The New York Times had an article recently arguing that the $11 billion Congress has spent on high-speed rail grants since 2009 has produced little visible results, mainly because most of it was spent on increasing the speeds of existing trains by two or three miles per hour rather than building new, true high-speed rail lines. This was followed by an editorial saying that “American lawmakers have not given high-speed rail the priority it deserves.” Population “growth will put an incredible strain on the nation’s highways and air-traffic system,” the editorial predicted, and high-speed rail would alleviate that strain.
In response, Forbes contributor Tim Worstall says, “The New York Times is wrong; there is no case for high-speed rail.” Worstall accepts the conventional wisdom that cars make sense for trips under 100 miles and planes make sense for trips of more than four hours, but in between there is a “sweet spot” in which rail makes sense. However, he continues, with the development of self-driving cars, that sweet spot disappears because the only advantage of trains is that riders can work or relax while on board, and since self-driving cars will allow people to do that too, there won’t be any need for high-speed trains.
Worstall is right about the New York Times being wrong, but he is wrong that there is a sweet spot today in which high-speed rail has an advantage over driving or flying. In claiming that such a sweet spot exists, Worstall is underestimating both the advantages of driving when and where you want to go and the excessively high costs of high-speed trains.
The New York Times is wrong because it fails to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of building infrastructure-heavy rail project vs. simply improving our highway and air-traffic systems to accommodate growth. The nation has abundant land for new highways (and may not even need many new roads once self-driving cars become dominant) and the danger of airspace getting full of aircraft is nil. Airport improvements are cheap compared with building high-speed rail at a cost of $60 million a mile or more.
This is why there really is no sweet spot between the longest auto trips and shortest airline trips. The convenience of automobiles in being able to go where you want when you want is unparalleled by any other mode of travel, and people are willing to drive long distances to retain that convenience. Meanwhile, the speed of air travel is far greater than any high-speed train, so by the time the distance becomes too great for people to consider driving, air travel makes more sense than trains.
It helps them making cialis overnight online their physical relation satisfactory for them and their partners too. All you need to do take some amount of gel and apply it on the tip and shaft of the penis. buy super viagra If such taken in high dosages there are positive reviews from all generic viagra online Read Full Article over the internet. These factors in most of the cases result page viagra cialis india in irritability and restlessness.
For example, the Antiplanner recently looked at (18-MB presentation) a proposal for a high-speed train from Minneapolis to Rochester. At just under 100 miles, this is shorter than even many high-speed rail advocates would say makes sense for train. Yet local boosters are pushing the idea of a train that could go between the two cities in about 45 minutes.
A 2003 feasibility study of this route made no attempt to estimate demand but guessed that about 7,500 people would take the train one-way each day. The land isn’t mountainous but it is far from flat; on flatter land the California High-Speed Rail Authority is projecting it will cost $60 million per mile to build its line. At this cost, the Antiplanner estimated that it would cost less to fly 7,500 round trips per day, meaning high-speed rail is at least twice the cost of flying.
So if driving makes more sense at distances of up to at least 100 miles, and flying makes more sense at 100 miles or more, there is no sweet spot for rail today. That’s why Amtrak only has about 6 percent of the travel market between New York and Boston, of which the higher-speed Acela is about 2 percent and lower-speed trains about 4 percent.
When it comes down to it, the big problem for high-speed trains is cost. Airlines charge 15 cents a passenger mile to fly. Americans spend 25 cents a passenger mile driving, but in intercity use autos have higher occupancy rates so the real cost is lower still. Subsidies to flying and driving are mainly to minor airports and local streets and roads; major airports and state and interstate highways pay for themselves with user fees. By comparison, Amtrak charges average fares of 75 cents per passenger mile to ride the Acela, and even rail advocates understand that this doesn’t cover capital and maintenance costs, which probably average more than 25 cents a passenger mile.
In short, cars are less expensive and more convenient than trains. Airplanes are less expensive and faster than trains. Trains only “make sense” if taxpayers subsidize them enough to disguise their true costs to passengers, and even then they will never capture a significant share of the travel market in any American corridor.
The Antiplanner wrote:
In short, cars are less expensive and more convenient than trains. Airplanes are less expensive and faster than trains. Trains only “make sense” if taxpayers subsidize them enough to disguise their true costs to passengers, and even then they will never capture a significant share of the travel market in any American corridor.
