This was a phrase I heard a lot at RailVolution last week. It came up on several panels and was an interesting contrast: we heard it mostly from folks in the East/Midwest operating long-established rail systems. We didn’t hear it from the West Coast cities where rail transit is still running on pretty new infrastructure.
The Secretary of Transportation for Massachusetts described a fire on the Red Line in Boston that was caused by nothing other than aging catenary wires.
Fundamentally there is not enough money to maintain all our infrastructure to a “state of good repair”. While this may not be an issue for TriMet (yet) it’s not new in Oregon, our highway system is in exactly this state of affairs.
And the East/West contrast among stakeholders is echoed locally between Portland and the outer suburbs. Washington and Clackamas counties are struggling to build infrastructure to keep up with growth, while Portland struggles to maintain its arterial streets. This makes assembling a regional funding package a challenge, because a package needs to be crafted to meet both of these very different needs.
But to plan for the future, how do we make sure that our region’s rail transit will also have sufficient maintenance funds to be in a “state of good repair” in the future. Are we building reserves now? (That’s a rhetorical question – we are not to a sufficient level). How can we?
47 responses to ““State of Good Repair””
If we really want to make rail in the PNW work we have to look at how we make it work as a region. We have rail lines all over this corner of the US, but it seems like things don’t effectively connect outside the region.
I love how easy it is to take Amtrak to Seattle from here, but what about San Francisco and the rest of California? Is it cheapest to keep expanding the airports here and there versus looking at the cost of faster and more reliable train service between Eugene and the Bay Area and the rest of CA?
Do we wait until we have to fill in more of the Columbia to expand PDX, or do we deal with future demand now?
Isn’t air faster and cheaper than cost of Amtrak (real costs before subsidies)?
Remember MAX carries more people ever day than Amtrak (not as far, but more riders)
Also, I do not recall filling in “more of the Columbia” to expand the airport to its current size? (I could well have missed this as it is not high on my radar)
Thanks
JK
jk, it all depends on the infrastructure.
http://tinyurl.com/23d29hn
I can’t see expanding train service between Eugene and the Bay area. I suspect there aren’t enough intermediate destinations to generate enough trips to justify that kind of service, and getting fast trains through all that mountainous terrain would be a real challenge. Maybe if Medford/Ashland/Grants Pass went through a period of explosive growth and turned into a major metro area, but not otherwise.
Rail needs to be competitive with air travel in terms of both price and timing. That’s easy when the major destinations are about three hours away by rail or less; the time you save in the air is wiped out by the time spend boarding and deboarding at the airport, plus the trip is about twenty times more comfortable, and rail provides a city-center-to-city-center connection. I’ll take the train over flying every time it’s an option for just that reason.
Vancouver BC to Eugene works, because Seattle and Portland and several smaller cities along the corridor will generate traffic. San Diego to Sacramento will work, particularly since California is planning a bullet train that would be anchored by LA and San Francisco. There’s enough population to make that a viable high-capacity rail corridor. But from Sacramento to Eugene? What’s there? Roseburg? Medford? Redding? I don’t see any intermediate destinations that could support viable passenger service.
Back to the original question: how do we provide for rail transit maintenance? I’d say highway tolls. Generally, I support replacing Oregon’s weight-mile tax with a freight-only toll, collected electronically, on ALL state highways. Set the toll just high enough to pay for ongoing maintenance for ALL state highways and bridges to keep them at 100%, and then just a little bit higher to pay for maintenance of parallel passenger rail lines along highway corridors, since every passenger rail operation (MAX, WES, Amtrak) parallels a freeway and/or state highway. The benefit to truckers is that higher levels of passenger rail use will slightly reduce congestion on the freeway that parallels the rail line. The cost-per-trip for trucks will be very low, most likely measured in pennies.
