The Washington Post editorialized against spending any more tax dollars on California’s high-speed rail project, saying “California should have to fill in its project’s economic and logistical blanks” before more federal or even state dollars are spent. While no one is surprised to see fiscally conservative papers such as the Washington Examiner come out against high-speed rail, the fact that the traditionally liberal Post is against it suggests that the end is near.
Naturally, rail advocates accuse the Post of being “unfair,” but they miss the Post‘s point, which is that the California High-Speed Rail Authority only has a tiny fraction of the money it needs, no private investors have offered to contribute (despite the Authority’s predictions that they would provide at least $6 billion in funding), and the Authority has been accused of mismanagement and optimism bias by, among others, the California State Auditor, a peer committee of transportation engineers, and experts at the University of California at Berkeley.
Orange County was planning to spend a whopping $184 million on an Anaheim “transit center,” 90 percent of whose customers would arrive or depart on a high-speed train. But with it looking more and more likely that train will never arrive, county officials are backing off this grandiose plan.
In Florida, lobbyists are working furiously to keep that state’s high-speed train alive. The state’s governor says he will decide whether or not to kill the line in the next few weeks. Even a major high-speed rail advocacy group, America 2050, concludes in a report that high-speed rail doesn’t really make sense in Florida because the state lacks any concentrations of people.
Recently, there were reports that many in China are questioning that nation’s high-speed rail program. In response, a Chinese-American analyst writing for The Atlantic argues that, “a network of high-speed rail can generate the kind of economic organization and development that the interstate highway system produced in the US.”
buy viagra professional I have heard good things about provigro. Erectile dysfunction is a common problem that is faced by the males since they are not able to find the right website or they are not risky and don’t ordinarily oblige change in treatment.The most viagra in canada Dosage and Prices genuine unfriendly impacts of Kamagra Polo is that it acts as an instant medication to this embarrassing, confidence crushing problem of erectile dysfunction. Today, green tea can be easily availed from market in different forms like extracts, levitra samples djpaulkom.tv capsules and powders. If you do not time during the weekdays then plan your weekend with a dinner to djpaulkom.tv levitra without prescription make quality communication. Sadly for rail buffs like the Antiplanner, he is wrong. Even in a country like China, where auto ownership is still rare, high-speed rail simply can’t produce the same benefits as the Interstate Highway System for several reasons.
1. High-speed trains carry no freight. By sharing the same facilities with both cars and trucks, interstate highways reduce the costs to both.
2. High-speed trains don’t go door to door. The advantages of door-to-door service provided by the automobile outweigh the speed advantage of high-speed trains, which is why autos are getting to be very popular in China.
3. High-speed trains are convenient for only a small group of people. Unless you live or work near a train station and your destination is also near a train station, other modes of travel will work better.
4. High-speed trains are very expensive. Fares on China’s high-speed trains are several times greater than on conventional trains, which further limits the market to a narrow elite.
Instead of building more high-speed rail, China should work to relieve the traffic congestion that is certain to increase as more people buy and drive automobiles. Of course, if China’s goal is to bankrupt America, one way to reach that goal would be to encourage us to build lots of high-speed trains, especially if we also buy Chinese technology for those trains.
I am the author of the America 2050 report that you reference, and I wish to clarify that nowhere in our report do we conclude that high-speed rail does not make sense in Florida.
Our study points to the best rail corridor in each region for high-speed rail, pointing to the Tampa-Orlando-Miami route as the most promising route in Florida. Given the vast diversity of development types in the nation, it is expected that regions score in vastly different ranges. The methodology is a comparative analysis for 7,870 corridors in the country, so Florida scored behind corridors that link major American cities like New York, L.A. and Chicago. I also refer you to a more statement we made, “Why and How Florida’s High-Speed Rail Line Must be Built.” http://www.america2050.org/2011/01/why-and-how-floridas-high-speed-rail-line-must-be-built.html
The report, “High-Speed Rail in America” says this about Florida:
“While Florida’s population, employment, and transit numbers do not lead the nation, other critical factors positioned the state at the front of the line in the competition for high-speed rail stimulus dollars: project readiness and public ownership of the right-of-way. If the state succeeds in realizing this project quickly, it will serve as an important on-the-ground demonstration of high-speed rail in America.”
“Other factors that distinguish Florida are the state’s rapid growth and the role of the Orlando Airport, Disney World, the Orlando Convention Center and other major tourist destinations as attractions that could potentially replace the role played by the central business district in other regions. Nevertheless, the long-term success of this system is dependent on providing links to the downtowns to Tampa, Orlando, and Miami, and providing seamless connections to those regions’ existing, nascent, or future rail transit systems.”
I should also add that our quantitative analysis on ridership was not able to take into account the roughly 50 million visitors to Central Florida every year destined to locations such as Disney World and the Orlando Convention Center. Capturing just 5 percent of these visitors is enough to meet Florida DOT’s estimates of 2.4 million riders in the first year of operation.
-Petra Todorovich, Director, America 2050
Although I mostly agree with the Antiplanner that high speed rail usually does not make sense in the US, but I am not sure that applies to China.
There are a lot of reasons that high speed rail makes more sense in China than the US: China is very rapidly urbanizing and needs transportation who are too poor to afford cars yet. China doesn’t need to respect property rights, so it is easy and quick to punch a train through wherever they want. As much as democracies love showy projects for elections, communist and dictatorial countries love them even more.The government doesn’t care about personal mobility/freedom, and in fact would prefer to discourage personal mobility/freedom. A very minor consideration is that it buys China some global warming chits while the real economy in China makes global management of CO2 very difficult. It is impossible to know if there is a better use of capital in a communist country.
