Passenger Trains > High Speed/Passenger Rail Benefits

Is sure seems like the best way to abruptly end a thread around here is to ask for a rational discussion of the real justification for investing in passenger rail, especially high speed rail. If nothing else, it sure seems to start the name calling and mud slinging...

So in attempt to find out what's the real benefit of passenger rail over existing transportation, with rational arguments and without the mud slinging, let me give it one last shot. So please, someone give me some rational reasons where I'm off base...

We have air travel. Very fast, and extremely popular. You can use it today, without investing zillions of tax dollars and many years to build it from scratch. However, it usually requires additional transportation arrangements at either end of the trip. Typically for long distance only.

We have automobiles. Everybody owns one or more, and they are extremely popular. You can use it today, without investing zillions of tax dollars and many years to build it from scratch. Goes exactly where you want, door to door, so it doesn't require additional transportation at either end of the trip. Can be long distance or short distance.

We have the bus system. Very inexpensive, but can be very slow. Usually not quite door to door, but can be close. Can be long distance or short distance. You can use it today, without investing zillions of tax dollars and many years to build it from scratch

And then there's rail. Commuter rail can be faster than car or bus, but it's usually not quite as door to door as the bus system, so you likely will have to rely on bus or car to get to your final destinations. Therefore the total trip duration might be longer. Long distance rail is often slower than auto. True high speed rail might be faster than auto, depending upon how much of the route is truly high speed. Fuel efficiency of rail vs. auto is questionable, since commuter rail systems often need to send near-empty trains on the route for logistical reasons. That's not an issue with autos. Historically, rail is relatively unpopular, and serves a very small portion of the population. Commuter rail takes cars off the road, similar to the effects of car pooling. True high speed rail is virtually non-existent in the US, and would require huge investments to implement ($50 million per mile?)

So to summarize:

Rail is not nearly as fast as air. The need for connecting transportation at both terminals can often make a rail trip slower than auto, even on commuter rail during rush hour. Fuel efficiency of the rail system (including the required terminal transportation) might be poorer than auto, though that's up for debate. Rail takes cars off the road, but so does car pooling. And whether most commuter rail systems have a significant effect on traffic jams is debatable. Since high speed rail is virtually non-existent (Acela an exception), huge investments would be required to develop it. Also, rail serves a very small fraction of the population.

Bottom line, I see passenger rail as about equivalent to the bus system, but it's not quite as door-to-door as the bus system. Though probably a bit faster.

So why should we invest zillions of taxpayer $$ in passenger and/or high speed rail?

Agt-Highland Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At age 80 and 82, we are advised NOT to fly..what
> do
> suggest for a FAST trip??...


What causes "them" to advise you not to fly? Unless there is something really specific, heart patients fly all the time.

Age alone does not preclude you from flying.

Also, you could fly in short hops to your destination. Below 15,000 feet, the cabin generally remains at sea level.

Cabin altitude on must airplanes these days is below 8000 feet and in any case must remain below 10,000 feet. Unless there is a REALLY serious heart deficiency, that altitude is not particularly difficult. You can, if necessary, ask the airline for supply supplimental oxygen and that will keep everything going as if it were sea level.

There is nothing faster than an airplane...once it gets going. The problems is the TSA and their minnions that cause a multitude of delays.

Take this analogy for thought - compare bus travel to Acela Express on the NEC. What would you pick? If one could get from NYP-Pittsburgh in say 1/2 the time it takes now - what would you choose - train, bus, or plane. Consider the end point airports. This country longs for high speed trail to the better of Acela Express!

How much have you actually used the bus system?

In Maryland, the MARC Train Service used to make 55-60% farebox recovery; since they were merged with the Commuter Bus system several years ago, they are now down to less than 50% cost recovery. And MARC has been growing ridership at 4-7% per year. Before merger the Commuter bus was doing 30-35% cost recovery.

