Rail Travel France
Nov0
« How short a time horizon is needed to motivate catch-up growth? | Main | Assorted links »
High-speed rail fact of the day
American Intercity rail service is slower today than it was in the 1940s.
Here is the full article, by train expert Mark Reutter. It is a good look at some of the obstacles facing a successful high-speed rail program.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 8, 2009 at 08:16 AM in History | Permalink
Comments
So, you are saying that effective nationalization of intercity human transport rail wasn't a good thing.
Posted by: Doc Merlin at Nov 8, 2009 8:31:43 AM
New Mexico is creating an intercity light passenger rail line from scratch. It's called the Rail Runner and we did it in increments. The first segment merely ran from the southernmost tip of the Albuquerque Metro Area to the northernmost tip of it, as if it were a north/south version of the Rapid Ride bus. Then we extended it to Santa Fe, 60 miles to the north, and it's become wildly popular for commuters and shoppers alike. We're hoping to extend it south to Las Cruces. If jurisdictional concerns permit, clear south through El Paso (technically in Texas) to the Mexican border and north to Denver.
Posted by: Pat Mathews at Nov 8, 2009 10:14:13 AM
1983 Popular Mechanics magazine -- bullet trains coming soon!
http://books.google.com/books?id=zNgDAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_hp#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Posted by: The Other Eric at Nov 8, 2009 12:36:25 PM
From the wikipedia entry on the New Mexico Rail Runner:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico_Rail_Runner_Express
Preliminary estimates indicate that the service will operate at a deficit, requiring up to $10 million in government subsidies annually.[11] Supporters of the Rail Runner argue that roads require high construction costs and expensive maintenance as well, and that subsidies for roads in the corridor would likely be similar if not more.
In late 2007, the Rail Runner was the subject of more criticism as a transportation funding shortfall left many state road projects stalled. State officials said the rising cost of construction materials and less federal support were the cause, but some lawmakers cited the cost of the Rail Runner as a major factor of the shortfall.[12]
The capital costs of the Rail Runner project were covered by state and local funds. Phase I of the project was set to cost $135 million while Phase II was set to cost $250 million.[10]
Funding for operations of the system in its first few years was covered largely by federal Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds, along with ticket revenues and some state and local funds. Operational costs were expected to rise from $10 million for the first phase to $20 million after completion of the second phase.[13]
Federal funding for the Rail Runner is expected to stop in 2009, and without sufficient funds from other sources would leave funding for the operational and maintenance costs for the system up in the air. To prevent a funding shortfall, local and state governments began looking into possible taxes in the counties the Rail Runner serves. Two separate gross receipts taxes for regional transit were approved by voters in central and north-central New Mexico in November 2008 and will cover a large portion of the operational funds of the Rail Runner. Additional funds will also come from bond revenue and money appropriated by the New Mexico State Legislature.[14]
Sounds like a boondoggle to me. And for those who say we hold rail to an unfair standard and that roads require vast subsidies -- well, you're right. And we should raise gas taxes to the point where they cover road maintenance. User fees are infinitely preferable to taxes on the general population.
Posted by: Colin at Nov 8, 2009 12:58:04 PM
The greatest advantage of very fast trains is that it takes (relatively) narrow corridors of land, while providing huge transport capacity. A highway of silimar capacity would be several times as wide.
These factors are important in densely populated countries like France, Italy, Germany, the Benelux, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China. I am not so sure about the USA, perhaps some regions like coastal California.
Posted by: Marian Kechlibar at Nov 8, 2009 1:22:21 PM
BTW The emergence of high-speed rail changed some Euro societies irreversibly. It is normal in contemporary Spain to live 50-150 km away from Madrid and yet commute daily to work. Even Ciudad Real (200 km from Madrid) is a commuter city by now.
Posted by: Marian Kechlibar at Nov 8, 2009 1:43:35 PM
Colin,
In general what is screwing road building and maintenance right now is funds being siphoned off to poorly used forms public transit. If one want lots of public transit that is relatively cheap, that has low pollution to miles figures, etc. buy lots of buses.
Posted by: Seward at Nov 8, 2009 2:06:43 PM
Yes, but see, back in the 1940s, passenger train travel was a nationalized monopoly and highly subsidized! But some time after that, the government replaced it with a privatized unsubsidized laissez faire system like we have now! It is your rampant libertarian ideology that destroyed rail travel in America!!!
Posted by: Vehical Driver at Nov 8, 2009 2:31:46 PM
It would help if railroads didn't have to pay property taxes on the rail infrastructure and the land under it. Either that, or property taxes should be paid for the roads to the communities they run through based on the local tax needs.
