I’d like to see this calculator with theoretical rail included in the mix. A lot of libertarians argue against rail investment because they think it won’t be used enough and will need to be heavily subsidized. I think that the reason for this is largely due to the enormous subsidies given to fossil fuels, car companies, and roads. The playing field isn’t even to begin with.
Besides, as gas becomes more expensive, rail will become comparatively cheaper. Sure it will cost a ton upfront, but in the end it will be an economic saving grace, much as the freeway system has been.
P.S. I would also like to see more investment in freight and lite-rail. The more rail the better, especially as we reach peak oil.
“A lot of libertarians argue against rail investment because they think it won’t be used enough and will need to be heavily subsidized.”
Unfortunately they are right. Who is the target market for high-speed rail? How much travel do they do? What is the convienance factor when weighed against air or auto?
This is largely because we already have air and auto infrastructure in place and heavily subsidize that infrastructure. There is nothing magical about air and auto that make them somehow better or more convenient. Other countries have rail infrastructure and it is by all accounts quite convenient.
But Europe also has light rail and other mass-transit on the back end to augment high speed rail. The US doesn’t other than in the Northeast.
I still ask though – who is going to use high-speed rail? Vacationing families or someone else?
Sure, families, commuters, freight. And light rail is a good idea, too!
Freight isn’t going to travel on heavy rail much. Families like having their car with them when they get here. Commuters have discovered conference bridges.
This is largely because we already have air and auto infrastructure in place and heavily subsidize that infrastructure.
Okay, so in a vacuum it might be better to build high-speed rail rather than go the route we did. But we don’t live in a vacuum. High speed rail need not only be as good as the alternatives for which we already have the infrastructure, they need to be sufficiently better that it’s worthwhile to build the infrastructure and retrofit autocities.
And even in a vacuum, I am not convinced that high-speed rail is the way to go outside of rather specific areas. Auto and air are, as best as I can tell, non-specific. If our nation consisted of just the eastern states, or just the pacific ones, it might make more sense. But given the way our country is laid out, it strikes me as somewhat redundant.
There is nothing magical about air and auto that make them somehow better or more convenient.
Nothing magical, but more than a little logistical. Flight is faster for long trips and autos provide more freedom and door-to-door delivery for shorter ones. Rail has some advantages over each, but little in the way of advantage over both.
High-speed rail makes sense in only a handful of places… between LA and Las Vegas, maybe.
But where else? It doesn’t make sense to put it along the East Coast corridor because it will be stopping periodically. If the train has to stop every 28 miles, the “high speed rail” just becomes “rail”.
Well yeah. Has anybody suggested putting a HS rail line between Elko and Texarkana?
Could you name ten cities that you think ought to be connected by high speed rail?
Here’s what I’ve got:
LA and Vegas
Boston and NYC
Boston and DC
DC and NYC
That’s what I’ve got.
5 cities, connections consisting of a line and a triangle.
This strikes me as somewhat underwhelming.
In the NE those are already connected. My in-laws just took a train from DC to NYC last week. I don’t know that it needs to be any faster.
I would re-iterate that the internet is already quickly eliminating the need for commuter rail. All that’s left is recreation and Uncle Sam will never tackle this for that reason alone.
I’ve heard SF and LA as a route which makes some sense. I’d think there is some sort of route between some of the big cities in Fla, starting in Miami going north. NY to Chi hitting Pittsburgh might work. Houston to Dallas maybe, although i’m guessing getting on a train is not very texan. There is potential from a route from Boston to Miami, since the I-95 corridor is a major artery for travel up and down the east coast. I certainly may have used HS rail if it was an option years ago when i did the drive up and down the east coast.
“I’ve heard SF and LA as a route which makes some sense. ”
Or you could fly Southwest for about $200 round trip and get there more quickly than a train would manage.
DD – the only advantage I see of trains over air travel is a little more elbow room and no dealing with the TSA.
no dealing with the TSA
*Yet*!
I can think of quite a few, where you have a lot of traffic between cities (Houston-Austin-Dallas, Seattle-Portland, etc.). Is there a reason these wouldn’t be applicable?
If the cities are too close, there is too much time spent either getting up to speed or slowing down and too little time spent at the actual “high speed”.
Denver to Albuquerque to El Paso to Las Angles to San Fransisco to Portland to Seattle to Vancouvor. Denver to Kansas to Chicago to Milwaukee. Kansas City to Oklahoma City to Dallas to Austen to Houston to Baton Rouge to New Orleans to you get the point. I would really like it if I could put my car on a train and get there within two days.
So if I want to go to Seattle (I’m in Colorado, remember), I have to go through both LA and San Fran?
Denver to Salt Lake to San Fransisco. Feel better now?
Not really, because I wanted to go to Seattle.
I guess you will just have to fly.
*GET* to fly!
Hey, free, erm, backrub.
I’d much rather see the money spent on repairing our woefully inadequate freight rail.
But upgrading freight rail is *boring*…
This premise is flawed if not entirely wrong. Our freight rail system
a) is far better than Europe’s http://www.economist.com/node/16636101 http://www.arilog.ro/fisiere/materiale/Eseu.pdf
b) is almost entirely self sufficient – that is, free of subsidies. And very very efficient because it has to compete with the last mile advantages and outright subsidies (in the form of highways) of interstate trucking
c) is perfectly adequate to the task at hand – transporting stuff from point a to point b. It is actually not normally necessary for stuff – particularly bulk stuff – to travel at high speeds. Stuff doesn’t need DVD’s or John Grisham novels or food and drink to keep it occupied on a road trip. Being able to cross the country *continuously* (and that’s the key) at 30 miles an hour gets to from one side to another in a little under five days – which is good enough for the vast majority of applications. (if you really need it faster, send it by air)