Even for a famous transportation writer, it is amazing how many factual errors Tom Vanderbilt, the author of a book on traffic congestion, managed to pack into a single article in Slate. Is it because he ventured into a field beyond his expertise and is relying someone else’s erroneous data? Or is he being deliberately deceptive?
The Milwaukee Road’s Hiawatha was one of the nation’s first “high-speed trains,” but it began service in 1935, not in the 1920s. Otto Perry photo.
His thesis is that “trains are slower now than in the 1920s” because railroad technology “is worse now than it was in the early 20th century.” Both these statements are flat-out wrong: trains are faster today, and rail technology has been thoroughly revolutionized since the 1920s.
Vanderbilt (who is unrelated to the Vanderbilt railroad family, or he would probably know better) is confused about several things. He conflates “passenger train technology” with “rail technology.” He measures inputs when he should be measuring outputs. He attributes the technologies of the 1930s to the 1920s. And he misleadingly compares the top speeds of historic trains with the average speeds of trains today.
American railroads are superb at moving large volumes of freight, and they move far more of it today than in the 1920s or any other time in history. In 2007, America’s seven biggest railroads (known as “class I” railroads) moved 1.77 trillion ton-miles of freight. This is nearly quadruple the 450 billion ton-miles moved by all railroads — not just class Is — in 1929, the peak of the 1920s. (You can find this and other historic rail data from pages 727-733 of this 66-megabyte download.)
Today’s freight trains are also much faster than they were in the 1920s. In some time-sensitive cases, they run as fast as the fastest passenger trains that ever served the same routes, meaning nearly 80 mph, whereas in the 1920s most freight trains dragged along at 20 to 30 mph.
Vanderbilt seems entirely unaware of this huge increase in rail productivity. Instead of looking at outputs, he focuses on inputs. “From the Civil War to World War I, the number of rail miles exploded from 35,000 to 216,000,” he says, “hitting a zenith of 260,000 in 1930 and falling by 2000 to less than 100,000–the same level as in 1881.” He describes this as a huge decline in capacity.
In the first place, his numbers are wrong. According to the Association of American Railroads, the U.S. currently has more than 140,000 miles of rail lines. This isn’t as many as in 1930, but far more than “less than 100,000.” Class I roads have just 94,440 miles, which must be the number he uses, but since the 1930 number includes all railroads, not just class Is, the comparison is deceptive.
Beyond this error, the whole point of technological progress is to make more effective use of inputs. Rail technology today has progressed to the point where the class I railroads can haul nearly 1.8 trillion ton-miles of freight over 94,440 mlles of rail, where in 1929 all railroads moved a quarter of that amount over 160 percent more miles of track  that’s ten times as many ton-miles per mile. By focusing on inputs rather than outputs, Vanderbilt completely missed the mammoth technological improvements required to get this increased capacity.
Vanderbilt is also wrong when it comes to passenger rail technology, partly because he has his decades confused. “We would do well to simply get trains back up to the speeds they traveled at during the Harding administration,” he says. “Consider, for example, the Burlington Zephyr.” Yes, consider the Zephyr, one of the Antiplanner’s favorite trains, built in 1934 — more than a decade after Harding ignominiously left died in office.
There sildenafil generic from canada is fitting time oblige beginning the impact of such medication implies you ought to take it at the time of sex. However, if you speak with your partner, it is easier to swallow. viagra from canada This is what natural herbal compound icariin in horny goat weed inhibit PDE-5, just like purchase cheap viagra http://amerikabulteni.com/2011/11/18/netflix-gets-exclusive-arrested-development-streaming-rights-for-new-season/. Apart from the dosage pattern make viagra online buy sure that you do not fight this situation then that will make you feel strong enough for making love or sex will definitely drives people crazy. The 1920s was a significant decade for American passenger trains, but not because they were particularly fast. In 1920, the automobile had not yet become dominant, and American railroads operated something like 15,000 to 20,000 passenger trains a day, reaching almost every town in the country — though none of them very fast. The Twentieth Century Limited, one of the fastest trains in America, averaged just 48 miles per hour through the 1920s.