The commuter and metro rail in DC most definitely has an effect on traffic. And there is not enough parking capacity in downtown DC to absorb all of the worker-bees if they had to drive in. And there is no logical way to get from the NW hinterlands to downtown DC without either using commuter rail/metro, or driving a third-way around the compass.

I use a combination of bus/metro to go to my job. 90%+ of the time the metro is within 5 minutes on time. The bus connection seems to be at least fifteen minutes late over 25% of the time.

Right now there is a great debate as to whether the new Purple Line between Bethesda and College Park should be light rail or bus rapid transit. If they operate the BRT as well as they operate the articulated buses on Georgia Ave that are supposed to be high capacity semi-express it will be a failure before it even begins.

TL

TorchLake Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The commuter and metro rail in DC most definitely
> has an effect on traffic.

How do you come to that conclusion? I've been riding the commuter rail line in LA for the last 15 years, and I'm not sure that's the case here. My reasoning:

The trains, during rush hour, run about every 20 minutes. At each stop we pick up, I'm guessing, between 20-50 people. For grins, let's say it's 50. Now assuming each person represents a car, that's 50 cars every 20 minutes. Although I guarantee many will carpool, since many of the folks work at the same location. Now when traffic is flowing at 60+ mph, I'm guessing you'll see 50 cars go by in, what, 20 seconds? So assuming there's 10 miles between stations, is 50 cars entering the freeway every 10 miles over the space of 20 minutes really gonna do much to traffic flow? And when you factor in the carpools and vanpools that will spring up when the train goes away, the effect drops even more.

It sounds like good on the surface, but I'm not sure it holds up to scrutiny. Unless it's a lot different in DC...

JimM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We have air travel. Very fast,

Not necessarily, for distances of less than 500 miles, particularly if you have to make a connection. I can often drive faster from door to door.

> and extremely popular.

You must not fly much. Yes, lots of people are flying, so it's popular in that sense, but I wouldn't say that the mode is popular, in the sense of something people like. Tolerated, would be a better choice.

> You can use it today, without investing zillions of tax dollars and many years to build it
> from scratch.

You don't have to build it from scratch, but there are going to be huge investments to the air traffic control system to handle the traffic, plus new airports are needed in a number of metropolitan areas to handle the growth. Much of that growth is in shorter distance travel, which could be off-loaded to rail to postpone the expense.

> However, it usually requires additional transportation arrangements at either
> end of the trip. Typically for long distance only.

It always requires additional transportation at either end, unless you walk out of the airport.

> We have automobiles. Everybody owns one or more, and they are extremely popular.

Not everybody uses one. Some people can't drive, and some choose not to drive. Further, unless you rent a car, you don't have access to one when you travel to cities far away.

One statistic of significance was that in New Orleans, something like 30 percent of the households didn't have an automobile. This of course added to the evacuation problems. The idea that everybody owns one is elitist.

> You can use it today, without investing zillions of tax dollars and many years to
> build it from scratch. Goes exactly where you want, door to door, so it
> doesn't require additional transportation at either end of the trip.
> Can be long distance or short distance.

The highway trust fund is going bankrupt, and cannot keep up with the maintenance cost of the existing interstates. Much more money will be needed to not only keep the existing roads in good shape, but to build new ones as population grows. They will be expensive, particularly in urban areas. Further, it is not particularly pleasant driving in some urban areas because of the amount of traffic on the highways. You are also ignoring the high cost in deaths and injuries. 40,000 people died on highways last year, plus there were many more injuries. If that kind of toll existed on rail or airlines, there would be an uproar, but it is tolerated, for some reason, on highways.

> We have the bus system. Very inexpensive, but can be very slow. Usually not quite door to
> door, but can be close. Can be long distance or short distance. You can use it today,
> without investing zillions of tax dollars and many years to build it from scratch

Buses are the opposite of popular for anything more than short distances. Otherwise, Greyhound wouldn't be practically bankrupt. Not an option, and not competitive with alternatives, unless you are desperate.