A longstanding paradox which is affecting the US now, affected powers such as Britain in the past, and will probably affect China in the future… is that much infrastructure gets built during good times, when cash is aplenty, labor is relatively cheap, and there is a stronger sense of community-building. When a lot of this stuff deteriorates, it happens at a time when cash is harder to come by, labor is much more expensive, and everyone is fighting to hold onto their piece of pie.
A small note to Doug K: Currently, Amtrak doesn’t use the Santiam Pass route (or go anywhere near the Rogue Valley, Grants Pass, or Roseburg)–it instead goes over Willamette Pass through Klamath Falls. But your main point stands–difficult terrain, long distance, and a sparse population make the Eugene/Sacramento corridor a dubious prospect for HSR. It’s interesting to look at a US population density map–only then do you realize just how isolated the Pacific Northwest (including Vancouver) is from the rest of North America.
Scotty – I think you mean the “Siskyou Pass” route between Eugene/Roseburg/Grants Pass/Medford/Ashland and Weed, CA. To be fair, there was, back in the late 1800s, a railroad that was projected to go over Santiam Pass, but it never quite made it. :)
Gah. *Siskiyou*.
Jeff F Says: WASHINGTON — A record 28.7 million passengers rode on Amtrak in the 2010 fiscal year,
JK: Trimet:
38.4 million were MAX trips (http://www.trimet.org/pdfs/publications/factsheet.pdf)
Thanks
JK
Yes, Siskiyou. They actually did get train tracks as far up the Santiam as Idanha, though much of the railbed was flooded when Detroit Dam was built. Today, tracks only get as far as Mill City.
JK: Trimet: 38.4 million were MAX trips (http://www.trimet.org/pdfs/publications/factsheet.pdf)
Thanks
Good to see you as a MAX booster, JK.
MAX trips are, of course, shorter and far more frequent than Amtrak trips, but you’re welcome.
Isn’t air faster and cheaper than cost of Amtrak (real costs before subsidies)?
From where to where? SAN to LAX? Probably not, since both are completely built out (as far as runways) and even changing gate configurations won’t fix that more than about 20. At least, that was the case when I was on a citizen’s panel for a new San Diego Airport in 2005. Without moving I-5 and wiping out an existing neighborhood San Diego is out of airport space. Without closing MCAS Miramar (won’t happen in San Diego, not even a sliver of a chance) the only terrain that would be usable for an airport is 90+ miles away and would require about $18 billion for a bullet train under mountains to compare with any other equally cost-effective solution to SAN’s congestion. The second best option? A prototype of a floating international airport, which is opposed by every environmental group, water-related group, and surfing-related group in SoCal. (There’s a lot of money in those categories there.)
LAX is doing pretty badly also. They’ll hit capacity by 2030 IIRC, so they’re nearing in on maxed out also. The idea of HSR is to replace short hop trips. From PDX to SEA, or from SFO or OAK to SAN are the type to eliminate. Their plan is to use Ontario’s airport and have HSR back to the LA basin to connect the two airports, in addition to John Wayne in Orange County.
PDX can expand a bit further without a major runway configuration (although, we did just extend one runway on the feds credit card, and we’re working on fixing up the other also), but when it needs one where do we expand to?
How many flights occupying those runways per day go between PDX and Seattle, or Eugene, or even Boise? Is there an alternate option that’s cheaper than building PDX out into the Columbia? Is there another way to handle more air traffic effectively into town without adding runways to PDX?
Flights might be cheaper at this moment, but airport expansion is not easy at all on the west coast. Almost every major airport is completely built out without expanding into the nearby ocean/bay/river. That won’t get local support in any of the areas, so we (as a society) have to find another option.
Flying from Boston to LA is obvious, but shorter flights possibly could be reduced by switching people to trains for an overall lower cost than continuously giving away money via the FAA to upgrade airports.
When I mentioned HSR to the Bay Area from Oregon I didn’t mean in the next 5 years, I meant in the next 35-100 years it seems to be something we should start considering might be needed.
