Last week, the Antiplanner attended a meeting about high-speed rail sponsored by the National Conference of State Legislators. One of the speakers represented Amtrak, and though she spoke for about 10 or 15 minutes, her entire presentation could be boiled down into one statement: “What Amtrak needs is money, money, and more money.” (Yes, she actually said that.)
This reminded me of a statement made by a representative of the New York City Transit authority last fall at a Federal Transit Administration conference about the deteriorating condition of older rail transit systems. Even though New York’s rail system is in much better shapes than the ones in Boston, Chicago, or Philadelphia, the official admitted (in the last slide) that “there will never be enough money” to bring New York’s rail lines up to a state of good repair.
Rail transit and high-speed rail have bottomless appetites for tax dollars, partly because they are politically driven rather than being funded out of user fees. But there is an even more critical difference between modern passenger rail and past transportation innovations.
Previous transportation revolutions — steamboats, railroads, electric streetcars, automobiles — have all increased mobility by reducing the costs of travel. But advocates of rail transit and high-speed rail do not want to increase mobility. Instead, they merely want to substitute their favored forms of travel for existing mobility.
Based on personal tolerance and effectiveness, this dose may be decreased to 25 mg per day or increased to a maximum single super viagra generic dose of 25 mg in a 48-hour period. There are many reasons for cheap viagra impotence. The best pill is one which eradicates the reason behind sexual problem and gives better erection every time. best price cialis Clinical studies have shown that men who consume 85mg to 170 mg of caffeine can reduce the testosterone levels by 40%.* Optimize the levels of an enzyme coded as PDE5 found in the form of jelly, polo ring type, pill type, chewing gum type etc. this cialis viagra sale is slight bit costly if you choose oral jelly or tablet, people with erectile dysfunction can get a genuine reason to maintain erection and overcome. Advocates of high-speed rail, for example, typically predict that 90 to 96 percent of rail riders will be attracted away from flying, driving, or other existing modes of travel. Only 4 to 10 percent will be “induced,” meaning new trips enabled by this new mode of travel. They are probably proud of this, since they regard induced travel to be a bad thing. But isn’t: new travel means new social and economic benefits, not just the same benefits gained at a much higher cost.
At the Antiplanner has noted before, high-speed rail is expected to cost 4 to 5 times as much per passenger mile as flying, driving, or bus travel. On average, public transit also costs around 4 times as much as driving, and many new rail transit lines cost far more than that. So, unlike earlier transportation innovations, which reduced the cost of travel, rail transit and high-speed rail promise to increase it.
Subsidies are required, of course, to make these systems attractive to any potential riders. Imagine if a light-rail trip cost $10 a ride, or if a high-speed rail trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco cost twice as much as flying. They wouldn’t get too many takers.
Even with the subsidies, rails are so inconvenient, relative to driving, and so slow, relative to flying, that they won’t ever be a major form of passenger travel again. Of course, it is no surprise that this “innovation” will fail, since high-speed rail and light-rail technology both date to the 1930s.
So that’s my epiphany from last week: rails won’t work because they are not creating new mobility, they are merely substituting inconvenient, high-cost mobility for low-cost mobility that is faster and more convenient. That is a fundamentally absurd goal and rail advocates should be ashamed of themselves for promoting it.
“But advocates of rail transit and high-speed rail do not want to increase mobility. Instead, they merely want to substitute their favored forms of travel for existing mobility.”
I think that this is a mischaracterization. You may be correct that the HSR plans are wasteful and will not increase mobility, but that dosen’t mean that this is the goal of HSR advocates. I think that HSR advocates honestly believe that HSR will increase mobility, and they could be wrong, but they’re not some evil group out to deliberately take American freedom away.
This would be like saying that Bush’s goal for the Iraq war was to trow a country into chaos, privatize our important parts of our military, and kill several thousand innocent civilians. I don’t think that was what his intentions were, but these were outcomes none the less.
The Antiplanner wrote:
> One of the speakers represented Amtrak, and though she spoke
> for about 10 or 15 minutes, her entire presentation could be
> boiled down into one statement: “What Amtrak needs is money,
> money, and more money.†(Yes, she actually said that.)
The above reminds me of one of the funniest sketches from the late-1980’s and early 1990’s comedy show, In Living Color (aired on FoX-TV), called the Homeboy Shopping Network (details here), which featured the phrase “Mo’ Money, Mo’ Money!” At least Damon and Keenen Ivory Wayans were joking. Apparently the Amtrak lady is not.
I think bennett made an important point in saying “I think that HSR advocates honestly believe that HSR will increase mobility, and they could be wrong, but they’re not some evil group out to deliberately take American freedom away.”
I agree with that, and probably many others here do too. That is why we can respectfully debate the wisdom of high speed rail and other transit projects.
