Passenger Trains > Cato Institute

I have been going back and forth with Randal O'Toole of the Cato Institute....Looks at some of his figures...highways only 3 million per mile?   I like his last sentence "Why pay for expensive infrastructure when we already have cheap infrastructure that can be shared with cars and trucks?"    Really cheap??????

Randal's email to me

Have you ever actually looked at the numbers? On average, freeways cost about $3 million per lane mile to build and last 50 years, during which time maintenance costs are low. There have been a few freeways that cost more, but they are the exceptions, not the rule. The Big Dig cost $90 million a lane mile, but that was a city beautification project that wasn’t needed for transportation purposes. Other than the Big Dig, the most expensive highway I’ve found is one in Hawaii that cost about $30 million per lane mile, which is about the same as the least-costly high-speed rail. 
 
If you don’t believe me, just Google “freeway cost per mile” and don’t forget to divide by the number of lanes if you see cost per freeway mile. Or see https://www.arkansashighways.com/roadway_design_division/Cost%20per%20Mile%20(JULY%202012).pdf
 
The average cost of high-speed rail is much higher. High-speed rail in Florida was supposed to cost $30 million a mile and probably would have cost more if it had been built. High-speed rail in California was supposed to cost about $100 million a mile when people voted on it in 2008, but the cost has doubled since then. The rail lines last about 30 years during which maintenance costs are high then must be completely rebuilt.
 
On the other side, highways are used by cars, trucks, and buses; high-speed rail lines are only used by passenger trains. Daily passenger miles per lane mile on busy freeways are much greater than on a high-speed rail line, and the freeways also carry freight. So highway costs are lower and productivity is greater

 
Do other lines work in the sense they attract people out of their cars? No, every country that has built high-speed rail has seen a continuing erosion of rail’s market share of travel, while auto and air travel have gained share.
 
Do other lines work in the sense that they generate enough economic development to pay for themselves? No, Spain went heavily into debt to build Europe’s largest high-speed rail network and now is suffering economic doldrums because of it. Japan entered a period of economic stagnation in about 1990 and its solution was to build more high-speed rail, which only led to two-and-a-half decades of continuing stagnation.
 
Do other lines work in the sense that people ride them? That’s the field of dreams theory: if you subsidize something enough, some people will come. But that doesn’t mean it works. Spain actually had to shut down one of its lines because it was getting so few riders.
 
Why pay for expensive infrastructure when we already have cheap infrastructure that can be shared with cars and trucks? Megabus offers lower fares, higher average speeds, and greater frequencies than Amtrak between many city pairs. The buses have free WiFi, power ports at every seat, and other amenities, and they do it without subsidies. Why do we need rail to duplicate this service at a much higher cost? Amtrak fares average more than 30 cents a passenger mile; Megabus is less than 10 cents a mile. Amtrak subsidies average 24 cents a passenger mile; if you count highway subsidies against Megabus, they are about a penny per passenger mile. Megabus is also far more energy efficient than Amtrak.
 

 

Just the fact that he claims Megabus is more energy efficient than Amtrak, is enough for anyone to see he has no clue, and is talking out of his backside ...