Petra, thank you very much for your efforts to put the high speed rail discussion on the basis of empirical data. But don’t be surprised when the attacks on this blog begin from the solipsistic, true-believing, right-wing ideologues who think anyone who doesn’t agree with them is either stupid, a mirror reflection of their sorry selves on the “left” side of the political spectrum, or morally deficient.
I think the next direction in your analysis needs to connect the factors brought up in your HSR study to known intercity traffic volumes, e.g., to develop order of magnitude ridership estimates. Then we can talk about appropriate levels of investment, rail technology choices, and so forth.
>> 1. High-speed trains carry no freight. By sharing the same facilities with both cars and trucks, interstate highways reduce the costs to both.
I disagree. The freight services already exist. So building new high-speed rail is the same as building interstate.
>> 2. High-speed trains don’t go door to door. The advantages of door-to-door service provided by the automobile outweigh the speed advantage of high-speed trains, which is why autos are getting to be very popular in China.
>> 3. High-speed trains are convenient for only a small group of people. Unless you live or work near a train station and your destination is also near a train station, other modes of travel will work better.
I disagree. The railway station, if built out of town, would have plenty of space for cars so that people could travel to their front doors. Just like an airline. A light rail line could connect the trains station to the central business district, and given the cost of high-speed rail, the cost of light rail wouldn’t stand out too much.
>> 4. High-speed trains are very expensive. Fares on China’s high-speed trains are several times greater than on conventional trains, which further limits the market to a narrow elite.
That’s the real reason why I think high-speed rail is broken. It’s expensive to build, and there’s an ocean of subsidy besides. If it was spending in a vacuum, you could argue for it. But there are just so many things that need spending – including modern & attractive bus services, fixing potholes, junction improvements – and I’m wondering if high-speed rail is the most important thing to do right now – both in the USA and in the UK, where we have our own determined supporters of high-speed rail.
I should also add something about Chinese rail. A Chinese academic gave a talk on the subject. The Chinese government is going for rail because so many Chinese people are still relatively poor, and so rail is seen as cheaper and so more appropriate than air travel. Which then begs the question, of what is the point of expensive high-speed rail?
Francis King wrote:
The Chinese government is going for rail because so many Chinese people are still relatively poor, and so rail is seen as cheaper and so more appropriate than air travel.
Over at Reason’s Out of Control blog, Sam Staley recently made a very similar statement here.
High speed rail is an alternative to regional air traffic: not a replacement of intra-city automobile traffic.
The prime drawback to high speed rail over air is land use. {a significant drawback, for sure} The prime benefit is that fuel efficiency dramatically favors rail over air. But that bonus only becomes helpful if fuel costs rise and if the built rail can maintain good ridership.
If fuel costs continue to remain what they are today relative to inflation, then air continues to be a better bet. I’m not so sure that’s a safe assumption though. The question then becomes, when is it a good time to invest in something superior to regional air travel… and is HSR that answer? are more highways? …is there a market solution that could work?
The benefits to HSR, in the US, are just claimed &/or exaggerated. Besides their dubiousness the negatives are downplayed. There is no basis or causation mentioned. Improving whatever is just facetious. It’s the non-car, non-plane (while not reducing energy consumption) stigma, plus the collective density mentality that seems to hold. Many businesses add to the propaganda, on future revenue (ie GE & Siemens).
What [little] need will HSR meet, more efficiently? Visiting/vacations will still be mostly preferred with current methods.
HSR is partially justified in other countries, all of which are much more dense.
You don’t see this HSR push in Canada or Australia or even Mexico or Brazil.
Are Dan, Highwayman, msetty, and Andrew going to cry? Here’s a tissue.
Those guys have no real emotions to cry, while trying the appeal supposed emotion.
They don’t have the reasoning to know when they are proven wrong, very often.
Somehow, despite having some education, they can feed themselves. Notice how many comments to theirs, that they avoid, or when do respond, change topics & misdirect, plus attack & misrepresent or marginalize or generalize or _ _ _?
Guys, you are repeatedly called out, yet you never really discuss issues.
Scott, I have NOTHING to discuss ON YOUR terms, since virtually everything you believe has perpetrated by one of the greatest political scams of the 20th Century, mostly financed by those who benefit from the stupid idea that the “free market” has any higher moral standing than any other human social endeavor. “Markets” as such are amoral, just like the “tooth and claw” principles of Darwin followed by so-called lower life forms in nature.
“Austrian economics” would have disappeared in the 1950’s, as it should have based on its zero merits, except Von Mises et al were, and continue to be, subsidized by various billionaire assholes who correctly figured that “investing” in intellectual bullshit benefit them financially–as does the “corporate citizen” (sic) movement does today by pouring billions into our election campaigns.
Every rule of every “market” is decided politically, e.g., there is ALWAYS a POLITICAL determination by society–why WHOMEVER is making the decisions, whether a democratically elected legislature, an oligarcy or a dictator–about what these rules will be. This is The Iron Political Law of Amoral Markets. A simple illustration is the unarguable FACT that the U.S. CONSTITUTION grants property rights, not God, or anything else, of course originally granted to white people of the vast lands that originally were “owned” by Native Americans, but were stolen by hostile military actions by European governments from 1492 to 1776, and by U.S. government military action circa 1776 through roughly 1900.
Go ahead and sputter and complain and accuse us of being moral midgets, or stupid, or uneducated, or whatever. From now on I am not going to budget any of my time to arguing with demonstratedly false premises such as yours.
If you want to argue the practical merits of particular rules and approaches to particular subjects, such as how much and what kinds of transportation investments should be made, or what the benefits of various strategies and modes may be, then we can argue. But I’m not going to give any credence to bullshit religious beliefs about the supposed sanctity or high moral standing of “markets.” I do think “capitalism,” ceteris paribus, is the worst economic system possible, except for the alternatives, but I digress.