In 1920, railroads carried around 47 billion passenger miles — an average of less than 450 miles per capita. Think about that for a minute. If you could only travel 450 miles a year, where would you go? That’s about one round trip from Seattle to Salem, Oregon’s capital; a round trip from New York to Washington; or a one-way trip from Denver to Albuquerque or San Francisco to Disneyland. Today, the average American travels more than 18,000 miles a year, 40 times as much as they rode the rails in 1920.
Of course, not everyone rode trains 450 miles in 1920; instead, a few people rode them a lot, and most rarely or not at all. Passenger trains were predominately an elitist form of transportation.
Despite the extensive service, rail ridership declined to 31 billion passenger miles in 1929. The Depression cut that nearly in half by 1933. Though wrong about the decade, Vanderbilt is generally correct that some railroads — notably the Burlington, Milwaukee, Santa Fe, and a handful of others — responded to these declines by increasing passenger train speeds. Yet even here he is wrong about many particulars.
To restore ridership, the railroads bought or built glitzy, streamlined passenger trains with thrilling names such as the Zephyr, the Hiawatha, and the Super Chief. Vanderbilt says the Zephyr “barreled from Chicago to Denver in 1934 in a little more than 13 hours.” But that was just a publicity stunt. The Burlington Route didn’t actually get a Denver Zephyr in service from Chicago until 1936, and then it was scheduled to take about 16 hours, an average of 65 miles per hour.
“It was not uncommon for the Zephyr or other trains to hit speeds of more than 100 mph in the 1930s,” continues Vanderbilt. “Today’s ‘high-speed’ Acela service on Amtrak has an average speed of 87 mph.” His comparison of historic top speeds with the Acela’s average speed suggests a deliberate attempt to deceive.
In the late 1930s, the Milwaukee Road operated its Hiawatha at speeds of up to 110 mph between Chicago and Minneapolis. Yet the train still took 6 hours for this trip, meaning the average speed was less than 70 mph — one of the nation’s fastest trains at the time. Vanderbilt erroneously says the train took only 4.5 hours in the 1950s, when in fact the schedule had by then slowed to 6.5 hours, for an average speed of less than 65.
Contrary to Vanderbilt’s claim that the Acela “and one lone stretch in Michigan” are the only Amtrak trains that run faster than 79 miles per hour, Amtrak runs fast trains on several routes today. In addition to the Boston-to-Washington corridor (where non-Acela trains routinely reach 110 and, in short stretches, 120 mph), Amtrak trains reach top speeds of 110 mph between New York and Albany, Chicago and Detroit, and Philadelphia and Harrisburg, and 90 mph between Los Angeles and San Diego. The fastest Amtrak trains on the Philadelphia-to-Harrisburg route average nearly 68 mph — less than 1 mph slower than the 1935 Hiawatha. Even the slowest Amtrak trains today are faster than most passenger trains in the 1920s, when the railroads felt little competitive pressure from automobiles or airplanes.
By continuing to confuse inputs with outputs, Vanderbilt misses the sad truth that these fast trains failed to attract many people out of their automobiles, either then or now. Though World War II gas rationing and troop movements pushed up rail ridership to a 1944 peak of just under 700 miles per capita, rail patronage plummeted by a devastating 67 percent between 1944 and 1950, with per-capita ridership falling to 210 miles. By 1960, per-capita ridership was down to 118 miles; by 1970 just 53 miles. Today, after investing billions of tax dollars into Amtrak, it is about 18 miles.
Amtrak brags that its Boston-to-Washington service carries as many riders as airplanes in the same corridor. But when auto traffic is counted, Amtrak has at best 15 percent of the market. Nationally, intercity buses carry 27 times as many passenger miles as Amtrak, so it is likely that they carry more than Amtrak in the Northeast corridor.
As people turned from passenger trains to newer technologies such as automobiles on superhighways and jet airplanes, the railroads underwent their own technological revolutions. Diesel power replaced labor-intensive and often out-of-service steam locomotives. Welded rail replaced the rhythmic clickety-clack now familiar mainly to old-movie buffs. Central traffic control replaced local dispatching so now every BNSF train is monitored and directed from the company’s headquarters in Ft. Worth, and every UP train is directed from Omaha.
