In a recent post, the Antiplanner pointed out that the United States is in competition with China, or more accurately, the Western model of democratic capitalism is in competition with the Eastern model of authoritarian capitalism. Now, China has announced the opening of the world’s fastest high-speed train service, capable of reaching speeds of 245 mph.
Fast for a train.
Flickr photo by Datemarker.
Naturally, this has treehuggers saying China will leave United States “in the dust” and the rest of the world behind as well. But let’s get real: in the United States, we use a technology known as jet airplanes that move people twice as fast as China’s high-speed trains.
And move people they do, with some 28,500 domestic flights per day (compare with California’s ambitious high-speed rail plan to run about 80 trains a day). In 2007, these flights transport Americans well over 600 billion passenger miles, or more than 2,000 miles per person. (Compare that with possibly optimistic projections that Obama’s high-speed rail plan, plus the existing Boston-to-Washington trains, will move Americans only about 25 billion passenger miles per year, or with actual per capita usage of high-speed rail of less than 400 miles per year in France and Japan.)
Cheapbuy cialis generic is a leading supplier of viagra as well as buy generic viagra. It has click description buy generic cialis sildenafil citrate embedded in gel like edible structure. Big toes are the major victims of this sort will focus on a more results oriented frame viagra sale cheap of reference. If you want levitra on line page to position yourself as an expert.
Twice as fast as any train.
Meanwhile, China’s plans to spend nearly $300 billion on a 10,000-mile high-speed rail system could prove disastrous for that nation’s economy (or as the New York Times puts it, send it “off the rails“). In what some call China’s “railroad-debt crisis,” high-speed rail has so far put the Ministry of Railways in debt to the tune of $56 billion — by comparison, a $35 billion debt was enough to put General Motors in bankruptcy. To promote economic recovery, China devoted $200 billion of a $220 billion infrastructure stimulus program to the railroads — but that investment may prove a waste.
For one thing, the average resident of China will rarely, if ever, ride the high-speed trains, as fares on the new, 245-mph trains are more than five times greater than the fare on an ordinary train. Yet average residents will have to pay for the trains, which aren’t expected to cover their capital costs, if only because that’s $200 billion that China won’t have to spend on things that residents do need, like better health care or transportation facilities for people of average means.
Naturally, China’s rail ministry defends its high-cost projects as “safest, fastest, most economical, most environmentally friendly, most reliable mode of transport.” But, like China’s empty city, public relations matter far less than whether something actually produces economic value.
So the question for the United States will be: Are we going to be like China (and France and Japan), going heavily into debt building an expensive rail network that everyone must pay for but only a few will use? Or will we return to the capitalist system, meaning we build only the things that actual users will pay for?
With a potential capital cost of at least a trillion dollars, plus an obligation to pay annual operating losses for decades, high-speed rail could easily become the planning disaster of the teens. If we decide to throw many more billions after the $10 billion already allocated to high-speed rail, you can be sure it will drag our economy down as much as it will do to China.
Oh AP, surely you err, for do not the all wise, all seeing, all compassionate mandarins of China and Washington have only our best interests at heart? Surely a committee of such can far better decide what we truly want than those eeevil capitalist bastards in the marketplace who persist in selling us exactly and only that for which we are actually willing to pay.
blacquejacqueshellac said: Those evil capitalist bastards in the marketplace who persist in selling us exactly and only that for which we are actually willing to pay.
THWM:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/SavingandDebt/P70581.asp
How does your debt compare?
A snapshot of American debt shows a troubling picture. See how your mortgage statements, credit card balances and payment practices compare with other Americans’ bills.
By Kim Khan
Polonius wouldnt have gotten very far in America today. He’s the Shakespeare character in Hamlet who warned, neither a borrower, nor a lender be.
Modern society, as we know all too well, is overrun with both borrowers and lenders. But just how big is the typical family’s debt? How fast is it growing? How does your mortgage compare to the Joneses next door? And how might consumer debt — your debt – affect the U.S. economy?