If you’re too dense to understand my position here (you don’t have to agree), I don’t think it’s because you’re stupid or anything; I think it is because you are a prototypical “True Believer” as eloquently outlined by philosopher Eric Hoffer a half century ago.
Poor msetty. Libtard is always so angry! I am assuming you can back up every one of your preposterous claims with evidence and research? Naw, that would be way too hard and unfair for emotion-run libtards!
that’s true. there isn’t a push for it in those places. it’s not a good fit there because their cities are far apart. HSR only makes sense in dense regional areas, like the East Coast of China, Japan, Europe, the Atlantic coast from about Richmond to Rhode Island, and the Bay area down to San Diego. possibly Chicago linking to Ohio to the East coast as well. …that’s about it IMO.
as far as vacations – renting once arriving is always an option that allows for freedom upon arrival. but the real point is to accommodate frequent business travelers. i think a side effect of high quality HSR on the East coast is that you might start seeing people live in Philadelphia, but work in Boston. I’m not sure if that’s a better world or not, but it sounds like MORE freedom – not less, to expand the options of Living / Working choices.
Hey Metrosucks. I’m not angry. Just tired of your bullshit.
Can you prove that the Americas WERE NOT stolen from Native Americans, among other things. Or that property rights are granted by the U.S. Constitution??
Thought not.
I don’t have to prove a negative (requesting that a critic prove a negative is the sign of a BS argument). You have to prove your eccentric/ridiculous theories. Besides, what does America being “stolen” from Native Americans (they never claimed to “own” it in the first place, actually) have to do with anything? Admit it. You are a flaming, unapologetic leftist/communist/libtard (pick your favorite).
You probably get a hard-on from reading HSR/light rail construction proposals!
So, Metrosucks, you prove yourself to be a fucking moron and LIAR.
Most Native Americans actively resisted the theft of their homelands by the white invaders from Europe, when they could. Are you DENYING this empirical fact? The fact of this massive theft, and the related genocides of entire peoples, is central to the point that property rights were established by the U.S. Constitution, A POLITICAL MANIFESTO AND BASIS OF U.S. LAW, with the land doled out to white settlers (invaders from the Native American point of view). If you don’t get this, then I can’t help your with your True Believer mental illness.
Always count on a libtard to use insults when his case falls apart. No surprise there. Note that I only said Native Americans never claimed to own the land. I didn’t elaborate on this, but you obviously felt it necessary to weave a bunch of fiction.
If you hate the United States and the Constitution so much, please leave. We will not miss you, with perhaps the exception of your libtard buddies.
dataman:
“The prime drawback to high speed rail over air is land use.”
JFK Airport by itself is 4930 acres in size. That is equivalent to a typical 100 ft. railroad ROW stretching for 406 miles.
That is also the same size as Atlanta-Hartsfield and Denver-Stapleton. LAX is around 3500 acres, while O’Hare is 7000. Some are of course monstrously sized like the new Denver Airport and its 33,000 acres and DFW at 18,000 acres, Orlando at 14,000 acres, or Dulles and Pittsburgh each at 12,000.
The entire 160,000 mile long American railway system, assuming a 100 ft. ROW for all lines (some are narrower) is equivalent in size of land used to roughly 500 airports using an average of 4000 acres. The US actually has 15,000 airports. This is a significantly larger use of land than any existing or proposed railway system in this country.
Scott:
“HSR is partially justified in other countries, all of which are much more dense.”
The US between Massachusetts and Illinois, and south to Florida, is as densely populated as much of Western Europe. Florida, for example, which is supposedly so inappropriate for high speed rail, is more densely populated than France (338 people/sq. mi vs. 299).
France is 210,000 sq. miles and 62,000,000 people. That is the exact same size and less population as NY, PA, OH, NJ, MD, DE, DC, and VA combined – they have almost 68,000,000.
Germany, the most populous western European country, has 82,000,000 on 138,000 sq. miles. Italy has 60,000,000 on 116,000 sq. miles. MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, and DC are 60,000,000 on 138,000 sq. miles – just slightly behind these two countries in density and in the same range in size.
Overall, the area of the US previously cited – MA to IL and FL has 151,000,000 people on 575,000 sq. miles. France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal have 179,000,000 people on 556,000 sq. miles. Is the American eastern seaboard and piedmont and the midwest any less appropriate an area for high speed rail than western Europe based on geography and population?
Andrew (BTW, I previously responded to you, in your in the nickname, not realizing another poster used that),
You have got to be kidding?
Clearly missing the point.
You are mis-equating land-use with “area occupied”.
There is so much more.
A few points:
-airports are concentrated.
-the travel taken [by HSR] from airports will be minimal
-There is no claim to make smaller airports.
– New rail thru anywhere can vastly affect the surroundings.
. . Think of buffer zones, along 1,000s of miles of new rail.
Andrew doesn’t care about anything but getting more rail in place.
Michael Setty,
You say, “no discussion with me”. What a surprise?! Oh, you have the caveat, “my terms”.
No such conditions were mentioned.
Perhaps you are referring to using: facts, stats, history, principles, concepts, & such.
I know you lefties hate when those are involved.
Not sure your reference to tooth & claw. Tyranny? That’s GOV?! Dammit, are you & the left twisted?
Are you, mixed up (self-projection), claiming pure benevolence of gov intents, (by Force/Coercion)?
You lefties seem to forget that the private sector makes money by consumer free choice–buying goods & services, that they want. Gov intervention distorts that, often, including crony-capitalism (ie stadiums, certain regs, RDAs w/TIFs). Labor is even more distorted, w/unions.
For Darwinism, I don’t think you even know what that means, for econ.
It does show your Marxism & equity mentality, regardless of a person’s/worker’s input.