Since so few people were riding trains, the railroads invested those technologies into freight, not passengers. To blame the decline of passenger trains on regressive technology is the same as blaming the buggy whip or horse collar industries for failing to keep up with the times.
Sure, we can spend hundreds of billions of dollars building high-speed rail, but it is still an obsolete technology that few people will use. We are better off focusing on outputs, not inputs, which means letting the railroads do what they do best — moving large volumes of freight — while letting passengers use the technologies that work best for them, namely automobiles, buses, and airplanes.
Yes Tom Vandbilt made errors, though you deliberately make plenty your self.
You planned this post, like most of what you write with an anti-railroad agenda.
Hey Highwayman, Who pays you for the crap that you post?
Thanks
JK
Interesting factoid: Portland’s MAX light rail carries more passengers every day daily than Amtrak.
Thanks
JK
Yes, I agree. Randal makes deliberate errors, presumably to prop up the small-mimority ideology. No word on whether most deliberate errors beyond his expertise get noticed elsewhere, tho.
DS
Interesting story. Thanks.
the highwayman [sic] claimed:
> Yes Tom Vandbilt made errors, though you deliberately
> make plenty your self.
>
> You planned this post, like most of what you write with
> an anti-railroad agenda.
Hmm, are you aware that Randal probably knows as much as or more about railroads and railroading than most of the readers of
this blog? Especially including you?
Randal in his own words (source):
For what it is worth, I am not “personally hostile to the
mode.†In fact, I love trains. I’ve ridden Amtrak more
than 250,000 miles. I’ve ridden trains in just about every
other country I’ve visited. I helped restore the nation’s
second most powerful steam locomotive. I perform
“living history†recitals of speeches given by Great
Northern Railway founder James J. Hill.
(emphasis added)
The PRR GG-1 electrics (placed in service in the mid-1930’s and operated into the 1980’s) were capable of pulling passenger trains at 100 MPH, and did so along (what is now) Amtrak’s N.E. Corridor.
Dan said: Yes, I agree. Randal makes deliberate errors, presumably to prop up the small-mimority ideology. No word on whether most deliberate errors beyond his expertise get noticed elsewhere, tho.
THWM: So socialism with cars, planes & boats is good, but socialism with trains is bad.
CPZ: For what it is worth, I am not “personally hostile to the
mode.†In fact, I love trains.
THWM: Just as KKK members love interacial marriage.
A small quibble with a great post…
“Yes, consider the Zephyr, one of the Antiplanner’s favorite trains, built in 1934  more than a decade after Harding ignominiously left office.”
Harding did not “leave” office, he died in office in 1923, from what may have been a heart attack, a stroke, or, according to some ill-supported conspiracy theorists, poisoning.
THWM: So socialism with cars, planes & boats is good, but socialism with trains is bad.
JK: cars, planes & boats mostly pay their own way through user fees. That is NOT socialism.
Trains are heavily subsidized by others.
Thanks
JK
JK: cars, planes & boats mostly pay their own way through user fees. That is NOT socialism. Trains are heavily subsidized by others.
THWM: ROTFLMAO!
JK:cars, planes & boats mostly pay their own way through user fees. That is NOT socialism. Trains are heavily subsidized by others.
ws:Capital construction of many airports utilize municipal backed bonds, get million in government grants, and are property tax exempt (initial construction of airports actually used RR funds). Who do you think pays for the tax exempt air traffic control infrastructure?
Barges get similar aid, not to mention the many billion dollar subsidies from federal agencies like the Army Corps. of Engineer projects to help shipping/transportation of barges? Do you really know how much dredging costs? Do you know how much a canal costs? Who exactly is paying for these projects? Hmm…
Specifically regarding airports, they get millions in federal security funds. Yes, taxes are paid by ticket purchases, but it is not 100% funded by the individual. The airlines got 10 billion in earmarked loan guarantees after 9/11.
Railways are a private endeavor and pay taxes on their lines. Even Amtrak, which is subsidized, funds its own security and pays railway fees to those companies.