We decided to look at the most recent numbers and take a snapshot of household debt in the United States, circa 2004. What emerges is a picture that’s both familiar and unsettling. Yes, consumer debt — encompassing credit cards, mortgages, student loans and more — is growing like a well-fed St. Bernard puppy. No, there’s no sign that the growth will slow. Yes, some economists worry about the ill effects, but no, not many of them are sounding urgent alarms.
It’s hard not to be worried when confronted with numbers such as these:
About 43% of American families spend more than they earn each year.
Average households carry some $8,000 in credit card debt.
Personal bankruptcies have doubled in the past decade.
It’s not clear exactly where the debt trend will take U.S. consumers or the U.S. economy. But it is clear that both are sailing in uncharted waters.
Consumers owe nearly $2 trillion
American consumers owed a grand total of $1.9773 trillion in October 2003, according to the latest statistics on consumer credit from the Federal Reserve. Thats about $18,654 per household, a figure that doesnt include mortgage debt. The number is up more than 41% from the $1.3999 trillion consumers owed in 1998.
OK highwayman, it’s finally out in the open – you believe individuals are too stupid to manage their own affairs and it should be done for them by their betters. You and some columnist think there’s too much debt and so of course the marketplace has failed and all right thinking people agree.
Just as all right thinking, innumerate, middle class ponces, want to play-ride in supertrains (twice, then they tire of them and go back to planes and their beemers) at the expense of the poor, who pay for them.
Just another totalitarian in commenter’s clothing.
The Antiplanner asked:
> So the question for the United States will be: Are we going to
> be like China (and France and Japan), going heavily into
> debt building an expensive rail network that everyone must
> pay for but only a few will use? Or will we return to
> the capitalist system, meaning we build only the things that
> actual users will pay for?
We have one “high-speed” (or is that medium speed?) rail corridor in the U.S. now, the Northeast Corridor (NEC) between Washington, D.C. and Boston, Massachusetts. Federal taxpayers have spent large amounts of money upgrading the corridor’s catenary and purchasing new, shiny Acela trainsets and other equipment that runs on the NEC’s rails. And Amtrak, its owner, still manages to lose money every year.
Here’s my question – does anyone know what the observed modal share might be (today) for Amtrak for travel between the travel markets served by the NEC, including the cities of:
Washington, D.C.
Baltimore, Maryland
Wilmington, Delaware
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Trenton, New Jersey
Newark, New Jersey
New York, New York
New Haven, Connecticut
Providence, Rhode Island
Boston, Massachusetts
Note that modal share should take into account all modes of transport, including un-subsidized intercity buses, un-subsidized passenger aircraft, and un-subsidized private motor vehicles.
I know that some claim that private motor vehicle use is subsidized, but I find that hard to believe, especially on highways that run roughly parallel to the NEC, when one considers the tolls that highway users must pay in Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey and New York (there are currently no highway tolls in Connecticut, but apparently the Nutmeg State is considering re-imposing tolls on the (currently) “free” Connecticut Turnpike, most of which is I-95).
I ask this question, for it would seem reasonable to know what modal share that Amtrak has in its best market before taxpayers are asked to spend billions more on new medium-speed or high-speed rail lines and trainsets.
I suppose in Red China, the government does not need to consider messy questions like modal share, but fortunately, the U.S. uses a different form of government.
I see Highwayman has already weighed in with his usual incoherence, and I’m sure Dan and Setty will be along with their usual snark. None of them will be able to explain how, if rail isn’t financially viable in the one corridor best suited to its use (the Atlantic seaboard), there is any basis to expect rail to be financially viable anywhere else in the US. And if it’s not viable privately, the question of subsidizing it with public funds should be a non-starter.
“Bullet-Train Folly”, pertinent Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA) editorial from today at http://www.pe.com/localnews/opinion/editorials/stories/PE_OpEd_Opinion_S_op_04_ed_bullettrain.3e70355.html. The PE isn’t the first California paper to come out against high-speed rail.