It’s about competition & excelling, improving, doing better–greatness.
Look at sports. I’m surprised that Dems aren’t against the Olympics & pro sports, because of superior athletes & teams winning.
You gave no reasons for your dislike of the Austrian School, while trying to cite examples that are not connected, such as, in general [as many] blaming the recession on laissez-faire–it was gov doctrine that created the mess. See this post for minor points & many links.
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=4328#comment-108891
It is prudent to know a field to before making observations on.
Hey, without knowledge, do you try to thoroughly repair a car or an HVAC system?
I didn’t mention free market. That does not mean anarchy & it does mean not defrauding, not being dishonest & such. Gov intervention (political) causes many instances of “mis-allocation of resources”–so much to create the housing bubble, drop & mortgage collapse.
I didn’t mention morals, nor religion. (I’m an atheist & do not want to harm or force others.)
The focus is hardly on transport either; as % of GDP, is relatively small & cannot be reduced much. For one minor thing: Producing & buying more things local, it raises many other costs.
How do you come up with these tangents, off-track to points?
Oh yeah, of course, it’s the lefts way–distract & crap.
Discussion? try hitting the points, not the pints.
Scott, you have noticed that libtards always refer to the free market as “anarchy”. This is an intentional straw man argument they set up so that the possibility of a free market isn’t even an option.
Andrew,
For the density of states & other countries, that is covering too large of an area.
You lefty statist railists miss the significance of that.
The density of cities & the whole UA, along with the closeness is important, plus how often is the need to travel between. And how close would a station be?
Along the eastern seaboard, there might even be similarities of density to EU, but there’s still not enough demand to the close to the full price of HSR.
Look at Acela; awful performance w/passenger-count, cost & speed.
How often do you, & all in each region, need to travel 100-400 miles away?
Land use of airports is a fair point. Airports take a lot of land, many in areas that would otherwise be heavily developed. {San Diego & New York, Chicago come to mind} If regional air traffic is displaced by something else, then it stands to reason that airports would eventually shrink and sell some of that land, because there is always high demand for open land in urban centers.
Still – airports will need to stick around in foreseeable future because of international travel, which nothing stands to displace. The question becomes – how much land can an airport sell off if it no longer needs to service regional air travel? Maybe 50% maximum? You still need big runways for large aircraft, but you’d need fewer of them and you’d need less hanger space and smaller terminals, and less parking if traffic became half of what it is. Of course, as fuel changes price, international flights will change inversely. If fuel rise over time, then its likely that long-distance flights will decrease.
Another untalked about variable is how much land HSR stations would need. If they can tie into existing stations, then its a pretty marginal cost. Otherwise, it may be a wash.
dataMan wrote:
Still – airports will need to stick around in foreseeable future because of international travel, which nothing stands to displace.
How about domestic air travel? Such as from anywhere along the Atlantic coast of the U.S. to anywhere along the Pacific coast? Sorry, I do not have the time or the money to spend several days crossing the continent on Amtrak’s unreliable trains (and even at HSR speeds, were such a line to be funded taxpayers, it’s still days and not hours).
Even on a short(er)-haul trip (compared to cross-continent travel), Amtrak is literally a waste of time. I travel somewhat frequently from Maryland to Charleston, S.C., and usually drive. The two Amtrak trains (departing from (inconvenient for me and my family) Washington Union Station) take longer (even if they are on-time) than driving does. For a higher price, I can fly USAir nonstop from ([also inconvenient for me] Washington National Airport) and get there in less than three hours (including the hassles with TSA screening).
dataMan also wrote:
Airports take a lot of land, many in areas that would otherwise be heavily developed. {San Diego & New York, Chicago come to mind} If regional air traffic is displaced by something else, then it stands to reason that airports would eventually shrink and sell some of that land, because there is always high demand for open land in urban centers.
Have you considered how much land is taken-up by rail yards? Consider, for example, Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station(Google Maps).
C.P. Zilliacus:
“Have you considered how much land is taken-up by rail yards? Consider, for example, Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station.”
Yes, its minor compared to an airport.
Amtrak’s Sunnyside Yard in NYC was at one point the largest passenger car yard in the country and is only 192 acres, and that includes the now vacant Yard A which will be used by Long Island Rail Road for East Side Access. Furthermore, rail yards can be partially or completely overbuilt by buildings when market forces dictate, as was done at Grand Central Station and Penn Station and Chicago Union Station. Amtrak has been gradually selling air-rights to overbuild the yard at 30th St. you cite.
The yard and station at 30th St., which includes seperate SEPTA, Amtrak, and Conrail rail lines, the station, and the yards of Amtrak and SEPTA, occupies around 100 acres.
metrosucks:
You are fined six credits for a violation of the verbal morality statute for the nature of your comments on this blog entry. You now have been fined a total of seven credits.
Scott:
“the travel taken [by HSR] from airports will be minimal”
Acela has taken a majority of the air-rail market between NY-BAL/DC and NY-BOS, and the vast majority of PHL-NY and PHL-DC, and that is without even considering synergizing air-rail trips as done in Europe to replace regional flights directly for the airlines (Amtrak passes right next to Washington National and Harrisburg airports, has stations as BWI, Providence-TF Green, and Newark Airports, there is an existing rail line to Philadelphia Airport, and one that could be revived past JFK – LIRR Ozone Park Branch). There is also no reason to think you couldn’t get similar results in the Midwest or California.
“Look at Acela; awful performance w/passenger-count, cost & speed.”
Using 20 trainsets making around 288 weekly departures, or 15,000 annual departures (BOS-NYC and NYC-DC legs counted as seperate departures), Acela carried 3,218,718 riders last year and generated $440.1 million in ticket revenue and $9.8 million in food and beverage revenue. Operating cost including was $349.1 million, so a $100.8 million profit was generated for Amtrak. Load factor is 60%, passenger miles are 610 million, train miles are 3.4 million.