I drive from Maryland to the New York City area sometimes, and I generally never consider any form of Amtrak service (though I might if I was going to Mid-town Manhattan).
The I-95/I-295/N.J. Turnpike route is easier and more-reliable than a train, and it takes me where I wish to go, which is normally not Manhattan.
But when Amtrak publishes its patronage data, it never attempts to provide a true modal share computation (train, bus, airline, private automobile) for travel from Washington to Baltimore to Wilmington to Philadelphia to Trenton to New York City to New Haven to Providence to Boston (the main stops served by Amtrak’s Acela service).
I’m not sure I buy the sweet spot idea either, but I would argue that cars are usually more efficient then planes in the 200-300 mile range. For example, Austin to Dallas is about 200 miles or a 3 hour drive. In a plane gate to gate is about 45 minutes. You have to get to the airport 1 hr in advance and it will likely take you anywhere from 15-45 minutes to get to the airport. Then you have to deboard the plane and get out of the destination airport,at least another 30 minutes. Then you have to get to your actual destination, likely another 15-45 minutes. That’s an estimated 2:45 to 3:45 door to door by plane, about the same as a car if not slower. With a car there’s no TSA or lines.
For me, the distance has to be over a 4 hour drive before I even start to consider a plane trip, and even thin it’s unlikely as I travel out west and major cities with good airport service are much further away. I routinely make six hour business road trips because it is much faster, cheaper and more convenient than taking a plane. And I admit that when I’m zipping along at 80mph with thousands of other vehicles through TX interstates I sometimes find myself in awe of the efficiency of the interstate system (of course all that quickly fades as soon as you pull into the metroplex).
While a train might require less time fumbling around in lines like a plane trip, it won’t get from city to city as fast and you still have to negotiate getting to and from the train stations. There is no sweet spot IMHO. Up to around 300-400 miles cars are the only way to go.
So are we going to widen the New Jersey Turnpike to thirty lanes to accommodate all the self driving cars in our post-Acela future?
Ohai asked:
So are we going to widen the New Jersey Turnpike to thirty lanes to accommodate all the self driving cars in our post-Acela future?
Sounds like you don’t know East Coast geography very well.
Your question is difficult question to answer, since the New Jersey Turnpike only serves part of the Northeast Corridor.
From Exit 1 (Delaware Memorial Bridge) to Exit 4, the Turnpike is only two lanes in each direction, though the Turnpike Authority seems to be planning for wider road, since all rebuilt overpasses and underpasses are much wider than the old ones.
Between Exit 6 (Pennsylvania Turnpike) and Exit 8A, the Turnpike’s widening project will soon be complete. It will be 6 lanes in each direction for a total of 12, as opposed to what is there now, the three lanes in each direction for a total of 6 – in part because of the added volume of traffic from the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
CPZ, I think Ohai’s rhetorical question was very well conceived.
And you can’t conclude that he doesn’t understand Northeast geography either. The New Jersey Turnpike does cover the highest volume stretch of the Northeast Corridor when measured by trip volume, e.g., between New York City and the Philly region, the latter arguably a bit larger than Washington, D.C. excluding Baltimore.
Taking a look at the latest Google Maps aerials, NJDOT certainly is widening the Turnpike enough to accommodate 12 lanes (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3211489,-74.4855142,376m/data=!3m1!1e3.
BTW, I find it a source of continuing amusement that The Antiplanner has put almost his eggs in the robocar basket, in the hope that “the robocars will save us,” apparently. Not particularly robust intellectually, since there are so so many factors (almost all human) that could derail (sic) the concept on the way to robocar nirvana.
mshitty™ has again: spoken in cliches, like putting (almost) eggs in baskets. Used pejorative terms like robocar to poison the well. Insulted the author’s intellect. Engaged in the perfect solution logical fallacy. Used (sic) improperly for the 100th time.
In other words, just another mshitty™ post.