Another question is if we might be able to decentralize some of Oregon’s growth from Portland and to other parts of the state with infrastructure that allows people to move throughout the state more easily.
Growing up in Buffalo, it was fairly easy to (without a car) get to Rochester, Syracuse/Utica, and NY (all metro areas over one million people in state), plus Cleveland, Boston, Albany, Chicago, Hartford, Detroit, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Erie, Philadelphia, and even international cities like Montreal, Ottawa, Hamilton, Niagara Falls and Toronto in under a day. Most of these cities are what they are because of transportation links that occurred requiring employees in those areas. It may have been an excessive commute, but it was possible to cheaply (compared to a plane ticket) and quickly move around the region without a car.
While I agree with Douglas that we may not have the passenger rates between Eugene and the Bay Area right now, it can’t hurt to start planning for what ROW’s should be acquired if they’re for sale anyway. Little things like planning ahead by acquiring portions of properties that may be needed for additional tracks along existing ROW can go a long way in the future.
We don’t need HSR to Klamath Falls or Redding tomorrow, but in 100 years it might be a great thing to plan for. Same idea with along I-84 from Portland to Kennewick/Pasco/Richland and on to Spokane or Boise, for example. We may not need it today, but will it hurt to start planning that we may need it before we’ve built out the entire ROW like has happened in the Northeast Corridor?
Dave H Says: When I mentioned HSR to the Bay Area from Oregon I didn’t mean in the next 5 years, I meant in the next 35-100 years …
JK: The problem you are tackling is essentially impossible unless you want to lock out human progress. For instance a 35 year plan in 1905 would have had to included the first freeway. But there were no affordable cars yet. Worse, if they were foolish enough to try to plan 35 years out, they would have allocated thousands more farm acres to grow horse food, thousands of carts and jobs picking us used horse food and used horses (ie: dead). And, if they had Oregon style planning, they would have locked up all the other land on false premises and left no land for future needs like freeways. The lack of freeways would have lowered our standard of living quite a bit (time saved with fast transportation is money.)
Dave H Says: Another question is if we might be able to decentralize some of Oregon’s growth from Portland and to other parts of the state with infrastructure that allows people to move throughout the state more easily.
JK: You say “we might be able” as if it is your duty to reshape society to some goal. Why not just observe that almost as many people now work at home as take transit to work. And work at home usually allows that home to be anywhere. Many businesses can be located anywhere that has an internet connection and UPS service.
Dave H Says: Growing up in Buffalo, it was fairly easy to (without a car) get to Rochester, …. in under a day….It may have been an excessive commute, but it was possible to cheaply (compared to a plane ticket) and quickly move around the region without a car.
JK: And in a car probably 1/4 day with 3/4 day left for contacting clients, making sales, and just earning money. Again one of the big benefits of a car is speed of transportaion and that increases our standard of living. (Think of one component of standard of living as the rate of accomplishing things.)
Dave H Says: Little things like planning ahead by acquiring portions of properties that may be needed for additional tracks along existing ROW can go a long way in the future.
We don’t need HSR to Klamath Falls or Redding tomorrow, but in 100 years it might be a great thing to plan for.
JK: The problem is one of the best use of money. Should we lock up money for 100 years on the possibility that we will use it, or use it today to educate people, feed people and build things for immediate use.
Dave H Says: … We may not need it today, but will it hurt to start planning that we may need it before we’ve built out the entire ROW like has happened in the Northeast Corridor?
JK: Again the issue is good use of limited resources – money. Spend money planning for a future that may not happen in the way expected (a very high probability), or spend money on increasing everyone’s standard of living today?
