Tomorrow, the Cato Institute will publish a new paper with the above title. Antiplanner readers can download a preview today.
Next Tuesday, September 15, the Antiplanner will be in Washington with Alan Pisarski and Gabriel Roth speaking about the Obama administration’s transportation policies. Go here to find out more about the forum and make reservations for a free lunch. (It’s not really free; first you have to attend the forum.) This forum will also be presented live on line; just click on the above link at noon on Tuesday.
Benefits of Kamagra Oral Jelly Taking Kamagra oral jelly levitra free offers result inside few minutes. Most buy sildenafil uk of the time the reason being dull sexual life, busy lifestyle. Do not get panic as this biological situation can be controlled by curing the ED with the help of some quality drugs. donssite.com generico cialis on line Men who are seeking to maximize the benefits of buy tadalafil in australia, without incurring the typical large expense, can buy levitra, which has many of the same effects as given by the branded version.
On Thursday, September 17, the Antiplanner will join Representative Scott Garrett (R-NJ) and the Reason Foundation’s Sam Staley in a discussion about transportation reauthorization. Go here for more information and to make reservations for a free lunch. Unfortunately, this forum will not be available live on line.
The interstate highway system was not built over night, it was built piecemeal.
For that matter Alan Pisarski is a well known highway lobbyist.
There’s nothing wrong with the idea of a National System of Interstate and Defense Railroads.
The Trans Texas Corridor’s idea is an inclusive way of doing things.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3242/2382417595_fae1decbc4.jpg
the highwayman [sic] wrote:
> The interstate highway system was not built over night,
> it was built piecemeal.
It was designed as a system (albeit with a few notorious exceptions, such as Breezewood, Pennsylvania).
> For that matter Alan Pisarski is a well known highway lobbyist.
For that matter, ever read Commuting in America, written by Mr. Pisarski? Please point out all modal biases.
> There’s nothing wrong with the idea of a National System of
> Interstate and Defense Railroads.
We already have one.
Most of the initial mileage of the interstate system was federally-funded improvements to existing state highways. Most of those state highways followed existing rail routes. If you wanted to, you could follow a train with about 95% visual contact from El Paso to Tucson without ever leaving the I-10. (The two diverge slightly in mountain passes.)
For a fraction of the cost of the high-speed rail proposal, the interstate system and existing surface rail routes could be thoroughly modernized, updated, expanded, and made more efficient. As this system has military applications, it is one of the few times a federal transportation spending project is justifiable vis-a-vis individual rights.
Antiplanner wrote:
“A close look at the data reveal that highspeed rail would not be a revolution but more of a counterrevolution: a step backwards to a time when only the wealthy had mobility and when low- and middle-class people worked hard to keep the wealthy mobile”
Is this right? Railways used to be the main form of long distance transport, and so many people used it. This kept ticket prices low, and yet meant that railways could be built by private investors. Today, low ridership levels means that ticket prices are high, but the system is not profitable…
To a non-expert, the big surprise of the Antiplanner’s presentation is the allegation that high speed rail would not result in a reduction in CO2 emissions. I would say that 90% of the public just assumes that rail transit would save substantial CO2 emissions.
If the Antiplanner’s analysis and statistics withstand scrutiny, then I would think they would deal a major blow to the high speed rail projects.
Were train ticket prices low? IIRC the price in constant dollars to get from Chicago to Seattle on the train in 1945 was $900. Plus it took 2 to 2 1/2 days. Today you can do that for $300-$600 and do it in 4-6 hours.
If the Antiplanner’s analysis and statistics withstand scrutiny, then I would think they would deal a major blow to the high speed rail projects.
Not really. The high speed rail horse is already out of the barn. Facts and logic are an afterthought at this point.
IIRC the price in constant dollars to get from Chicago to Seattle on the train in 1945 was $900. Plus it took 2 to 2 1/2 days.
I’m pretty sure you can still get from Chicago to Seattle in 2 1/2 days by train. It might even cost less than $900. Ain’t modern technology grand?
MJ said: IIRC the price in constant dollars to get from Chicago to Seattle on the train in 1945 was $900. Plus it took 2 to 2 1/2 days.
I’m pretty sure you can still get from Chicago to Seattle in 2 1/2 days by train. It might even cost less than $900. Ain’t modern technology grand?
THWM: It depends on the accommodations, today fare for a bedroom between Chicago & Seattle is around $630, though a coach fare is around $150.
Two items in the report immediately project its factually-challenged bias:
First, to suggest that the total cost of the Interstate Highway system was a known fact in 1956 is nonsense. The size and scope of the system was expanded several times until its nominal ‘completion’ in the early 1980s, and various bypasses and spurs continue to be added to this day. Funding of new construction was continually revised, and, as has been discussed here previously, “user fees” do NOT cover the entire cost of the system, best estimates are that gas taxes, tolls, etc., cover about half of its costs. In fact, raising those fees so that it operates on a cashflow-positive basis would remove some discontinuities in the economy as a whole caused by a subsidization of trucking and auto passenger traffic over other modes.
Secondly, to argue that moderate-speed trains will lose money is only true if Amtrak continues to be treated as a budget item by the Congress instead of as a potential profit center. For example, on many routes you CANNOT BUY A SEAT DURING BUSY TRAVEL SUMMER SEASON. I experienced this problem when I tried to change a ticket, and was told I would have to wait 3 days to get a seat on the route, because it was sold out. When I talked with conductors on Amtrak, asking why they didn’t just add cars when existing seats sold out, they said that Amtrak was forbidden by Congress to make this rational, market-based business decision. What business wouldn’t take advantage of a seller’s market by increasing the supply of seats appropriately during surge periods (like, for example, when gas prices skyrocket)?
Amtrak is having problems breaking even because it is prohibited from truly exploiting the routes on which it could make a profit in order to subsidize needed service in less-dense corridors.
Another problem has been that Amtrak has been treated as an albatross rather than being allowed to exploit markets that would result in greater revenues. What would be wrong with putting cars on long-distance trains that have a game arcade, a workout room, showers, the kind of recreational activities that exist on every cruise ship these days? Cruise lines seem to have survived despite competition from airlines and the automobile, by selling to leisure travelers. I suspect that improving the nature of how rail hubs operate might convert some intermediate-distance vacationers from auto to rail, but at least initially a subsidy is going to be required to upgrade Amtrak to a modern system.
Last point: the Interstate Highway system was sold as a national defense initiative, and anyone who remembers the chaos of stranded passengers on 9/11 (which is repeated in a cascading manner every time there’s a major blizzard in the Midwest or East Coast) knows that having a high-speed rail system as an alternative to the easy-to-disrupt air transportation system is a good investment.
Sometime I’d like to see Cato apply its ideological sword to the (kept out of bankruptcy by federal bailouts) airline system.