I have to agree with Bennett. For me, ittakes about 1 hour to get to the Philadelphia Airport. I typically need to get there 2 hours in advance for TSA line purposes. If I were to travel to Boston, for example, flight time would be 1 hour. 30 minutes to collect luggage. That’s 4.5 hours. I can drive it in 5.5 and I have the benefit of using my own car (I don’t like driving in the Boston area with an unfamiliar car) and selecting my own schedule. Same holds true for a trip to Pittsburgh. I think, for me, the break even point for flying is South of North Carolina and West of Ohio. I don’t think I would ever consider a train to either Boston or Pittsburgh and beyond due to the travel time ( 7 hours to Pittsburgh or Boston + 1 hour to get to the station ) and cost. Also, I rarely have business downtown, so additional travel is required.
Zip Rail is a good example of how politics work. There isn’t a lot of incentive to support it. There isn’t a lot of incentive to oppose it either.
As the project moves forward, we’re seeing a divide in support for Zip Rail. It seems to be a rural vs urban divide. Olmsted County where Rochester, MN & the Mayo Clinic are located support it. Rural counties, some that initially supported it like Dodge and Goodhue, have now come out in opposition to it.
MN State Rep. Pat Garfalo [sic; Farmington which is in Dakota County, IIRC] recently introduced ( or said he was going to ) a bill and/or amendment that would essentially put Zip Rail on hold. It’s a nice gesture but it’s not clear we can get back the unspent portion of the $15 million committed to studying the route.
What I find most curious about the project is it’s current state. MNDOT’s project manager ( Michaels ? ) has repeatedly been saying they don’t know potential ridership, it has to be studied to know. From what I can tell, in all the recent public meetings he hasn’t ventured a number. The same goes for costs to build it and run it.
Despite the project not knowing it’s costs nor revenues, advocates for the project continue to insist they know the project will pay for itself. Unfortunately it goes to show how unrealistic they are about Zip Rail. They don’t know there is a need for the project. They only know they want a fancy train.
Demand for Zip Rail is likely to be very low. MNDOT doesn’t put out press releases on highway usage the way transit agencies trumpet their ridership. It’s hard to get a handle on how much travel there is between the 2 cities.
We know the amount of traffic isn’t very high. Most of US 52 connecting St. Paul and Rochester is a highway, not a freeway. Since it’s a toward zero death project, MNDOT has been working on adding intersections to improve safety. But traffic and growth of it has been low enough that they still don’t have a timetable to turn US52 into a freeway.
That’s very telling of how low the demand is for travel between the Zip Rail two end points. The current system is also well served by bus. Jefferson Lines offers $25 trips from Rochester to St. Paul. There are more than a dozen private limo services offering service between the Twin CIties and Rochester. Rochester City Lines offers wifi equipped buses from Bloomington and Eagan / Inver Grove Heights ( sorry, I forget which one ) to Rochester aimed at Mayo Clinic employees. There are 2 services offering shuttle van service to the Minneapolis / St. Paul Airport.
And that touches on the real tragedy of a project like Zip Rail. It’s not just billions spent to build a fancy when 1/2 of Minnesota 8th graders can’t perform 8th grade math. It’s a vampire project, looking to kill existing local small businesses by sucking their life blood out of them and into their government run train.
Frank, as a former teacher, you sure are an ignorant, idiotic ass.
“Robocar” is the term used by Brad Templeton, who is the perhaps the leading proponent of robocars, even more so that The Antiplanner.
http://www.templetons.com/brad/robocars.
I think Brad is completely wrong about robocars, like The Antiplanner. However, I have a great deal of respect for him because he is one the founders of EFF. If you don’t know what that is, but you still believe you’re concerned about liberty and freedom on the Internet, then you’re a doubly ignorant ass.
Hmmnnnn, “waiting for robocar…”
In the same vein, I suppose as Waiting for Godot, and almost as pointless.
mshitty™ has again: started a comment with personal insults and ended a comment with personal insults.
In other words, just another mshitty™ post.
msetty, I agree with you that we do not know the future. We do not know if driveless cars will become feasible at a price for most if not all people to use. We don’t know if society will adapt it’s laws and regulations for them to work well.
The problem is, the same can said of the claims made by proponents of Zip Rail. We don’t know how much, if at all, traffic on the US52 corridor will grow. Even if it does, we don’t know if it will grow enough to justify the expense of sending billions on a train that will have less capacity to move people than the current highway has today, let alone the much less expensive option of upgrading US52 to a freeway.
Most of the 11 billion hasn’t been spent yet.