bluesboyst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have been going back and forth with Randal
> O'Toole of the Cato Institute....Looks at some of
> his figures...highways only 3 million per
> mile?   I like his last sentence "Why pay for
> expensive infrastructure when we already have
> cheap infrastructure that can be shared with cars
> and trucks?"    Really cheap??????
>
> Randal's email to me
>
> Have you ever actually looked at the numbers? On
> average, freeways cost about $3 million per lane
> mile to build and last 50 years, during which time
> maintenance costs are low. There have been a few
> freeways that cost more, but they are the
> exceptions, not the rule. The Big Dig cost $90
> million a lane mile, but that was a city
> beautification project that wasn’t needed for
> transportation purposes. Other than the Big Dig,
> the most expensive highway I’ve found is one in
> Hawaii that cost about $30 million per lane mile,
> which is about the same as the least-costly
> high-speed rail. 
>  
> If you don’t believe me, just Google “freeway
> cost per mile” and don’t forget to divide by
> the number of lanes if you see cost per freeway
> mile. Or
> see https://www.arkansashighways.com/roadway_desi
> gn_division/Cost%20per%20Mile%20(JULY%202012).pdf
>  
> The average cost of high-speed rail is much
> higher. High-speed rail in Florida was supposed to
> cost $30 million a mile and probably would have
> cost more if it had been built. High-speed rail in
> California was supposed to cost about $100 million
> a mile when people voted on it in 2008, but the
> cost has doubled since then. The rail lines last
> about 30 years during which maintenance costs are
> high then must be completely rebuilt.
>  
> On the other side, highways are used by cars,
> trucks, and buses; high-speed rail lines are only
> used by passenger trains. Daily passenger miles
> per lane mile on busy freeways are much greater
> than on a high-speed rail line, and the freeways
> also carry freight. So highway costs are lower and
> productivity is greater
>
>  
> Do other lines work in the sense they attract
> people out of their cars? No, every country that
> has built high-speed rail has seen a continuing
> erosion of rail’s market share of travel, while
> auto and air travel have gained share.
>  
> Do other lines work in the sense that they
> generate enough economic development to pay for
> themselves? No, Spain went heavily into debt to
> build Europe’s largest high-speed rail network
> and now is suffering economic doldrums because of
> it. Japan entered a period of economic stagnation
> in about 1990 and its solution was to build more
> high-speed rail, which only led to two-and-a-half
> decades of continuing stagnation.
>  
> Do other lines work in the sense that people ride
> them? That’s the field of dreams theory: if you
> subsidize something enough, some people will come.
> But that doesn’t mean it works. Spain actually
> had to shut down one of its lines because it was
> getting so few riders.
>  
> Why pay for expensive infrastructure when we
> already have cheap infrastructure that can be
> shared with cars and trucks? Megabus offers lower
> fares, higher average speeds, and greater
> frequencies than Amtrak between many city pairs.
> The buses have free WiFi, power ports at every
> seat, and other amenities, and they do it without
> subsidies. Why do we need rail to duplicate this
> service at a much higher cost? Amtrak fares
> average more than 30 cents a passenger mile;
> Megabus is less than 10 cents a mile. Amtrak
> subsidies average 24 cents a passenger mile; if
> you count highway subsidies against Megabus, they
> are about a penny per passenger mile. Megabus is
> also far more energy efficient than Amtrak.
>  
>
>  

Mr O'Toole forgets that usage of high speed rail has declined mostly because of the availibility of cheap energy. Once fuel prices begin to rise as remaing fossil fuel reserves become more expensive to extract and transport, along with increased demand, the equasion will probably shift back towards rail. 
Not mentioned is the fact that rail is better able to carry more traffic with marginal adjustments. Highways do not share the same ease of capacity enhancement once they reach saturation. One lane of a highway is not equal to a single track in either cost of capacity.
His mention of daily passenger miles is only that of what is being carried, not the potential traffic that can be carried. This is a curios omission that assumes that single lane of highway will be able to match what rail is able too, in both ton miles and passenger miles, future requirements. Further, what are those passenger miles he mentions on those "busy freeways"? Over what period of time? Who gathered the data? Who financed the studies that gathered the data? Where those passenger miles travelled at an average speed of 10MPH, which can be the norm for many crowded freeways, or at highway speed? Odd that Mr O'Toole would supply such data that is lacking in proper context.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/15 11:19 by ATSF3751.

very short sighted... baby boomers are aging fast and will no longer be able to drive in growing numbers.  how will we get arounf? Also studies showing that the millineals are choosing transit friendly locations to live in and only renting cars when they need them.  

Lane-miles is the wrong metric. For example, freeway interchange improvements, which don't add lane-miles, can cost, oh, $10M to $100M. How do those expenses become allocated to the lane-mile metric?

The advantage to the highway advocates is the convoluted funding so that the funding and expenditures can't be determined. And it's unlikely that agreement could be achieved on what costs to attribute to highways. Local police? Fire departments? No one can determine the revenue and costs.  No one would agree but everyone would have an opinion. 

The disadvantage of rail transportation is the transparent accounting. 

any comparison of highway lane mile cost to rail mile cost is false -- when was the last time you saw a two lane interstate??? But a two-track HSRm that's the norm. Most Interstate Highways in our populated areas are 3 or more lanes in each direction, so that's 6 times the cost of a single lane. And I can tell you from sitting on an area-wide funding approval panel for all forms of transportation in Massachusetts, highways DO NOT LAST 50 years, require very regular maintenance, and their bridge infrastructure lasts much less time, compromised by road salts, etc.