> True high speed rail might be faster than auto, depending upon how much of the route
> is truly high speed.

True high speed rail wouldn't be "true" unless the majority of the trip was high speed. Let's talk about 150 mph average, like the do in France, not just the short spurts to 140 mph they do between Boston and NYC.

> Fuel efficiency of rail vs. auto is questionable, since commuter rail systems often
> need to send near-empty trains on the route for logistical reasons. That's not an
> issue with autos.

It isn't at all questionable. Commuter rail is vastly more fuel efficient than automobiles. The problem is that with autos, there is typically only one person per vehicle when commuting, and the automobile is least efficient in urban areas, in terms of miles per gallon. Overall, the published statistics suggest that commuter rail is twice as energy efficient as autos, including all the deadhead and near-empty trains you might see out there with current operating practices.

> Historically, rail is relatively unpopular, and serves a very small portion of the
> population.

In North America, perhaps, but in places where they have true high speed rail, it is a very popular mode. It generally displaces air as the primary way people travel on air-competitive routes up to about 4 hours travel time. Even our half-baked system on the NEC attracts more passengers than the airlines between New York and Washington. Imagine if it was true high speed rail, with a 90 minute shorter schedule end-to-end. Who would fly or drive?

> Commuter rail takes cars off the road, similar to the effects of car pooling. True high
> speed rail is virtually non-existent in the US, and would require huge investments to
> implement ($50 million per mile?)

Yes, and what are the alternatives? Major investment will be needed in air and highway services as the population grows. It is not a stationary target.

JimM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rail is not nearly as fast as air.

In countries with high speed rail, the journeys are often faster by rail, which is why airlines drop competitive services when high speed rail lines start operating. Consider that between London and Paris, Eurostar now handles over 70 percent of all passenger traffic, and a couple of airlines have dropped service entirely between the two cities.

> The need for connecting transportation at both terminals can often make a rail trip
> slower than auto, even on commuter rail during rush hour.

You need to connect with airlines as well, and it doesn't seem to have hurt them any. If rail can operate at true high speeds, they easily beat cars over longer distances. Current long distance trains that average 45 or 50 mph cannot be considered an example of how to be competitive.

> Fuel efficiency of the rail system (including the required terminal transportation) might
> be poorer than auto,

It isn't. You also neglect to mention that rail is also more energy efficient than air.

> though that's up for debate.

It isn't. The published stats prove it.

> Rail takes cars off the road, but so does car pooling.

If car-pooling was such a great idea, why isn't it practiced more often?

> And whether most commuter rail systems have a significant effect on traffic
> jams is debatable.

Just try to get into Chicago or New York or Toronto when their is a commuter rail strike. You will quickly find there is no debate about the value of commuter rail. Other cities, like LA, are only starting with their systems, so they can't be considered as typical.

> Since high speed rail is virtually non-existent (Acela an exception),
> huge investments would be required to develop it.

Yes, but the other modes will also need to spend huge amounts to handle traffic growth.

> Also, rail serves a very small fraction of the population.

So? If it is justified for the population it serves, then the investment is appropriate.

> Bottom line, I see passenger rail as about equivalent to the bus system, but it's not quite
> as door-to-door as the bus system. Though probably a bit faster.

You've never ridden a true high speed rail system, have you?

> So why should we invest zillions of taxpayer $$ in passenger and/or high speed rail?

The Europeans justify it when the add up total social cost. They include the savings in reduced deaths and injuries, and the environmental benefits. What price do you put on 40,000 fatalities a year?

As far as the environment is concerned, they are very focused on greenhouse gases, and the use of fossil fuels. High speed trains use electricity, and the majority of power in countries like France is generated using nuclear plants. Aircraft, on the other hand, produce greenhouse gases high in the atmosphere, where they do the greatest damage. Since aircraft don't currently have any alternatives to using fossil fuels, the Europeans want to discourage aircraft use for shorter distances where they are least energy efficient, and high speed rail can be an alternative.