People borrow too much.
So gov can tell us where to live & how to get around & has borrowed $80,000 per worker.
This HSR, which is really medium-speed.
How often do people travel medium distances (100-700 miles) away?
What’s wrong with airplanes?
Do people forget electricity generation for these trains?
And the energy & resources for their construction?
No rail route transports the amount that a major freeway does.
I would absolutely, without a second thought, take high-speed rail from Phoenix to Vegas perhaps a dozen times a year if it was fast, cheap, safe, and comfortable. I’m sure I’m not the only one. If that product can be delivered to those specs, then there is a profit to be had, and someone in the private sector will resolve to have it. If not, why pour money down a drain? Given notice, you can fly Southwest there for $25. Just an example outside the Atlantic region to broaden the discussion.
Mike, excellent comment. In September I flew Aerlingus, London to Zurich, for GBP19.98 – plus taxes which were the stupid and offensive sum of $GBP60.00.
The supertrain in densely packed Europe is near dead too. It costs a bundle, and planes are twice as fast. Planes and trains both require stations/ports, planes require merely air but trains require land + engineering + excavations + bridges + steel rails, all at huge cost. How can trains compete except where great weight or mass are factors?
I also traveled to Madrid, where the local subway serves the airport, which is a lovely idea but hardly used, as opposed to downtown Madrid where the subway was jammed at all hours of the day.
Damn those stupid people for ignoring the planny plan and doing just exactly what they want. The planners need new people, as opposed to new plans.
AP, any chance you can get your web guys to let us post more stuff, like this image, please?
http://mikemacd.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/plan-the-plans-planny-plan/
It seems to me that these high speed trains are vanity projects. They are attractive to the “decider class”; they can have stories about reducing CO2 and reducing congestion; and they make the city look more metropolitan and “classy”. They are a project that is attractive to the wealthy and upper middle class, and yet they sound like a project benefiting everyone including the lower classes. There is a lot of votes in that image.
On the other hand, they don’t cost enough to bankrupt a city, and the bonds are hidden costs after they are authorized. I don’t see them significantly undermining a big urban budget, or being much of a blip in a national budget. They are impressive to tourists, and that counts in vanity points.
According to the same people who determined that Amtrak loses $32 per rider on average systemwide, Amtrak makes $41 per rider on the Acela Express. That’s an operational profit, I think. It likely loses money if you count capital expenditures but the article wasn’t clear. Northeast Regional loses $5 per rider.
“Note that modal share should take into account all modes of transport, including un-subsidized intercity buses, un-subsidized passenger aircraft, and un-subsidized private motor vehicles.”
It should, but those things don’t exist. From the same people who determined Amtrak loses $32 per rider.
http://subsidyscope.com/transportation/aviation/
http://subsidyscope.com/transportation/highways/funding/
However, they will also tell you that the funding situation for highways can be fuzzy. “Federal subsidies to highways are difficult to quantify because the money is distributed to state governments, which administer the programs and are not required to publicly disclose details of their spending.”
If all subsidies were eliminated for all modes of transportation I don’t think rail would go away, however. It would perform well at medium distances and in densely populated corridors.
Off-topic but here’s the free-market at work: http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2010/01/04/2010-01-04_dating_site_expels_5000_people_for_gaining_weight_over_the_holidays.html
The commentators getting all up in arms about the web site are surely not libertarian, haha. I have no problem with the site and think it’s great and I’m an ugly, fat bastard.
“On January 4th, 2010, PRT_Strategies said:”
Friend, PRT is more unworkable than any HSR concept.
“I ask this question, for it would seem reasonable to know what modal share that Amtrak has in its best market before taxpayers are asked to spend billions more on new medium-speed or high-speed rail lines and trainsets.”
It’s true that billions were spent, but this was after the corridor was allowed to deteriorate so much over the years. While the Acela Express can reach 150 MPH in a few short stretches in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, it still has an average speed of only 80 MPH from end to end partly because much of infrastructure is so old.