Amtrak is overwhelmingly subsidized, but airports are even more subsidized. Not to mention, the trucking industry gets a boost from private car owners, as they do more damage to roads than any vehicle.
Government has provided huge upfront capital costs of highways, airways, and canals/water engineering projects – but not railroads. All of the private industries that use these infrastructure system were somehow absent from funding the upfront costs. This is a huge market disadvantage for railroads, not to mention the taxation rates are completely different (highways do not pay property taxes).
I find it insulting that you, a free-marketeer, would be saying these things without recognition of actual history and current public policy that is dictating the transportation markets in America.
Ok, that was funny Jim, here’s an other one using your looney libertarian logic.
“Pedestrians mostly pay their own way through user fees. That is NOT socialism. Bicyclists are heavily subsidized by others.”
You guys just love double standards!
“Of course, not everyone rode trains 450 miles in 1920; instead, a few people rode them a lot, and most rarely or not at all. Passenger trains were predominately an elitist form of transportation.”
Do we actually have any demographic data from back then? Maybe it’s just the way I read it but it doesn’t seem to be woorded in away that says there is any to use to base this claim on.
Airplanes somehow are not an “elitist” transit mode?
WS,
Thank you for expressing popular beliefs about government funding of transportation. As it happens, most of those beliefs are wrong. Airports are not heavily subsidies; most of the costs of airports are paid for out of landing fees. What subsidies exist are mainly to small airports aimed at propping up local economies and amount to no more than about a penny per passenger mile of air travel.
Government did not provide huge up-front capital costs for highways. The Interstate Highway System in particular was built exclusively on a pay-as-you-go basis (the system was built only as gas tax and other highway revenues came in). State governments have sometimes sold bonds to pay for other highways, but most of the repayment of those bonds comes out of user fees. Only local governments pay for local roads out of general taxes, and what they pay amounts to only about a penny per passenger mile.
As I have documented here before, subsidies to Amtrak are more than 25 cents per passenger mile and subsidies to urban transit are more than 60 cents per passenger mile. Let’s just all agree that subsidies are evil and work to get rid of all of them.
Inland waterways are indeed subsidized and I don’t think anyone on this list has ever defended those subsidies.
Air travel is more elitist than driving, in the sense that most travel is done by the middle- and upper-classes. The most egalitarian form of mechanized travel is the automobile.
PRK166, you ask a good question. No, we don’t have a lot of demographic data about who used trains in 1920. Since a 450-mile trip just wouldn’t get people very far, it seems certain that rail travel then was like air travel today (or, more accurately, a couple of decades ago): mainly used by the wealthy. In fact, since Americans today fly more than 4 times as many miles per capita than people rode trains in 1920, it seems pretty certain that rail travel was even more elitist then than air travel is now. Not to be stereotypical, but if you’ve been on a Southwest Airlines, Allegiant, or other cut-rate carrier, you know that many low-income people routinely fly today.
Then railroads shouldn’t have to pay property taxes and their infrastructure should be legally protected from being dismantled & trashed like with roads.
What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander!
ROT: Let’s just all agree that subsidies are evil and work to get rid of all of them.
THWM: Then shouldn’t the government rebuild most the rail lines that were lost to hostile policy over the last 95 years(railroad, heavy rail & streetcar)?
You do like to talk about property rights & compensation.
ws said: Airplanes somehow are not an “elitist†transit mode?
THWM: Well there’s that saying “jet set”, though that is some thing else.
With civil aviation there’s a lot of back door funding through military channels.
I’m not saying that it’s bad, though it’s not really taken into account.
WS: Government has provided huge upfront capital costs of highways, airways, and canals/water engineering projects – but not railroads. All of the private industries that use these infrastructure system were somehow absent from funding the upfront costs. This is a huge market disadvantage for railroads, not to mention the taxation rates are completely different (highways do not pay property taxes).
THWM: Various railroads got grants, though they have to keep paying taxes on them. Though one can argue that all the land in America was stolen from one tribe or another.
WS: I find it insulting that you, a free-marketeer, would be saying these things without recognition of actual history and current public policy that is dictating the transportation markets in America.