There's an interesting phenomenon that happens when people disagree with you, but they don't have a rational argument to the contrary. Since they can't discredit your argument, they try to discredit you. This starts out with finding fault with everything you say, line by line, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with the initial argument.

Take Mr. Highball's response, which is an excellent example. I say "air travel is fast", he counters with "not necessarily". I say "air travel is popular" (of course I meant based upon ridership), and he counters "not necessarily". I say "air travel requires additional transportation at either end", he counters with "it always does". I say "everyone owns an automobile", he calls me an elitist because, obviously, some people don't.

You see, when people don't like what you say, but don't have a reasonable response, they will never give you the benefit of the doubt on the obvious stuff, but just go ahead and find fault, and bring up all the exceptions to what you say, even if they have nothing to do with anything.

And by the way, making a blanket statement such as "Commuter rail is vastly more fuel efficient than automobiles" is totally useless. No facts, no reasoning, just a statement.

So again, I ask, does anyone have a rational reason for investing in passenger and/or high speed rail? And please, let's stop using the Europe argument. Just because it works there, doesn't mean it will work here.

JimM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TorchLake Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > The commuter and metro rail in DC most
> definitely
> > has an effect on traffic.
>
> How do you come to that conclusion? I've been
> riding the commuter rail line in LA for the last
> 15 years, and I'm not sure that's the case here.
> My reasoning:
>
> The trains, during rush hour, run about every 20
> minutes. At each stop we pick up, I'm guessing,
> between 20-50 people. For grins, let's say it's
> 50. Now assuming each person represents a car,
> that's 50 cars every 20 minutes. Although I
> guarantee many will carpool, since many of the
> folks work at the same location. Now when traffic
> is flowing at 60+ mph, I'm guessing you'll see 50
> cars go by in, what, 20 seconds? So assuming
> there's 10 miles between stations, is 50 cars
> entering the freeway every 10 miles over the space
> of 20 minutes really gonna do much to traffic
> flow? And when you factor in the carpools and
> vanpools that will spring up when the train goes
> away, the effect drops even more.
>
> It sounds like good on the surface, but I'm not
> sure it holds up to scrutiny. Unless it's a lot
> different in DC...

I will give a personal example. Think of the Washington Beltway in terms of a clock. I live 35 miles N of the Beltway at 11:00. I used to work in Virginia at 6:00. Every day southbound there was 5-20 mph traffic jams between 12:00 and 8:00 that lasted two hours; and every evening there was one northbound between 9:00 and 11:00 that lasted three hours. Now MARC serves the areas between the Potomac and Chesapeake Bay, which would be 9:30-1:00 in my clock analogy. Every rush hour about 14,000 people ride MARC. 90% of them are going to DC. Probably 80%+ of them would not be in a situation where they could carpool. What effect are 10,000+ additional cars going to have on 1/3 of the radial area of the Washington Beltway, particularly since most of the areas served by MARC and the Red Line of WMATA are not served by a downtown radial expressway from the beltway to downtown? Transit was not connective, so I drove this every day. Thank goodness I now work downtown, and the transit works.

TL

a737flyer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> There is nothing faster than an airplane...once it
> gets going.

Not even light?

Does anyone here really believe for profit (sometimes) air carriers (some occasionally govt subsidized, such as after 9/11) bear the total costs for building, maintaining and servicing the infrastructure they use, i.e., air traffic control system, the FAA and other associated governmental agencies such as the FCC, NTSB, NOAA, National Weather Service, etc, and the airports they use including runways, terminals, gates, etc.

And does any one here really think that the nation’s highways, freeways and Interstate system are funded entirely by licensing fees and fuel taxes?

n9949y Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anyone here really believe for profit
> (sometimes) air carriers (some occasionally govt
> subsidized, such as after 9/11) bear the total
> costs...

I'm sure some folks do. But I'm not sure what your point is...