Part of the Acela Express folly is that the train has to comply with FRA standards. Acela trains are overweight relative to European electric trains, reducing energy efficiency. They are overweight because the FRA believes that crashes should be survivable more than they are avoidable, however, recent accidents in California belie that strategy. Freight still operates on that corridor too, I think.
It’s a tough sell because in order for railroads to become profitable they require billions in investments now, which is an uphill battle when highway and air travel infrastructure is already in place. But it must be noted that at one time we spent billions building those airports and those highways in the first place, which are now deteriorating or at or over capacity.
blacquejacqueshellac said: OK highwayman, it’s finally out in the open – you believe individuals are too stupid to manage their own affairs and it should be done for them by their betters. You and some columnist think there’s too much debt and so of course the marketplace has failed and all right thinking people agree.
Just as all right thinking, innumerate, middle class ponces, want to play-ride in supertrains (twice, then they tire of them and go back to planes and their beemers) at the expense of the poor, who pay for them.
THWM: No, I’m just saying that there is plenty of blame to go around.
Right wingers are just as guilty as left wingers for todays economic mess.
Borealis,
As well, there is the cui bono argument about high-speed rail… unions get the building contracts and the operating contracts. It is no mystery why politicians who are in the unions’ pockets push rail even though it’s financially unviable.
Politicians of both parties have almost universally shunned high speed rail and rail in general until recently. Did they only figure out their scheme during the last few years?
The Antiplanner has his obvious biases. But he raises a very important policy point for our time. Public transit is widely assumed to be much better for global climate change than cars.
The Antiplanner has questioned that assumption, especially the high speed rails that are the point of decision right now. If his analysis is true, then we are wasting a huge amount of funds that will do little to affect global climate changing.
I don’t have the expertise to evaluate his assertions, but I can say his assertions are very important to big decisions at this time. The recommendations of the scientists imply that infrastructure decisions made now have huge effects. So I am highly interested in learning more about whether public transit, including high speed rail, are a good investment to battle CO2 effects.
spokker wrote:
> It’s true that billions were spent, but this was after
> the corridor was allowed to deteriorate so much over
> the years. While the Acela Express can reach 150 MPH in
> a few short stretches in Massachusetts and Rhode Island,
> it still has an average speed of only 80 MPH from end
> to end partly because much of infrastructure is so old.
A few comments:
1. I have been told by a source that I deem reliable that much of the overhead catenary (which supplies the power to the trains) on the NEC, even along the oldest sections between Washington and New York, have been replaced, repaired or rehabilitated. There are some ancient sections in need of help, notably the Baltimore and Potomac Tunnel under Baltimore, but much of it is in pretty decent shape thanks to money from federal taxpayers.
2. You are correct about the average speeds, which is the honest way to measure how fast a mode of transport moves. But still, the top speeds even between D.C. and N.Y. are (in some segments) better than 100 MPH (and as high as 130 in some places).
> Part of the Acela Express folly is that the train has to
> comply with FRA standards. Acela trains are overweight
> relative to European electric trains, reducing energy
> efficiency. They are overweight because the FRA believes
> that crashes should be survivable more than they are
> avoidable, however, recent accidents in California belie
> that strategy. Freight still operates on that corridor
> too, I think.
Agreed on the FRA standards. But recall the horrific wreck in 1987 near Chase, Maryland, where an Amtrak train crashed into a Conrail freight (the freight train’s engineer was high on marihuana and had passed a red signal)?
Freight does indeed still run on the NEC. But most of it runs between 10 P.M. and 6 A.M. precisely so it does not have to share tracks with passenger service. NS has trackage rights along most of the NEC south of New York, and CSX has trackage rights along some of it.
> It’s a tough sell because in order for railroads to
> become profitable they require billions in investments now,
> which is an uphill battle when highway and air
> travel infrastructure is already in place. But it must be
> noted that at one time we spent billions building those
> airports and those highways in the first place, which are
> now deteriorating or at or over capacity.