THWM: There is no such thing as a “free market”, unless that’s another term for shoplifitng.
Streets have an important value as a commons, I also happen to drink what boats travel on and breath what planes travel through.
You have to remember with vulgar libertarians like Gordon, Poole, Samuel, O’Toole, Karlock, Cox, Rubin, Zucker, etc.
“All modes are equal, but some modes are more equal than others.”
ROT:“Thank you for expressing popular beliefs about government funding of transportation. As it happens, most of those beliefs are wrong. Airports are not heavily subsidies; most of the costs of airports are paid for out of landing fees. What subsidies exist are mainly to small airports aimed at propping up local economies and amount to no more than about a penny per passenger mile of air travel.”
ws:Airports did not have a trust fund until the early 70s. Cities got plenty of matching federal funds for their construction. They also get special financing for expansion.
ROT:“Government did not provide huge up-front capital costs for highways. The Interstate Highway System in particular was built exclusively on a pay-as-you-go basis (the system was built only as gas tax and other highway revenues came in). State governments have sometimes sold bonds to pay for other highways, but most of the repayment of those bonds comes out of user fees. Only local governments pay for local roads out of general taxes, and what they pay amounts to only about a penny per passenger mile.”
ws:Government set up the logistics as well as the HTF to build the interstate system. Also, you cannot get to the highway without the local street.
ROT, the issue is that air, water, and road travel has all benefited from government planning and financing mechanisms. Even so, most airlines are doing terribly with very good airports. These industries received gold-platted infrastructure while Amtrak is operating on older infrastructure, poor crossings and signaling mostly financed and constructed privately. No wonder they are bleeding money, even private industries on government backed infrastructure can’t operate properly.
Yet, why do we hold Amtrak to a level that we do not hold other industries while it is trying to compete on 19th century infrastructure – while automobiles, airplanes, and barges get special treatment?
Many people were critical of a highway system in its early years because it was “elitist” (only rich people owned cars). Who do you think owned cars back then? But guess what, this expensive activity became very popular and costs were reduced from government action.
I would like a personal explanation of why other modes of transportation get government help, but railroads do not. You’re too obsessed with “subsidies per mile” and are blatantly avoiding the market forces that are dictating this outcome.
One thing that Tom Venderbilt is right on the ball with, is that in the USA there is over 100,000 miles of rail line that is missing for no reason but, politics.
Regarding Dan typing: “small-mimority ideology.”
What does that mean?
You seem to speak for rail-riders, but they are the few.
(BTW, You diminish your impact w/misspelling & add to your bogus-ness)
You seem to be for massive subsidies to transit, yet <4% ride.
Fair? Fair! Fair?!
Subsidize transit!?!
Over 80% drive.
Get the fuk out out of here, piece of sheet hypocrite.
You don’t want a car fine; don’t have others pay for your transport.
THWM, What socialism are you talking about?
Please learn about “public goods.”
It’s too bad that you didn’t use public education.
Were you hidden in the basement?
And get the hell out here w/bringing up race & any other non-sequitor.
To all: Should we pay more taxes to have more rail service?
To where? How often?
How about more taxes for more buses?
Hey, a higher gas-tax for more lane-miles. Sounds great.
Scott:Regarding Dan typing: “small-mimority ideology.â€Â
What does that mean?
You seem to speak for rail-riders, but they are the few.
(BTW, You diminish your impact w/misspelling & add to your bogus-ness)
You seem to be for massive subsidies to transit, yet <4% ride.
Fair? Fair! Fair?!
Subsidize transit!?!
Over 80% drive.
Get the fuk out out of here, piece of sheet hypocrite.
You don’t want a car fine; don’t have others pay for your transport.
THWM: The whole good roads movement started with people riding bicycles.
You can’t take things as they are today and say that it’s “market” based, when there have been various policy decisions over the years to make this current situation.
Scott:THWM, What socialism are you talking about?
Please learn about “public goods.â€Â
THWM: Railroads & transit are public goods!
Scott: Hey, a higher gas-tax for more lane-miles. Sounds great.
THWM: We need tolls to pay for all limited access highways, as for taxes on gas there should only be regular sales taxes, going into general funding.