What we've been discussing in this thread is that a new rail system (such as a new high speed rail system, or adding a whole new rail system where none exists) can cost umpteen zillion $$ of taxpayer money. This is compared with an already existing highway or airline system. For the most part, highways exist in a network that gets people where they want to go. Most highway work is upgrades, not completely new highways. However, in the US, there is no high speed rail, so we're talking about starting from scratch. Which means that the taxpayers will be paying for not only regular maintenance and upgrades, like we do with the air and highway system, but the additional cost (something like $50 million per mile) to build new HS rail systems.

Take a look at other countries; countries that have invested, yes, tax payer money, just like for roads, transit, and airlines, and look at what has been happening.

Short haul flights are down, some as much as 70%

That is 70% less noise, 70% less pollution, 70% less planes that will clog or delay a long distance flight.

Those that say we need HSR from New York to Los Angeles are joking themselves and know that will never happen.

REAL HSR is meant for those corridors less than 800 miles of speeds at or above 186mph.

Look at the Paris - Strasbourg line for great example, has pushed Air France to get into the rail industry. An AIRLINE in the rail industry! If that doesn't prove that passenger rail is superior in short haul, I don't know what does.

We just read just a few days ago of the Spain AVE line dramatically reducing flights in their corridors.

China has invested over $200 BILLION in rail projects, including Maglev, HSR, Local trains, etc.

How about Southwest Airlines protesting for the Texas and California HSR projects. The airline is threatened, knowing what would happen.

What about the oil company that tried to derail the California HSR project or even GM and Ford.

All of these people know for a fact what high speed rail can truly do. The benefits are the reduction of everything stated. noise, pollution, unneeded trips to some far out location just to get to an airport. Do a search on Google if you need proof or you can just let progress finally come to the United States like it should have YEARS ago.

Russia of all places, the Trans Siberian Railway is a fully electrified railway that runs at least 120mph, freight and passenger trains. Look at where we are at then ask yourself the benefits.

with a "train wreck" of an economy that shows NO signs of improvement in the near future, i would NOT vote for any of my tax dollars to be spent on any "high speed rail" projects. here are my reasons:

-this country's current "spending spree" has just guaranteed future generations of higher taxes and less disposable income (less people traveling = lower than expected patronage)

-there is no guarantee our country's current "spending spree" will work and the economy may get WORSE (now, even less people traveling = much lower than expected patronage)

-unless the "high speed rail" project can cover it's costs, i don't want taxes increased even more to cover the operating costs for a mode of transportation that won't be used by the majority of people with access to it.


66

Well first of all its not zillions of dollars..quite small amount compared to the rest of stuff the USA throws money at. True HSR will only work in a few areas such as California and Northeast and maby Chicagohub. But it not going to be 220mph its 110mph so what is wrong with upgrading to that? Maby were you live its wide open but in the BayArea its dense so it is more like Europe. The airports are land locked and cannot be expanded same with the freeways.HRS is the last undeveloped option.Unless all growth and population is stopped there is no way we can get by on current systems. This nation has got this strange mindset that were fine just to stay as we are and never change because it costs money.I'm sure glad the people of the past did not feel that way.We need a third transportation option and fast passenger rail is it.

There are any number of reasons why older individuals should not fly. Poor circulation can result in blood clots as people are forced to remain in their seats during rough air. Someone who is oxygen-compromised may have difficulty with altitude, and contrary to the assertion, the cabin pressure vents off continually as the aircraft rises, stabilizing at about an 8,000 ft equivalent altitude. If you don't think that happens, just try flying with a head cold. Of course there are other things like increased frequency needing to use the restroom. Can and frequently does result in 'accidents' as a result of having to remain in seats... Then there are the stress factors in the airports. Many older folks simply don't deal well with all of our 'security' at airports, cramped seats, plane changes, etc.