Why not sell the roads to private corporations and then tax the roads as property, and then let the private corporations charge for the use of the roads to maximize profits while maintaining the roads. If a road is found by the corporation to be unprofitable, thn it can allow the road to decay, and when it is no longer usable, let it become idle.
If this is the superior model for rail which competes with roads, why not apply that same model to roads?
Why do we have communist roads and capitalist rails?
Posted by: mulp at Nov 8, 2009 3:12:14 PM
Hmm, being a realist libertarian, I can see some reasons why infrastructure products cannot be entirely laissez-faire.
The landscape can't tolerate high density of roads, and, in some cases, there just isn't any other alternative way because of natural limitations. Consider the Brenner Pass: virtually the only reasonable place where to pass the Alps between Germanic countries and Italy. Such places are found almost everywhere in Europe, which is generally quite a mountainous continent.
Posted by: Marian Kechlibar at Nov 8, 2009 3:20:47 PM
I'm so tired of all this focus on rail. If we really want to be serious about it, BRING BACK THE CANALS!
Posted by: kebko at Nov 8, 2009 3:54:38 PM
I'm so tired of all this focus on rail. If we really want to get serious about it, BRING BACK THE CANALS!
Posted by: kebko at Nov 8, 2009 3:56:36 PM
I find jokes always work best when you repeat them. Let me know if anyone wants me to explain it, too. Oi.
Posted by: kebko at Nov 8, 2009 3:58:03 PM
Well, of course rail's slower - with fast cars and Interstates, most spots in the US don't use rail for serious commuting anymore, so the priority, $$$, and tracks are, rightly, mostly for freight. The one place it matters, Amtrak NE, is even faster than it was, and strikingly more efficient than Amtrak elsewhere. The places where rail's starting to make more sense due to density are working on dedicated tracks of their own.
In Austin, we're following a similar path, but behind you - we're still working on our first line. I'm encouraged it's working for you. Except, our next step's creating more in-city lines, because we're sprawled in every direction but up. But our fiirst line already includes alot of NW burbs.
Personally, I wish we'd spend the money on 15-minute busses instead, though, as we already have the infrastructure for that, and it'd do more to make transit competitive.
Posted by: Jon Kay at Nov 8, 2009 4:15:31 PM
Indeed, kebko. Last year I took my boat all the way up and back the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW). Some of it is quite historic. I read up a bit on the subject of canals vs. rails, and the debate was oddly similar to rails vs. roads today.
Personally, I was quite happy to watch manatees mating along a taxpayer subsized stretch of canal south of Melbourne.
Posted by: Bob Knaus at Nov 8, 2009 4:28:29 PM
Like political clout..
Posted by: jorod at Nov 8, 2009 6:09:57 PM
Jon Kay points out something most American passenger-rail fans ignore: rail is plenty profitable, for moving freight. The article points out that freight traffic makes high-speed passenger service nearly impossible, but glosses over the amount of freight which goes by rail.
Posted by: Anthony at Nov 8, 2009 7:22:52 PM
The article isn't very accurate at places.
For example: it states that high-speed lines need to have gentle curves, not exceeding 1%. In fact, the opposite is true: because high-speed trains carry a lot of momentum, they can climb sharper grades than slower trains, especially slow freight trains. The TGV in France can climb grades of 3.5%, and one ICE line in Germany has 4% grades. It's the slow trains that have to slow down on grades higher than 1% and can't climb grades higher than 2%.
The people quoted in the article aren't high-speed rail experts. Thompson is an FRA official, who may understand heavy freight but not high-speed rail; he's responsible to the wrong idea that high-speed rail is restricted to 1%. Randall O'Toole has no qualifications in urban planning or transportation, and gets his income from Exxon-funded Cato; he's essentially an industry shill. It would be far preferable to get sources who have some experience with the TGV, Shinkansen, or ICE, or who run university urban planning programs.
Posted by: Alon Levy at Nov 8, 2009 9:06:23 PM
Now that I'm thinking about it, the article doesn't even say why passenger rail has gotten slower. The problem is superelevation on curves. On curves, trains don't have to slow down, or have to slow down less, when the outer rail is raised a little bit above the inner rail. In the 1940s and 50s, when railroads ran first-class passenger trains, superelevation was 4-5 inches, allowing those trains to run faster. Since then, not only have tracks deteriorated, but also railroads have shifted their business to heavy freight. Heavy freight trains chew up the tracks, restricting the amount of safe superelevation: the FRA permits up to 4", whereas in Germany 6.3" is possible. Those trains also run more slowly, so superelevation has to be lowered to prevent them from toppling.