Well, the freight railroads are making at least some investments using shareholder dollars, and they are also (in some cases) asking for public dollars to help upgrade their tracks (the decision about the appropriateness or spending tax dollars on private railroads is above my pay grade).
Grok this, auto apologists:
From: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-car-ownership-shifts-into-reverse/article1418860/#article.
U.S. car ownership shifts into reverse
A worker paints prices on cars at a Dodge Chrysler dealership in Toronto
REUTERS
Why are there four million fewer vehicles on the roads in 2009? Think gas prices, transit, tweeting teens and a car-to-driver ‘saturation point’
Interesting how this is in a CANADIAN newspaper…social mores do change, regardless of what Wendell Cox or The Antiplanner may think–not saying autos will disappear, but their relative importance may shrink.
More excepts:
The size of the U.S. car fleet dropped by a hefty four million vehicles to 246 million, the only large decline since the U.S. Department of Transportation began modern recordkeeping in 1960. Americans bought only 10 million cars – and sent 14 million to the scrapyard.
The decline in sales from previous years came despite 2009’s cash-for-clunkers program, in which the U.S. government gave Americans up to $4,500 (U.S.) to trade in their gas guzzlers for new, more fuel-efficient cars – a program that saw nearly 700,000 vehicles scrapped.
And the overall drop in car ownership has prompted speculation that the long American love affair with the car is fading. Analysts cite such diverse factors as high gas prices, the expansion of many municipal transit systems, and the popularity of networking websites among teenagers replacing cars as a way of socializing…
Expect car sales to pick up again after the recession is over. I’m not glad or sad about that.
Spokker, I agree that motor vehicle sales will pick up after the current giant recession is over, but it remains to be seen if sales ever match their peak again of 16-17 million vehicles annually. To prevent a decline in vehicles per capita, vehicle sales will have to exceed annual scrappage by a wide margin.
Even if Americans wanted to take mass transit, transit systems are slowly deteriorating as we speak. Every politician and their mothers want to stand in front of a ribbon and cut it, celebrating the opening of a new subway, but nobody wants to pursue money for operations. What’s the use of building a rail line or a BRT line if you have to money no make the buses go?
The sorry state of our nation’s transit systems will surely encourage more people to buy cars. This week I’m taking my car in for major maintenance in anticipation of cuts to my local bus system that will make a bus commute unfeasible for me. Guess what? I’m back in the car even in a recession, and I have a high tolerance for transit. It takes a lot to get me off the bus but they managed to do it.
To go from here to there…
Rail? (or bus)
People, please do more consideration & research.
Hey, I’ll help–more stops, lower speed.
Walking, to 1/3 mile away?
Your objective on route?
Chinese trains are not a threat to USA; Evacuated Tube Transportâ„¢ will be. China is ahead of us on research in bulk superconductor maglev and magnetic materials mining and processing. ETT can be several times faster than jet airliners and it will work in PRT mode – non-stop to destination and adding stations does not slow the system anymore than adding more rest stops to interstate highways slows traffic now.
Spokker,
Public rail transit has been around for centuries… remember streetcars? But the current hustle has largely fallen into place as a result of the policy initiatives of the Reagan administration. Consequentia of those policies can be clearly seen today: privatization of profit with socialization of risk. A fertile spawning ground for union and boardroom corruption alike.
Spokker said: The sorry state of our nation’s transit systems will surely encourage more people to buy cars. This week I’m taking my car in for major maintenance in anticipation of cuts to my local bus system that will make a bus commute unfeasible for me. Guess what? I’m back in the car even in a recession, and I have a high tolerance for transit. It takes a lot to get me off the bus but they managed to do it.
THWM: I wouldn’t want to be forced to buy a car & drive either.
Tad Winiecki:
China is ahead of us on research in bulk superconductor maglev and magnetic materials mining and processing.
Sounds like they need to get a team out to Pandora to secure some unobtainium. 🙂