However, there are some people advocating for transit who propose making driving more difficult in order to force the public to use transit. The Antiplanner’s comment does apply to those people.
Antiplanner wrote:
Advocates of high-speed rail, for example, typically predict that 90 to 96 percent of rail riders will be attracted away from flying, driving, or other existing modes of travel. Only 4 to 10 percent will be “induced,†meaning new trips enabled by this new mode of travel. They are probably proud of this, since they regard induced travel to be a bad thing. But isn’t: new travel means new social and economic benefits, not just the same benefits gained at a much higher cost…high-speed rail is expected to cost 4 to 5 times as much per passenger mile as flying, driving, or bus travel…So, unlike earlier transportation innovations, which reduced the cost of travel, rail transit and high-speed rail promise to increase it.
And that to me is the ball game. Achieving nearly the same thing (getting people from A to B in about the same time) for five times the cost is an unambiguous loss to society. The low number of induced trips cannot hope to compensate for this loss.
Rail advocates should be prepared to pay the enormous price for their wet dream.
but they’re not some evil group out to deliberately take American freedom away.â€
But if reduced freedom is the effect of their policy, what is the difference?
I don’t think HSR advocates honestly believe HSR will increase mobility.
I could go on, but the point is that all the analyses claim HSR will get 90 percent or more of its riders from other modes of travel. That does not significantly increase mobility. If some advocates still believe HSR will increase mobility, it is either because they haven’t read their own studies or because they live in a fantasy world.
all the analyses claim HSR will get 90 percent or more of its riders from other modes of travel. That does not increase mobility.
ba dum BUM! crash!
Thank you everyone for coming to the Cato Comedy Club! Randal will be here all week!
DS
mattb02 asked: “But if reduced freedom is the effect of their policy, what is the difference?”
Good question. I think it’s a very fine line. Fact is, every policy stance, or capital project, or transportation policy/project infringes on someones freedom, to some extent. HSR, the Patriot Act, the use of eminent domain to expand highways, etc, etc etc. The question is how comfortable are we with where the line is being drawn. We all choose to sacrifice some of our personal freedoms for some greater good no matter what political ideology we subscribe to.
About a month ago a regular commenter (tg I think) called us all out for our finger waving and rhetorical jibber jabby. I took it to heart. My point in #1 is that the (seemingly purposeful) mischaracterization of an opponents motives, will detract from a substantive conversation (see: American politics).
p.s. Please remember that I am not an advocate for the current HSR plan.
If I had the choice between using money for HSR or using money for urban rail, I’d choose urban rail.
I really doubt that HSR can compete well enough w/ airports. Even so, expanding/upgrading urban rail to airports would probably do more for our transportation system than HSR itself.
I do think that east coast HSR would do well, however.
I disagree with the Antiplanner and do not think there is anything wrong with high speed rail or urban transit persuading people to use rail instead of driving, if it competes on a level playing field with cars. If it works despite all our wisdom, then freedom wins. Freedom has a great track record of moving society forward.
I never thought people would pay for TV when they get it for free over the air. I never thought people would pay $5 for coffee drinks at Starbucks instead of for $0.25 to $1.00 at the diners. I certainly never thought people would pay $1.00 for a bottle of water instead of drinking out of a drinking fountain. But I was wrong.
What I think is foolish is professionals who think they can decide what is best for the public, and then use coercive methods to accomplish their vision. That idea, while attractive in science fiction, has proven to have enormous problems in the real world.
The price of the CA HSR could pay for more than 1000 miles of 10 lane freeways, plus 2 regular rail tracks in the median. That’s a lot more mobility.
BTW the way, all these advantage claims for any HSR are Wrong!!!:
1.Economic stimulant–economic activity will just be transferred to another urban area; takes money away from other
2.Reduce congestion–slightly on rural interstates, but certainly not in the urban area & even make some worse, by driving to rail station.
3.Reduce emissions–energy still needs to be produced; high speed takes incredible energy; cars & planes get more efficient; building materials & construction produces a lot of emissions; if affordable (under-priced), will induce travel (20%+?), creating more emissions than staying home; will encourage longer commutes (ie Modesto to SF)
4.More jobs–if so, then means more expensive; make-work (conductor, ticketing), that wasn’t done before; look at “net” amount of jobs; the temporary jobs in creation, could be elsewhere, in private sector;
I could type pages on why.
Many articles & studies are out there that elaborate.
It’s basic common economic sense to know why those are all false claims.
Problem is, most politicians & voters don’t think very rationally.
Anybody thinks otherwise, point something out & I (or one who knows econ) will explain why it’s bogus.