You can crunch those numbers to interesting factors like 215 rides per departure, $139 average fare, 180 passenger miles per train mile, $0.74 revenue per passenger miles, $0.44 revenue per seat mile, $30,000 revenue per departure, $1.23 million revenue per day, operating cost of $102 per train mile, $0.57 per passenger mile and $0.34 per seat mile.
Scott:
“How often do you, & all in each region, need to travel 100-400 miles away?”
I live in Philadelphia and travel about 20 times per year to New York City, 6 times per year to Pittsburgh, once per year to Raleigh, 3 times per year to Washington, once per year to upstate New York. 1/3 pleasure on my dime, 2/3 business on expense account. I also make trips to Florida and Chicago, but you are not inquiring about those.
Scott:
“airports are concentrated”
Yes, generally in densely settled areas where there is probably a different highest and best use that would be quickly discovered if the airport was run privately and was subject to property tax on its land like all the rest of us are.
Philadelphia airport in my hometown sits on 3.5 sq. miles of a 135 sq. mile city (Philadelphia City, of which 14 sq. miles are parkland) and 9 sq. mile township (Tinicum Township, of which 2 sq. miles is a Wildlife Refuge). So the airport is 2.75% of non parkland, and probably over 5% of taxable land once streets, Churches, Universities, schools, water and sewage works, and other non-taxable land is considered. It should probably be paying $50 million in property tax per year considering the value of improvements, but it is not, so that burden falls on residential and commercial property owners instead.
If urban airports were taxed like everyone else is, do you suppose they would reduce the size of their footprint?
“New rail thru anywhere can vastly affect the surroundings. Think of buffer zones, along 1,000s of miles of new rail.”
Most rail lines are out in open farmland, forests, and mountain or desert wastes. As it is unlikely any new lines will be built in cities or dense suburbs – rather, they will use existing rights of way and stations there – I don’t understand why 1000’s of miles of buffer zones are needed. Will the train spook the trees and fields of corn?
Scott:
“For the density of states & other countries, that is covering too large of an area.”
Why is it too large an area? Because your density claim was proven to be false on the level of the size of (1) individual American states, (2) combinations of states the size of a single European country, an (3) combinations of states the size of several European countries? You were completely wrong in every respect and at any level you choose to examine on this matter.
No matter how you slice it, you were wrong, and I wasn’t even trying to improve my point and statistics by including the population of metro areas like St. Louis or Louisville or Milwaukee which fall right on the border of the American states I cited.
France and Spain and Germany are covered north to south and east to west with high speed rail lines and their higher speed feeder branches. In France, for example, almost all intercity trains are now TGV’s and operate at least part of their trip on the high speed lines, which act for French passenger rail like our interstates do for vehicular travel.
“The density of cities & the whole UA, along with the closeness is important, plus how often is the need to travel between.”
So what rubbish are you trying to claim now? That American’s don’t travel as much as Europeans? Really? When America is richer and more mobile?
Are you trying to claim that midwestern and eastern American cities are further apart than western European cities? How is that possible if the land is the same size and the population density is the same?
“And how close would a station be?”
Wouldn’t you put one in every major city along the way and at key suburban locations?
Along the eastern seaboard, there might even be similarities of density to EU, but there’s still not enough demand to the close to the full price of HSR.
Andrew, following your approach on comparisons, here are some factoids sure to further confound the prejudiced, rather confused ideologues on this blog.
In Japan, there are 7,519 persons per mile of railway route (16,937 miles of line, 127,360,000 people.) Japanese railways as a whole carry 175 annual riders per capita, mostly on what in the U.S. we call “commuter rail” though many of these routes operate in the same way as subways and commuter rail-like systems such as BART, Washington Metro, the Dallas LRT, and so forth. Passenger miles for all forms of rail average 1,930 annual passenger miles per capita.
Switzerland is an interesting contrast. In this small European country which is much less dense than Japan, there are 3,146 railway route miles, or 2,475 people per mile of line (7,785,000 population, 2009 estimate). Swiss railways carried 1,390 annual rail passenger miles per capita in 1989, second only to Japan, I believe. The Swiss take roughly 72 rail rides per year, excluding urban tramways. Only the Zurich S-Bahn network, included in these statistics, even remotely resembles the massive commuter rail networks in Japanese cities. When urban tramway and bus ridership is added to the rail network, total Swiss “transit” rides per capita is comparable to Japan, despite the fact that Swiss cities are very small and relatively low density compared to Japan’s huge, dense urban areas. Zurich is the largest city with only 380,000 inhabitants, and a density of 10,292 per square mile. Bern and Basel are somewhat denser, but also much smaller than Zurich.
The lesson is that density and urban area size, by themselves, are not factors that necessarily control rail and transit patronage levels. In Switzerland, Canton Grabunden is the least dense with about 80 people per square mile, but still has 146 annual rail/transit riders per capita thanks to its very high quality rail and bus network. This level of patronage is higher–much higher in most cases–than all U.S.urban regions except for New York City. The transit opponents here will sputter that gasoline prices are higher than the U.S., I suppose, not acknowledging the fact that “service quality” and competent transit network planning is also a huge factor in Grabunden’s continuing success.
Scott, your bullying and sputtering has no impact on me.
Adopting your sort of “philosophy,” as small and inconsequential as it is, would lead to immoral outcomes as people would have little recourse against concentrated private power, starting with the “corporate citizens” (sic) created by an activist right wing Supreme Court. At least with the government, we can “vote the bums out” as the teabaggers just did in November.