Note: You may have guessed that I think planning for more than a few years out is simply a waste of time, effort and money. Think how much planning time we had for the societal changes brought by the automobile, radio, television, transistors, affordable computers, the internet. Many of these massive changes occurred in 10-15 years from a key breakthrough. How much planning lead time do you think we will get when the next society changing invention suddenly leaves the lab and becomes widespread? Compare this to it taking several years for the government to come up with a plan in the first place. How long have we been planning a new Columbia River bridge? (By the time the planning is finished, we all may have self driving aircraft that can operate from a parking space and not even need a bridge!)
Thanks
JK
JK: Note: You may have guessed that I think planning for more than a few years out is simply a waste of time, effort and money.
Except we’re not going to get any new land. It’s a finite resource; to proceed without long-range planning is irresponsible.
The problem you are tackling is essentially impossible unless you want to lock out human progress.
What utter nonsense. The “preparation” for high speed rail fifty years out would be to identify a workable corridor wide (a) enough to accommodate two parallel railroad tracks; (b) with slight enough curves to handle a theoretical 300 mph train; (c) serving existing population centers that could grow in the next fifty years; and (d) with Eugene at the north end and Sacramento at the south end. That’s it. This hypothetical project would then purchase/reserve land for that specific right-of-way.
None of that “locks out” human progress in any way. What it does is constrains future construction of HSR to the corridor you’ve already acquired. Now, is it a wise use of tax dollars to acquire land for something that may never be built? Well, we won’t know that for a few decades. If HSR eventually goes in and winds up linking a million people in the Medford/Ashland/Grants Pass metro area to Portland and the Bay area, it will by an astonishingly astute investment. If we’re all riding around in robot-driven electric cars that recharge while cruising at 250 mph on maglev guideways built into freeways between cities — well, it’ll still be a good investment, because the corridor will be used for a robot-car-maglev route instead of steel rail. If we’re all traveling in flying cars in fifty years, it will be a waste of money, but then so will every highway, bridge and tunnel built in the next few decades.
We can argue about whether it’s a good use of money. But the idea that buying a 60 foot right of way from Eugene to Sacramento will “lock out human progress” anywhere is complete nonsense.
Jeff F Says: Except we’re not going to get any new land. It’s a finite resource; to proceed without long-range planning is irresponsible.
JK: Not really. If you plan for a use that never materializes, you have locked that land away from more important uses that may come up in the future. In Oregon we have done that statewide to our detriment. We have specified the permitted use of all land. It is difficult to get a new use or get more land for certain uses. We have farms failing because they can only sell some percentage of non-farm goods in their store!
We constantly hear of the shortage of industrial land (that is land for jobs). That is part of why we usually have an unemployment rate above the national average and our income is usually lower.
Our buildable land was going for $400,000 per acre. That is $50,000 for a lot the size found in a typical Portland inner neighborhood. That’s JUST the land. House extra. Permits extra. SDC extra. That’s why you probably could not afford to buy your house today or are paying high rents.
Maybe we should lock up a lot of land for airports right now, before we find ourselves with the problem of not having enough land for airports.
Thanks
JK
Douglas K. Says: (quoting JK) The problem you are tackling is essentially impossible unless you want to lock out human progress.
What utter nonsense. The “preparation” for high speed rail fifty years out would be to identify a workable corridor ….
JK: Of course you are ignoring all of the other, more important future land uses that may be more important. To follow your philosophy, we must lock up that land today for it to be used in 100 years. The fact that we don’t know what these uses may be should not be a problem for real planners with real crystal balls.
You are proposing spending many millions of dollars on the hope that high speed rail will serve some need in the future, when it does not even do that today, except in the densest parts of the country. Even there it will never cover its cost (maybe almost cover its operating cost). There is little doubt that Oregon will NEVER become dense enough for high speed rail to be anything other than another very expensive way to move people.
Douglas K. Says: None of that “locks out” human progress in any way. What it does is constrains future construction of HSR to the corridor you’ve already acquired.
JK: You just locked out other choices for the route and other uses of the land.
Douglas K. Says: Now, is it a wise use of tax dollars to acquire land for something that may never be built? Well, we won’t know that for a few decades.
