ever a perfect reflection of what society really wants most in all respect. So I don’t think that either profitability or subsidization is an entirely trustworthy yardstick of what would really make us happiest.
These are two polls that I found that indicate some support for rail development. I haven’t been able to find any nationwide polls as of yet.
http://www.narprail.org/test09.htm
If there was a high-speed link between Las Vegas and LA, most people I know would jump on it. I guess we need some nationwide polling data here to draw some conclusive results, but I’m having a hard time accepting the proposition that high-speed rail is simply not wanted by most people.
Well Kimstu, you tell me then…why do YOU think auto and air are subsidized more than rail travel in the US. Did someone just throw darts at a board, is it a vast conspiricy to keep the rail roads down, anti-European/Japanese factions moving behind the scene’s to make sure we don’t follow in their foot steps and get high speed rail?
Well, I’ll conceed it IS sloppy reasoning. I really dont have a dog in this fight and was initially just putting in my 2 cents worth. I have only been peripherally following this thread and haven’t really done my homework here, so my ‘logic’ such as it is has been pretty sparse.
I’ve not seen a large group clamoring for highspeed (or other) rail travel in the US except as I said in very niche markets (though MrManfrengenfrensen’s poll data is interesting…perhaps there is more of a market than I though). And I think its a valid point that if people thought they could make vast summs of money off a high speed rail system in the US (or if the government thought there was a demand) we’d have one, or I’d at least hear serious noises that one was coming down the pike soon.
-XT
xt: why do YOU think auto and air are subsidized more than rail travel in the US
I don’t know. Probably partly because of the political issues I cited earlier, partly because the auto and airline subsidies are less immediately visible (many people, including some in this thread, will complain about having to pay taxes to support Amtrak because “it can’t turn a profit”, while they’re completely unaware that auto and air travel are also heavily subsidized and wouldn’t be commercially viable without subsidy).
And partly because they’re important forms of transit. As others have already emphasized, nobody here is suggesting that we should dump cars and airlines and replace them all with trains, or even that trains will become as important in terms of ridership as planes and cars. All we’re suggesting is that there’s a case to be made that we’d benefit overall from having more and better train service than we have now.
And I think its a valid point that if people thought they could make vast summs of money off a high speed rail system in the US (or if the government thought there was a demand) we’d have one, or I’d at least hear serious noises that one was coming down the pike soon.
Again, that seems to be sagging back into the reasoning “If it were really a good idea we’d already have done it, or at least be about to do it.” I agree with you, though, that it’s not likely that many people will ever make vast sums of money off rail transit: too tied up with public resources, too hard to externalize as many of the costs, too hard to compete with more heavily subsidized forms such as auto and air. However, I think that just because there aren’t vast sums to be made in private profit from something doesn’t necessarily mean that our society as a whole wouldn’t benefit from it.
catsix: There’s also a serious comfort factor to having my own vehicle that no form of public transportation can match.
Sure, but air travel remains popular despite scoring damn near nil on the comfort and privacy meter. The question isn’t “can trains provide the exact same advantages as cars?”—of course they can’t—but rather “can trains provide other advantages that would make it worth our while to invest more in them?”
The French TGV has also had no fatalities. The German ICE has had one major crash. Train travel of any kind is safer than just about any other transport.
Subsidize my lifestyle?
Where was this pointed out?
Subsidy – Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest.
Unless you’re Jeremiah Johnson, you use roads too.
Without roads you would be without milk and bread in about three days. Buses and bicycles would have a tough go of it as well. 
The lion’s share of road funding comes from the Highway Users Tax Fund (HUTF). These moneys come from tax on gasoline and diesel. So, the more a person uses a road, the more tax they pay. In addition, vehicle owners pay to register their vehicles.
Where I live, we pay a one percent sales tax that supports a free (to ride) bus system. A system that I and many others can’t use. Talk about subsidies.
enipla: The lion’s share of road funding comes from the Highway Users Tax Fund (HUTF). These moneys come from tax on gasoline and diesel. So, the more a person uses a road, the more tax they pay. In addition, vehicle owners pay to register their vehicles.
But as numerous posts above have pointed out, these funds don’t cover all the costs of cars, including the costs of their pollution, oil dependency, parking provision, and high accident rates. Just because everybody uses roads doesn’t mean that everybody is getting equal value out of our collective support of autos.
Where I live, we pay a one percent sales tax that supports a free (to ride) bus system. A system that I and many others can’t use. Talk about subsidies.
As I pointed out earlier, transit alternatives to cars also benefit the people who don’t actually ride them, e.g., by reducing traffic and parking pressures. Residents and temporary visitors who can’t afford or don’t want to use a car also need to be able to get to work and other places, and it benefits the economy when they have more mobility.
The point is that all forms of transit—public and private—are subsidized to some extent, and all of them provide some indirect benefits to people who don’t personally use them.
Probably. But when a train does crash – wow! Megaspectacular body count! Same as with airplanes. I’m sure (no cite) that cars are more dangerous than either, in terms of annual casualties per passenger (or per 1,000 passengers, however it’s expressed), but we don’t notice that so much because they only kill one or two people at a time.
BG: * I’m sure (no cite) that cars are more dangerous than either, in terms of annual casualties per passenger (or per 1,000 passengers, however it’s expressed), but we don’t notice that so much because they only kill one or two people at a time.*
Cite for ya. In the US, fatality rates per 100 million passenger miles for users of different types of transit break down as follows:
So in terms of fatalities, mass transit is unquestionably much safer overall than driving. (I haven’t found statistics about non-fatal accidents/injuries/property damage, but I’m inclined to think that the performance of cars vs. mass transit on that score must be even worse. Cars are frequently involved in collisions that don’t actually result in death, but buses and trains much more seldom hit anything.)
Interesting . . . the difference looks even more striking on a bar graph. But I wonder why regional rail is so much safer even than light rail and “rapid transit” (which I assume, here, means the subway)?
To me, the answer is no. I already have a means to get somewhere quickly that is less comfortable than my car is. I see no value whatsoever in trains.
Another thing not mentioned is that travelling by rail allows you to perform more productive tasks while travelling than by car. Sure, it might take 6 hours to drive and 10 hours by rail, but while I’m driving, I essentially spend 6 hours looking at the road wheras in that 10 hours on rail, I can read a book/newspaper, use a laptop, write a report or catch up on some sleep. Even on regular commutes into the city, 30 minutes is the perfect time to catch up on the latest news broadcast or finish drafting that report that was due last week. I think this is a significant factor which often doesn’t get taken into account of in time considerations of various public transport modes.
There are values for everyone–including you-- when many other people use an efficient train system, even if you don’t. Values such as less crowded and safer freeways, less pollution (provided the trains use electricity that is generated in a clean way-- NOT a given, for sure) and a more flexible and perhaps stronger economy. With a three-tiered rail system similar to the one imagined in the OP, people who can’t/don’t drive cars, or don’t have one available for some reason, would be able to work and/or spend money in places they currently couldn’t.
It’s a flaw in the statistics - it’s measured by passenger-mile, and light rail travels much slower than regional rail. If the measurement is done by passenger-hour, then it’ll look different. And incidentally, air travel looks far less safe when measured by passenger-hour: the 550mph speed of planes skews the passenger-mile ratio a lot. But cars still top the list.