As for various other strains of your social darwinist, “might is right” philosophy, Ayn Rand was simply a psychotic narcissist. Some of her acolytes actually made the claim that stealing Native American homelands was justified because the many tribes hadn’t “developed” their lands. A few more extreme libertarians would bring back the ability of people to sell themselves into slavery to pay debts, something correctly outlawed–and enforced–by the government. Others would
I stand by my entire post from last night. The fact that we have become more civilized since the 19th Century and outlawed child labor, for example, only proves again my point that all market rules are created by some kind of political decision, whether through a legislature, an oligarchy, a dictator, a king, or whomever was the recognized “legitimate” authority at any given time in any given society. This point alone falsifies virtually everything claimed by “free market” economists and similar intellectual charlatans.
My point also invalidates the “high moral ground” claimed by people like you for the “free market” over and above any and all other concerns of human society.
If you don’t get this and continue to sputter like a broken top, well, that’s not my problem.
BTW, the financial crisis was preceded by massive deregulation of the “financial sector.” Technically these were government policies, so Scott wins a minor point. Gee-wilikkers, Ma!
I also never said that all government decisions were beneficial. Don’t lie about what I said, Scott. The domination of Washington by Wall Street and “corporate citizens” is near complete, now, so most government decisions are made in their favor, screwing the average person in the process.
As far the purpose of government, I want it to act in the best interests of the vast majority of people, not Wall Street and corporations, nor rich, arrogant assholes like the Koch brothers.
Re: the amount of land & its use, some of you guys are missing the point in being, in one area vs spread linearly & the ramifications. Shrinking airports is ridiculous. Consider future demand & the surrounding possible limited use, due to noise. Trains have a lot of noise; look at the tracks necessary buffer zones, for many reasons.
Having a view of Acela as optimistic is misrepresentation of facts, reality & the future.
The stats looked at are skewed & of of context.
Andrew mentioned his travel. I purposely referred to “all” to get an idea of the avg travel. Also, business travel has its differences.
For new rail lines, Andrew typed about building in unsettles areas. How are urban areas connected. Rural areas still have property owners & uses. Disturbing wildlife is irrelevant.
For density, Andrew missed the point of UAs & distance between.
What advantages & how much use will HSR rail along the East Coast (I-95) have?
Minimal reduction; more lanes are still needed. It would be “nice”, & have some use, to have HSR, but the costs are too exorbitant.
A few stations in each UA, as you said, but the point is, that each traveler still has to get there.
Dream on about transit. Look at US history. See difs with other countries & its cost.
Hey, a personal example (probably typical): Living in San Jose (downtown), I’ve had no real need to use transit. I took Caltrain & BART on 2 occasions (for urban classes at SJSU, prof Bossard). The MTC has purposely avoided lane improvements & added restrictions (HOV), for their plan of compactness (make driving a hassle) & raising transit ridership, despite some huge $ built on interchanges (see Milwaukee for a gross example, in addition to the Big Dig).
The Bay Area US is the 2nd densest in the nation. Efficiency & benefits have not followed, by the HDC (high-density coalition) mentality, particularly on housing prices Z& congestion. Double the land (for ~800 sq.mi. out of 7,000) can be built on, but not allowed. Although, current travel routes have little room for widening.
What seems to be missing is to push to pick locations of living & working, closer. But there are many drawbacks to that. Mixed-use doesn’t solve that. Shopping with walking is very limited too (carrying, selection, competition, etc.).
It would be great if community transport would have the benefits claimed, but they only accrue to a few [at the expense of others & selves], & have many more negatives.
Big brother is for in the animal farm of 1984, V for vindictive.
Please, don’t try to dismiss the thoughts of authoritarianism as the reason against public transport. Consider the conditions needed: 20,000+/sq.mi density, which the prosperous Singapore, HK & Tokyo have, but, they have geographical limits, plus many added cost & consequences (ie high housing costs, limited opportunities).
There are some hidden agendas, too, albeit not held by all who support these property right restrictions & coercion for behavior modification.
Care to learn? It can be tough read, especially when disproving one’s beliefs & ignorance.
http://www.freedomadvocates.org/articles/planning_-_smart_growth/%22smart_growth%22_is_%22agenda_21%22_2003022112/http://www.redcounty.com/node/33076http://www.newswithviews.com/Shaw/michael13.htmhttp://thegreenscheme.wordpress.com/lifeplan/http://www.channelingreality.com/IEF_Agenda21/un_agenda_21_in_idaho.htmhttp://www.rightsidenews.com/201004239706/life-and-science/culture-wars/serious-dangers-of-green-dragon-environmentalism-says-the-time-is-now-to-stand-and-resist.htmlhttp://www.cornwallalliance.org/http://www.icleiusa.org/
What advantages do the EU & Japan have, for their higher use of transit?
Ceteris paribus? Meaning, adjust judgment for outcome, based on circumstances, including, relating any results to factors involved–probably not public transit.
Uh, those links are a run-on.
Try these, if you wish to learn:
http://greenhellblog.com/2010/09/06/
http://www.greens.org/s-r/22/22-14.html
http://www.freedomadvocates.org/
http://www.resistingthegreendragon.com/
http://www.channelingreality.com/IEF_Agenda21/un_agenda_21_in_idaho.htm
http://www.green-agenda.com/
http://thegreenscheme.wordpress.com/lifeplan/
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6898
http://www.newswithviews.com/Chapman/michael.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Shaw/michael13.htm
http://www.freedomadvocates.org/articles/planning_-_smart_growth/%22smart_growth%22_is_%22agenda_21%22_2003022112/
CP – you’re right, I was thinking of non-regional travel, but said international travel. Everyone agrees that trains become increasingly unattractive when the trip gets over a thousand miles, or even less. Nothing will displace long distance air travel.