JK: Then it is a wise use of tax dollars to do any number of other things to lay the foundation for the unknown future 100 years away.
Too many people do not realize just how unknown the future, 100 years out, really is. For example, 100 years ago who predicted (and planned to accommodate) any of these:
* cars to replace horses.
* getting the coal to heat our houses over a wire.
* replacing gas lines for lighting with wires.
* talking to the neighbor over a wire instead of over the back fence
* watching a move outside of a theatre
* watching a movie on a pocket device
* widespread use of electric motors
* listening to events from the next town over thin air
* listening to live events from Europe
* pocket radios
* pocket TVs
* seeing both US coasts at once (Edward R. morrow in the 1950s)
* plastics
* cure for TB and hundreds of other diseases
* wiping out small pox form the face of the earth
* almost wiping out polio
* commerical air travel
* jet engine
* home refrigerators
* home air conditioners
* transistors & integrated circuits
* electronic computer
* affordable computer
* car radio (Motorola)
* car phone
* cell phone in the trunk of a car
* pocket cell phone
* pocket computer
When you figure out how they could have anticipated these inventions in 1910, lets talk about how to plan for the next 100 years.
BTW, how many people even have a hint how the innards of any of those things work.
Thanks
JK
There is little doubt that Oregon will NEVER become dense enough for high speed rail to be anything other than another very expensive way to move people.
More BS. Nobody’s talking about a network of bullet trains across the entire state of Oregon. We’re talking about a hypothetical rail corridor from Portland to SF IF future development makes it economically viable.
Cities grow. Sometimes. In 1900, the City of Portland had about 90,000 people. Today it has nearly 600,000.
Medford today has a population of around 77,000, in a metropolitan area of around 200,000. A period of rapid economic growth (triggered, for example, by a single highly successful company or good positioning in a critical economic sector) is scarcely impossible, and could lead to a metro area population of over a million. Medford is 274 miles from Portland by freeway, which is a more-or-less straight line. That’s a five hour drive, and could easily be a three hour train ride with true HSR.
Medford is also 357 miles by freeway from Oakland, CA. That’s six hours driving, maybe three and a half hours by high speed rail.
I’m not saying there are particularly good odds that Medford WILL grow that quickly. It’s a long shot that any particular community will give rise to tomorrow’s Walmart or Microsoft. And I don’t think HSR between Portland and the Bay Area will ever work without a million+ metro area midway between. If there’s ANY way for HSR to work on that corridor, it will have to be for Medford/Ashland/Grants Pass to generate a lot of trips; no other community could serve that role.
As for how to plan for the next hundred years, you don’t. You plan for the next fifty, basing your planning on existing or predicted technology and your best possible projections of future trends. And then you go back, and update the plans every decade or so to take into account changes in technology, growth trends, development patterns, the opinions and values of the current generation, and so forth.
I suppose the best way to plan for HSR would be to use freeway money to gradually renovate I-5, creating room in the median for 2 tracks. The challenge there would be creating new right-of-way for the freeway to support possible future trains that could move well in excess of 150 mph — not an easy task on a freeway with curves designed for 60-70 mph, particularly when it’s winding through the mountains. But it’s probably easier to create that corridor over a series of freeway projects than to try to buy a straight line over mountainous terrain that would require billions in bridge and tunnel work, and might never be needed. And if the rail line never materializes, you wind up gradually buying an expensive freeway with a really wide median.
Douglas K. Says: When those cities grew rapidly, the US population was increasing rapidly.
JK: That is no longer the case. We are only growing now because of immigration – our domestic birth rate is near replacement (ie: zero population growth) while many other industrialized countries are below replacement.
To use historical growth rates is to deny the new reality (since the 1970s!) of lowered fertility.
See: http://www.debunkingportland.com/worldpopulation.html
Thanks
JK
Douglas K. Says: That’s a five hour drive, and could easily be a three hour train ride with true HSR.