BTW, a comparison of sidewalks to roads shows that we should maximize our sidewalk/bikeway mileage because on a per-mile basis it is the most efficient.

It's my understanding that Cato is a big proponent of privatizing things like roadways. So, any talk about using tax dollars on infrastructure is automatically a no-no with these types. It's the, "give us a 99 year monopoly on this government function and costs will drop" line, but after the monopoly is handed over, costs rise and accountability goes out the window. Do we have a large problem in this country with extremists both left and right; nobody in the middle doing anything worthwhile anymore?

Also, blaming an entire nation's economic woes on a rail project seems to ignore all the other factors impacting said nation's economy. It's just weird logic from where I'm sitting.

Yeah, most of the nation's financial woes boils down to overreach and misadventure in foreign policy that requires the maintenance of an oversized armed force, and rail anything is so small in the voerall scheme things that it drowns away in the noise.

 The CATO Institute is a conservative "think tank" that basically believes that if the project [any project] was worthwhile, private interests would do it.  Election year is just around the corner....

RevRandy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> any comparison of highway lane mile cost to rail
> mile cost is false -- when was the last time you
> saw a two lane interstate??? But a two-track HSRm
> that's the norm. Most Interstate Highways in our
> populated areas are 3 or more lanes in each
> direction, so that's 6 times the cost of a single
> lane. And I can tell you from sitting on an
> area-wide funding approval panel for all forms of
> transportation in Massachusetts, highways DO NOT
> LAST 50 years, require very regular maintenance,
> and their bridge infrastructure lasts much less
> time, compromised by road salts, etc.
>
> BTW, a comparison of sidewalks to roads shows that
> we should maximize our sidewalk/bikeway mileage
> because on a per-mile basis it is the most
> efficient.

A related issue is that highway traffic and congestion generate significant amounts of pollutant materials. Which contributes to health issues like asthma etc in urban populations. Although the benefit of the freeway / toll road is enjoyed by one segment of the population, the cost is often borne by poor, urban kids.

In NJ, and perhaps elsewhere, the volunteer ambulance corps and fire fighters in rural towns often find that a huge % of their calls involve interstate flip overs, fires, and wash downs after accidents. For which they are only occasionally reimbursed. That cost is usually borne by local residents. (The toll roads do provide annual payments to some emergency response units in their area, however).

 

The so-called "Cato Institute" is a well known, neo-conservative advocacy front group funded by the 1% to further its goal of ending gov't public services, unless they serve the 1%.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/15 17:12 by railwaybaron.

railwaybaron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The so-called "Cato Institute" is a well known,
> neo-conservative advocacy front group funded by
> the 1% to further its goal of ending gov't public
> services, unless they serve the 1%.

Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, People for the American Way, National Action Network, Brookings Institute, etc routinely crank out news releases, articles and studies arguing any number of points.  Some people choose to examine the arguments, others just follow their leader (Bill O'Reilly, Al Sharpton, etc) regardless of whatever nonsense they are spouting at the moment.

The 1% don't need institutes. They own most of the Republican legislators, and many of the Democrats in Congress. Why do you think they need an institute when they have the $$$ ?

It's just a bus ride. Not many amenities there. Some low fares as they mainly run on the cheap; employees, maintenance; free infrastructure; you name it.


bioyans Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just the fact that he claims Megabus is more
> energy efficient than Amtrak, is enough for anyone
> to see he has no clue, and is talking out of his
> backside ...

bluesboyst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Randal's email to me
>
The Big Dig cost $90
> million a lane mile, but that was a city
> beautification project that wasn’t needed for
> transportation purposes.

That's an overly reductionist characterization of the Big Dig.  The Central Artery Highway was in fact, obsolete, and in need of replacement.  If the highway was rebuilt as an elevated expressway, it would have still be an incredibly expensive project as is the case with most urban highways.

Yes, placing the highway in a tunnel made it much more expensive.  However, as someone who has visited Boston before and after the Central Artery Project, I would say that the area through which the elevated highway passed is a much better place.  I sincerely believe it was worth the investment.

bioyans Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just the fact that he claims Megabus is more
> energy efficient than Amtrak, is enough for anyone
> to see he has no clue, and is talking out of his
> backside ...

All energy data I've seen show that the intercity bus mode consumes less energy to move a passenger one mile than Amtrak.  Unfortunately, the Amtrak energy consumption data is all combined so it is not possible to determine the energy intensities of Northeast Corridor services, Empire Corridor Service trains, all-coach trains such as the Pennsylvanian and long-distance trains.