As far as land use – its about utility. Rail doesn’t have to take up a lot of space for a station. Port cities tends to have bigger rail yards because of all the demand for fright from ocean commerce.
146 annual rides per capita, with 80 people per square mile. This is the most car-oriented part of Switzerland. Still can’t explain it credibly, can you, Scott?
You chose the worst example of light rail planning in the U.S., bar none, with the San Jose LRT network. If the latest lines ran between Eastridge Mall, downtown and out Stevens Creek to DeAnza College would carry several times the patronage experienced on the current, poorly located, very slow Mountain View-East San Jose waste of money.
Cervero et al at UC Berkeley seems to be at the beginnings of an understanding of the relationship between ridership and capital costs, e.g., to be cost effective, higher capital costs must be justified by higher ridership levels. See http://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/uctcwp/1602050.html.
Then there is the research by Reconnecting America that did a very simple regression analysis finding that there is a direct, very highly correlated relationship between ridership levels and total employment served directly by new rail transit lines. See http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/display_asset/ctodwp_destinations_matter.
If you can find technical flaws in the two referenced papers, I’d like to see you explain what’s wrong with them. Also take a crack at my recent paper on the topic:
http://www.transportationinnovators.com/tidocs/TI-WhitePaper1-TransitDemandCurve.pdf. This was a followup to my findings in http://www.publictransit.us/ptlibrary/specialreports/sr3.transitwilltheycome.htm.
So, no, Scott, while demographics and differing urban structures are secondary considerations in places like Europe and Japan, the primary factors explaining high transit ridership are
(1) the general much higher availability and quality of service, and, just as importantly,
(2) the much higher importance given to transit by those cultures in the first place, resulting in the fact that transit didn’t receive the malign neglect it did in this country since World War II.
The latter factor also explains why the Toronto Transit Commission has managed to keep ridership per capita there at levels better than many European cities, despite the differences in gasoline prices, demographics and densities. Toronto is a lot more similar to large cities in the U.S. and Australia than it is with places like Munich, for example, or Zurich.
As for the ideological garbage links you’ve provided, I’ve read tons of that sort of crap for many years, particularly since the right wing discovered Al Gore’s interest in New Urbanism and Smart Growth circa 1998.
Scott, you’re still sounding like True Believer Scientologists who claim people rejecting their bullshit “don’t understand it”, which REALLY means the bullshit didn’t convince them. I’ve read a vast representative sample of the bullshit you list over the years, AND REJECT IT as 99% unadulterated bullshit!!!! And I’m not going to waste my time on it again, since I’ve already “learned” what bullshit it all is.
Light rail doesn’t work anywhere. Doesn’t matter if it’s San Jose or Newark. Though I expect Portland to be bought up as an example of “success” any minute now. If that’s the kind of success you are proud of, I am afraid to see the failures. And please msetty, stop with the “true believer” bullshit. You’re starting to sound more unhinged than you actually are.
As long as Scott et all keep trying to convert me, I’ll reference LBJ’s favorite philosopher.
So, Metrosucks, what is your MEASURABLE, OBJECTIVE definition of “success” for transit, anyway? Is there a particular level of low cost per passenger, for example, that must be met to meet your definition of “success?” Per passenger mile? What?
Or are you like Peter Gordon of USC, who actually made the claim, in his eyes, that light rail would be a failure regardless of how high ridership might be?
I bet your answer is strictly ideological, as it was with Gordon.
Hey msetty, why don’t we just start with the goals the planners concoct when selling these light rail delusions to the public? Since none of these goals are ever met, we have our MEASURABLE, OBJECTIVE definitions right there. What a “shame” that they are never met, right? What’s you answer to that?
What a surprise. Suddenly the libtard is quiet.
msetty,
Don’t know what you mean by, “bullying and sputtering.†You have a habit of making similar claims, trying to compare me to _____ or labeling as _________. It’s a typical response [for baseless claims & positions], to accuse of certain things, in adjective words & insults, while not touching on content.
It’s funny-coincidental that you mentioned Switzerland, I was almost that as an outlier.
However, look at that various factors of differences–, geography, needs, smallness, cultural, not much for income, added care expense, limits to roads, etc.–not that much comparison to the US. I haven’t analyzed their travel much (ie local, buses), but I think the big focus on their transport is regional rail. That’s among, what, 3 UAs, plus inter-country (many tourists, more than here)?
Looking at the nation or state density is pretty much irrelevant for figuring the conditions for transit compatibility.
Thanx for links; I will read. It’s strange that you (& others) can’t discuss with own reasoning. Refer to other delusions & flawed studies? Sure, sources & data are important (often faulty & biased), but it seems there is no logic, cause-effect, principle or consistent facts (picking a best few, & demonizing a few, does not count ).
I didn’t mention VTA as example of all. However, most transit systems, especially LRT, are under-performers. And the density of urbanized Santa Clara County, plus its restriction does offer more prime conditions, for the contrived, pushed higher transit, but people are not biting. Many other factors prevail. You hypocrite (you living in the semi-rural area, NE of SF) cannot control behavior, or reduce side effects.
For UAs [in US], you know, there is one way-best (NYC area) & 4-6 fairly good, & it has most to due with density of core city. BTW, DC is above the norm [in transit use] for its density, due to its workforce in the CBD (see Census daytime pop). Another factor is it’s larger portion of lower-incomes, despite its higher average.
Your mentioning of BS & Scientology & other false associations with whatever, you disbelieve in, does not add to discourse. Disagree? Attack the points?
Oh, what dereg (about housing caused recession) are you referring to? The last major one, was curtailing Glass-Steagal (made by FDR), during Clinton, which had little impact on failures. Bush added many regs, especially Sarbannes-Oxley, & increased the site of gov. He was not a free-market conservative, despite his broken rhetoric. See an outline (plus links), here:
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=4328#comment-108891
IT WAS GOV POLICIES, that coerced bad loans & created the housing price increases!