Posted by: Alon Levy at Nov 8, 2009 9:12:09 PM
In general what is screwing road building and maintenance right now is funds being siphoned off to poorly used forms public transit. If one want lots of public transit that is relatively cheap, that has low pollution to miles figures, etc. buy lots of buses.
Buses have lots of negative externalities, though. They lead to slower traffic and more frequent traffic jams by starting and stopping often. Additionally, ridership is currently poor in many places. The efficiency of buses can be greatly improved by building dedicated bus lanes which takes them out of traffic and may increase ridership by reducing travel times relative to driving.
Posted by: Ricardo at Nov 8, 2009 11:12:24 PM
Whenever the subject of railroads and mass transit comes up, I have to point to the RUF (Rapid, Urban, Flexible) transportation system out of Denmark. http://www.ruf.dk/ It uses private dual-mode electric vehicles running on the roads or up on a guideway. Solves a lot of the problems that prevent people from using public transportation.
Posted by: Russ Nelson at Nov 9, 2009 1:16:22 AM
We don't have communist roads. We have public roads with communist repair and traffic enforcement. And even those communists act a lot like hard-core capitalists a lot of times.
Trains don't really compete with cars. Planes only compete with cars because regulations and security make plane travel so slow. Trains cannot compete with cars. That's why some people are so enamored with them. Letting people go wherever they want just seems so messy.
Posted by: Andrew at Nov 9, 2009 5:36:01 AM
@Jon Kay, Alon Levy: It sounds like having freight and passengers use the same track isn't really good for either (but especially the passenger service). Why not have one set of tracks for slow heavy freight and another for fast passengers? 100 passengers don't want their trip to take an extra half hour but 100 tons of coal don't really mind, or at least they don't complain.
If the design incentives and traffic considerations are that divergent, build parallel tracks. (Or even non-parallel tracks, if the two types of trains are more efficient going to different places.)
Posted by: Chris at Nov 9, 2009 11:46:54 AM
Chris, the capacity problems which arise from mixing trains (or whatever vehicles) whose speed greatly differs are well known, and practically solved, for example, by leaving the tracks for freight transport at night, while keeping the freight trains off the tracks during the day, when they would get in the way of the passenger trains.
BTW There is nothing impossible about running freight trains at 160-200 km/h.
Posted by: Marian Kechlibar at Nov 9, 2009 2:14:59 PM
Why not just have freight trains, primarily, and get over "being just like Europe" and having widespread passenger rail?
(Or, as we are now, restrict it to its own tracks in the few places it can pay for itself or come close?)
Indeed, it's not impossible to run freight trains at 180kph (outside of cities and anywhere they need to stop)... but it is impossible without rebuilding the rail system (and god help you with all those rail crossings).
Would it be worthwhile to do that simply to run freight trains faster (and less efficiently in terms of cost per ton per mile; remember that most freight isn't in that big of a hurry, and will happily trade speed for cost)?
Posted by: Sigivald at Nov 9, 2009 4:16:33 PM
Early booking window for French rail journeys over winter
You may or may not know that in France, you can normally only buy train tickets a maximum of the three months in advance of the date of travel. This can prove frustrating when you’re trying to organise your ski holiday in advance to make sure you get the best prices for accommodation and travel.
So, we were pleased to hear that Rail Europe, the consortium which sells tickets for rail travel across Europe and not just France, is launching online winter train ticket sales which will let you book right up until the 8th March 2010 – perfect for organising your next ski holiday by train.
The winter season train tickets go on sale from 05:00 on the 14th October 2010, where you’ll be able to buy tickets for travel between 13th December 2009 and 13 January 2010 inclusive.
From the 15th October to the 5th November 2009 the offer will be extended and you’ll be able to book tickets for travel between 5th February and 8th March 2010 as well.
Booking for any trains departing 8th March 2010 onwards will be back to being subject to the three months maximum advance booking rule, so you will have to wait until the 9th December 2009 to book such tickets.
Of course, you can also buy tickets for travel within three months of your booking date at any time, but we’re letting you know about these very specific windows of opportunity to profit from the extra advance booking time available during the changeover period.
Take the train to the French Alps for your next ski holiday
If you are thinking of avoiding the hassles of air travel for your next ski holiday, Rail Europe can help you organise Eurostar travel from the UK to Paris, then an overnight train from Paris to Bourg St Maurice, from where it’s an easy coach transfer direct from the train station to popular French ski resorts such as Tignes, Les Arcs, Meribel and La Plagne.
Look for: ahmad barooti assam at EfoodDepot.comAds