As far as travel options go, aircraft are some of the most grievous polluters we have, both because they burn prodigious amounts of fuel to transport a relatively few number of people from point A to point B, but they deposit that pollution in the upper atmosphere where it is there to do the most harm. Aircraft exhaust has been fingered as a cause of ozone depletion, for example, precisely because it's left at 40,000 ft.

European nations are seriously considering carbon taxes, which would make air travel significantly more expensive, and sharply curtail international air shipments of many non-essential items.

Need I go on?


a737flyer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agt-Highland Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > At age 80 and 82, we are advised NOT to
> fly..what
> > do
> > suggest for a FAST trip??...
>
>
> What causes "them" to advise you not to fly?
> Unless there is something really specific, heart
> patients fly all the time.
>
> Age alone does not preclude you from flying.
>
> Also, you could fly in short hops to your
> destination. Below 15,000 feet, the cabin
> generally remains at sea level.
>
> Cabin altitude on must airplanes these days is
> below 8000 feet and in any case must remain below
> 10,000 feet. Unless there is a REALLY serious
> heart deficiency, that altitude is not
> particularly difficult. You can, if necessary,
> ask the airline for supply supplimental oxygen and
> that will keep everything going as if it were sea
> level.
>
> There is nothing faster than an airplane...once it
> gets going. The problems is the TSA and their
> minnions that cause a multitude of delays.

Macster, rail does not have zero noise or zero pollution. I hear trains tooting all day and night. Actually, airplanes take off rather quickly (and therefore are noisy) to a relatively small geographical area. Trains, on the other hand, are honking at every single crossing across the land. Guaranteed their noise is heard by far more people.

And obviously trains generate pollution. And to make a broad statement that adding to rail service decreases air service might be true in some cases, but I'm sure that in the US it would be highly dependent upon location, if at all. And just because other countries invest in rail doesn't mean we should, does it? We should analyze it and see if it is a good fit for us.

And just because some airlines are also investing in rail only means one thing: they see an opportunity for revenue, and/or it's a good strategic move for the corporation. That certainly doesn't mean that rail is automatically better than air.

I can only suggest to Anti-Amtrak people that they look around at the rail systems in the rest of the world. They think it's worth it.

Trying to counter tedious arguments like these of why trains aren't worth being supported, especially here or Trainorders, is a waste of a railfan's time. This is beginning to remind me of a guy we had on TO a few years ago, who would raise all kinds of ridiculous arguments and positions just to get everyone on this site upset. I forget his name (Peter somebody?), but I think he was eventually kicked off Trainorders.

Jim does make some valid points here - and he is a perfect example of the attitude that must be overcome if modern high speed rail is to flourish in the U.S.

The argument he makes starts with two major fallacies - that the U.S. transportation picture is somehow radically different from the rest of the world. The reason that we don't have high speed connections between major cities is historical and political, not because it doesn't make sense. The tide is turning, and politicians these days need to look to real solutions, and not the policies of the past, if they are to stay in power. Rail might offer all the benefits other on the board have explained in detail, but Jim and others will just turn a deaf ear, asking why "spend zillions" to "build it from scratch". Well, there's the second fallacy - the air and auto "systems" will take many billions of taxpayer dollars over the next 10,20 or even 100 years, far more than rail could ever spend. Is is worth it to provide an alternative, one that is a smashing success in the rest of the developed world (which I still hope we count ourselves part of)? The public, and their elected representatives, unanimously say yes.

These are salad days for the passenger train enthusiast - why are some of you so unhappy?

caprail Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Rail might offer all the benefits other on
> the board have explained in detail, but Jim and
> others will just turn a deaf ear, ...

All I'm asking for is the benefits. Call it tedious, call it what you want, can't anyone tell me some reasonable benefits? Why is that so hard? Tell me where I'm wrong. Just don't give me blanket statements, unsubstantiated assertions, and stuff like "hey, Europe likes it". Is that so hard to do?

I'm not trying to make trouble, I'm just trying to figure out my stand on passenger rail. So when I vote I'm going on more than just suppositions.