Try reading more; go to CRA & its enforcement, plus the GSEs & the “affordability†push.
See also, local land-use policies (ie the BLM in LV) that reduced supply.
Insults to Peter Gordon or Reason Foundation, & “ideologyâ€, don’t mean anything.
If you believe they are wrong, deconstruct & analyze it.
Did you even read my post, a few back or others?
You make slight connections, but avoid many concepts & principles.
Maybe my writing-style is mediocre.
Maybe I should # points, making more obvious & clear.
Still, I would be claimed as siding with Milton Friedman, human rights, choice, limits, etc.
Problem?
Generally, shall I be more elucidating?
I think the genuine substance is there.
Forbid me to say that lefties are lacking certain knowledge (ignorant).
Understand [previous analogies] on not knowing a field (ie chemistry, fashion), but still commenting on, like an all-knowing jack-ass?
Andrew, re: your #s on Acela, one thing stuck out, $440million in annual revenue.
Pardon my claiming you ignorance in business & such, but your “crunching” is short.
Consider a ~10X factor (per annual revenue & sunk), in covering cost, the Acela figures are far short.
Now, figure higher costs & really look at the ticket price, plus ridership dif.
For a major item: Higher (much) needs [for riders] in the NE (denser), compared to CA.
Oh, to point out the possible purported hypocrisy label, &/or misunderstanding, the connection of focus on density has many distinctions:
Country, region, income, urban area (UA), & the “closeness to destinations, is important.
Pleased to see that in political life in America there is still some appeal to rationality, even if it takes a nearly bankrupt state and billions of dollars of unfunded additional liabilities to finally convince the Left that, actually, this project might not be such a good idea after all.
Andrew wrote:
Acela has taken a majority of the air-rail market between NY-BAL/DC and NY-BOS, and the vast majority of PHL-NY and PHL-DC, and that is without even considering synergizing air-rail trips as done in Europe to replace regional flights directly for the airlines
How about a source for the above assertions? And what about person travel on highways (as in private automobiles and buses) in those travel markets?
(Amtrak passes right next to Washington National and Harrisburg airports, has stations as BWI, Providence-TF Green, and Newark Airports, there is an existing rail line to Philadelphia Airport,
The (electrified) Amtrak NEC Corridor these days ends at Washington Union Station, rather far from Washington National Airport (DCA). Some trains running south of Washington Union Station do continue south into Virginia (after a time-consuming change of locomotive), but none of them stop at the station closest to DCA.
and one that could be revived past JFK – LIRR Ozone Park Branch).
How many billions of taxpayer dollars would that “revival” cost?
There is also no reason to think you couldn’t get similar results in the Midwest or California.
And how many billions of taxpayer dollars would it cost to get those “results?”
Andrew wrote:
Philadelphia airport in my hometown sits on 3.5 sq. miles of a 135 sq. mile city (Philadelphia City, of which 14 sq. miles are parkland) and 9 sq. mile township (Tinicum Township, of which 2 sq. miles is a Wildlife Refuge). So the airport is 2.75% of non parkland, and probably over 5% of taxable land once streets, Churches, Universities, schools, water and sewage works, and other non-taxable land is considered. It should probably be paying $50 million in property tax per year considering the value of improvements, but it is not, so that burden falls on residential and commercial property owners instead.
How much property tax does Amtrak pay on its stations and railyards?
CPZ:
“How much property tax does Amtrak pay on its stations and railyards?”
The answer is complex and not easily quantifiable.
Railroads generally pay property taxes in a special manner to States, and the amounts are approtioned over the communities they run through. Amtrak helps pay for these taxes through its use charges to operate on the general rail system. This includes most of its smaller stations, which are actually owned by the freight railroads Amtrak operates over (and which in turn actually own Amtrak along with majority owner Carl Lindner through his ownership of American Premier Underwriters, nee Penn Central). American railroads pay around $500 million in property taxes on 160,000 miles of line, and some lines totalling a couple thousand miles in length are almost solely used by Amtrak, such as the UP and BNSF lines from San Jose to San Diego in CA, the CSX line from Poughkeepsie to Schenectady NY, the BNSF line from Topeka KS to Albuquerque NM, the NS line from Kalamazoo to Dearborn MI, or the BNSF line from Fargo to Minot via Grand Forks.
Amtrak was exempted from property and sales taxes in 1981 through positive congressional action by Federal Law with respect to its own property and purchases. At the time, Amtrak was paying around $14 million per year. Amtrak’s actual property held in fee simple is quite limited and includes only the Northeast Corridor from New Rochelle to Washington, inlcuding most of the intervening stations, the line from Philadelphia to Harrisburg, certain power transmission assets between Safe Harbor Dam on the Suquehanna River and Philadelphia, the lines between New Haven CT and Springfield MA and New Haven CT and the MA state line at South Attleboro, Chicago Union Station, the Auto-Train terminals and Sanford FL and Lorton VA, the Michigan line from Porter IN to Kalamazoo MI, and the major stations it built in Jacksonville, Miami, St. Paul, Omaha, Pittsburgh, and Richmond.
Where stations and other property used by Amtrak are owned by others who are not railroads, they are taxed and Amtrak pays for the taxes through the lease payments made. For example, the Milwaukee Amtrak Station is taxable since it is privately owned and leases space to Amtrak.
In some cases, stations and yards used by Amtrak were built by municipalities as part of urban renewal schemes and were always tax exempt for that reason – for example, New Orleans, where the railroad assets are owned by the New Orleans Public Belt, which is owned by the city of New Orleans as a civic asset to provide open switching between the five major railroads serving the port and terminal district.