Additionally:
A.Ridership overestimated
B.Time travel & expense to station are ignored
C.Security ignored
D.Sabotage ignored
E.Noise ignored
F.Speed overestimated
G.Novelty overestimated
H.Transportation at destination ignored
I.Multiple passengers in car, splitting costs, ignored
What O’Toole is doing is economic sabotage.
Yeah right highman.
If there was only more rail for personal travel, the GDP would be higher.
Let’s go back to 1900 living standards.
Though strange enough there was more of a “free market” in 1900 than today.
Yes there was, & that free market has greatly improved the quality of life & standards of living, despite gov dragging.
Yes there was, & that free market has greatly improved the quality of life & standards of living, despite gov dragging.
Scott said:
You can say THAT again.
Oh! Nevermind, you already did.
Though what Scott really meant was:
“Yes there was & more government economic intervention has greatly improved the quality of life & standards of living.”
How has gov increased wealth & prosperity?
It does not produce.
The private sector invents & makes just about all products.
Re: California HSR
For anyone still listening, when the vote on this monstrosity was broken down by county, a map of California counties indicates that only those directly on the proposed HSR route voted FOR HSR. All others voted AGAINST it. Those of us who would never likely benefit, thought we shouldn’t be on the hook to pay for it. Imagine that.
In a state already tens of billions of dollars short of meeting it’s budget, A $45 Billion boondoggle like this seems unbelievable. Does anyone want to guess what this might eventually cost?
the highwayman said:
>“Though what Scott really meant was:”
“Yes there was & more government economic intervention has greatly improved the quality of life & standards of living.â€
For example?
…and what else?
…still waiting.
Scott, if you don’t mind, I’d like to make a tiny correction to your comment.
Scott said:
There, I fixed it for you.
The US military economic intervention has has greatly improved the quality of life & standards of living of white rich countries. Land grants and railroads. Interstate highways. Zoning, if you listen to the ideologues here lauding McSuburbs. Space program. Severe weather forecasts. Logging on NF land. Weather forecasts. Cheap gasoline to Americans. Crop subsidies. Israel. The teabaggers seem to like their SS and medicare just fine. Teflon. Tang. Erie Canal. Autobahn. A-bomb. Green Revolution. Nuclear subsidies. Airline subsidies making aircraft travel widespread, except to Yurp now. OK, I’m tired of typing.
DS
That’s all done through the private sector.
Keep in mind, there is not advocacy of anarchy.
The subsidies just redistribute price & actually increase cost; there is a dif.
How has the military increased prosperity? It protects.
Zoning creates wealth? That’s funny.
The Payroll taxes are forced savings, to “withdraw” when old.
Gov does not subsidize gasoline. That’s a huge fallacy, often based upon comparison with other countries which have much higher taxes. Do some research braniac.
Oh, additionally, it is not argued that the gov does not provide some services, other than protection (basic purpose), for which you listed some examples.
Here’s the question rephrased: How has the gov increased the avg income/worker?
You could always hire you own mercenaries Scott, though that would seem more feudalism.
Dan said:
>“The US military economic intervention has has greatly improved the quality of life & standards of living of white rich countries.”
Dan, is this a good thing or a bad thing? I can’t tell whether you approve or not.
Tang has improved my wealth and prosperity?
hrailman,
Who said to disband the military & police?
Holy crap! You miss the point every time.
Your parents should really monitor your comments.
Why do you keep bringing up the false binary choice?
Anarchy is not advocated.
Gov is about 42% of GDP. There is a huge spectrum of gov to none; Gov at 25% of GDP would be good.
How does support of Israel help US wealth?
When companies take resources from public land, how can that be attributed to gov creating products?
Interstates are primarily from user fees.
Same with canals & many were private.
The Autobahn?
Limited access roads make up less than 2% of the roads in the US & all the traffic on them comes from local default roads mostly paid for by property taxes, that’s huge cross subsidization.
Scott, you’ve got to stop pissing in your kool-aid before you drink it!
Hrailman,
Freeways are ~2% of roads.
So what? In other words, what’s your point?
Freeways might be 4% for lane-miles.
Freeways are considerably costlier.
Freeways handle about 40% of VMT, & much more efficiently & faster.
Some property tax revenue goes for local roads. So what?
Some property tax goes for schools, police, fire, parks, medical, city operations, etc. So what?
What is this cross subsidization that you type of? How? And so what?
What is the kool-aid in reference to? And what is the pissing in it?
You & Dan continually make all theses nonsensical comments.
You guys need to elaborate, avoid meaningless buzzwords, be less vague & avoid generalities if you want to communicate.
@27:
RonH, you asked for examples. I provided a few. It does not matter whether I approve, disapprove, or am neutral wrt the examples.
DS
Scott said: Property taxes go for local roads, transit, schools, police, fire, parks, medical, libraries, city operations, etc. So what? In other words, what’s your point?
THWM: That is my point & Scott you really need to calm down!