If you or anyone else has data to show that Amtrak trains are more energy-efficient than intercity buses, I would be interested in seeing it.

Freeways do cost $3 million per lane mile ... when you ignore the costs of grading, bridges, interchanges, tunnels, land acquisition, urban mileage, lost property taxes, etc.  Just paving costs that much.

Freeways do last for 50 years before needing total reconstruction ... when you ignore the need to repave asphalt every 10 years and concrete every 20, and patch potholes every year.

Freeways are cheap to maintain ... when you build them in Arizona and don't need to plow snow, repair freeze-thaw potholes, or deal with water damage from rain storms.

Freeways are cheap to operate ... when you ignore the costs of lighting, drainage, rest stops, the highway patrol, wreck clearance, and the human carnage from tens of thousands of deaths every year.

Randal isn't an engineer and lives in an imaginary world without topography and bodies of water to overcome when building freeways, and where the gas tax is a pot of money entitled to roads.

Randal likes to ignore facts that don't go his way, which is most of them.  I pointed out to him the example of the costs of rebuilding US 202 for 5 miles near Philadelphia some time ago.  It cost $250 million for a single major interchange to be rebuilt with I-76 and another $250 million for 5 miles of 4 lane road to be expanded to 6 lane road.

stash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's just a bus ride. Not many amenities there.
> Some low fares as they mainly run on the cheap;
> employees, maintenance; free infrastructure; you
> name it.
>
You can continue with your mindless bus-bashing, but the fact is I continue to ride Greyhound and sometimes Megabus, because the Amtrak train service where I live is too limited and sometimes too slow.  When Megabus first began operating in Pittsburgh, it offered a schedule which departed Pittsburgh later than Amtrak's Capitol Limited and arrived in Washington, DC earlier than Amtrak (a 4+ hour bus ride compared to 7+ hours on Amtrak).  So yes, not much in the way of amenities, but it was a quicker ride.  Unfortunately, since that time, Megabus has changed the route to stop at Morgantown, WV adding 2 hours to the trip.
 

> If you or anyone else has data to show that Amtrak
> trains are more energy-efficient than intercity
> buses, I would be interested in seeing it.

I recall reading a 1996 (?) study by the Department of Energy at Oakridge TN., which concluded that a full conventional passenger train was more efficient than any other typical transit mode. Buses with an equal load were next. And, trains were 27% more efficient than autos with the same loads. At the time, about 3 years ago, the Dept. of Energy told me that the 1996 study was their only scientific comparative study of transport energy efficiency. The DOE was very touchy about the study and it took some effort to get a copy. Finally, a DOE clerk told me that while it was their policy not to release the study, he would send a large amount of data and told me that on page such and such I would find something interesting. (It was the study.)  The study stated something like it should not be used as an endorsement of the efficiency of passenger trains over other modes, but it gave no reason why. Maybe because it was contrary to the then current party-line?  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're aren't watching you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/15 19:23 by railwaybaron.

Some like bus riding. No problem. Meal stops typically leave much to be desired. I've ridden them.



RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> stash Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's just a bus ride. Not many amenities there.
> > Some low fares as they mainly run on the cheap;
> > employees, maintenance; free infrastructure;
> you
> > name it.
> >
> You can continue with your mindless bus-bashing,
> but the fact is I continue to ride Greyhound and
> sometimes Megabus, because the Amtrak train
> service where I live is too limited and sometimes
> too slow.  When Megabus first began operating in
> Pittsburgh, it offered a schedule which departed
> Pittsburgh later than Amtrak's Capitol Limited and
> arrived in Washington, DC earlier than Amtrak (a
> 4+ hour bus ride compared to 7+ hours on
> Amtrak).  So yes, not much in the way of
> amenities, but it was a quicker ride. 
> Unfortunately, since that time, Megabus has
> changed the route to stop at Morgantown, WV adding
> 2 hours to the trip.
>  

He's so stubborn it's no wonder he put his so called "facts" in there, and I'm sorry, i know Megabus is very popular and have buses nicer than Greyhounds, but Amtrak and commuter railroads will energy efficient hands down! Besides, I bet he can't back up his claims after the winter of 2013-14 where the only way actually to get around from Montana-the Northeast was Amtrak!