JK: Or an hour by air. Probably cheaper too.
Douglas K. Says: As for how to plan for the next hundred years, you don’t. You plan for the next fifty, basing your planning on existing or predicted technology and your best possible projections of future trends.
JK: Oh, I get it – plan for the first freeway (1939) 50 years earlier. One little problem: there were no mass produced automobiles yet.
* Plan for the internet during WWII when computers were rooms full of tubes breaking Nazi codes in Bletchley park.
* Plan for massive international air travel expansion, before the jet engine and when the dominate aircraft were biplanes shooting at each other over France.
* Plan for cell phone tower locations before there were walkie-talkies let alone wireless phones.
* Plan for color TV manufacturing before there was electronic television.
Again: long range planning is a waste of time and can hurt progress.
Douglas K. Says: And then you go back, and update the plans every decade or so to take into account changes in technology, growth trends, development patterns, the opinions and values of the current generation, and so forth.
JK: OK, so in 2000 we plan for the I-phone.
Douglas K. Says: I suppose the best way to plan for HSR would be to use freeway money to gradually renovate I-5, creating room in the median for 2 tracks.
JK: Ever hear of a truck breaking through the median? Now picture a 300 mph train coming along. (Do you never run out of bad ideas?) But upgrading the freeway is a good idea.
Douglas K. Says: The challenge there would be creating new right-of-way for the freeway to support possible future trains that could move well in excess of 150 mph — not an easy task on a freeway with curves designed for 60-70 mph, particularly when it’s winding through the mountains.
JK: Easy – just dig a tunnel. Shouldn’t add more than a few tens of billion to the price.
Douglas K. Says: And if the rail line never materializes, you wind up gradually buying an expensive freeway with a really wide median.
JK: and wasting a lot of money better spent improving things for today.
Thanks
JK
Or an hour by air. Probably cheaper too.
Have you ever traveled by air? There’s a massive delay to go through check-in, security checks, boarding, wait time for take-off, taxi time on landing, deboarding, and baggage claim. That’s why three hour rail trips are competitive with air travel. Also, since you’ve apparently never flown, air travel is very inconvenient and uncomfortable — you spend (typically) an extra hour or two beyond the actual flight time in a cramped seat with very limited ability to move up and down a cramped aisleway and no place to go beyond a claustrophobia-inducing bathroom. Any destination that’s three (maybe four) hours away by rail is easily competitive with air travel over the same distance, and is a far more comfortable trip. Beyond that, the speed advantage of aircraft starts to deliver significantly shorter TOTAL travel time and makes it more competitive.
Ever hear of a truck breaking through the median? Now picture a 300 mph train coming along.
By that “logic” we should ban all air travel because airplanes sometimes crash, ban all automobile travel because pedestrians are sometimes hit … or maybe just limit the speed on all roads, including freeways, to 20 mph to make the very rare head-on collision survivable. How about just building solid safety walls along the freeway to keep trucks from jumping the median? (Which, I gather, you think we should be doing anyway, at least where there isn’t a broad expanse of grass separating oncoming traffic.) In most things our society does, we accept there are certain risks of harm and try to minimize them where possible.
Easy – just dig a tunnel. Shouldn’t add more than a few tens of billion to the price.
So we can put you down as a vote for building more expensive rail lines?
As for the point about population growth, I already stated that rapid growth of the Medford area would require a massive, localized economic surge from either a very successful local company or a rapidly growing economic sector centered there — a possibility that is rather remote. Your point about historic population growth patterns is accurate, but had absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying.
Also:
(Do you never run out of bad ideas?)
That’s rich, given the source.
Douglas K. Says: Have you ever traveled by air? There’s a massive delay to go through check-in, security checks, boarding, wait time for take-off, taxi time on landing, deboarding, and baggage claim. That’s why three hour rail trips are competitive with air travel.
JK: You are assuming that the checkin delay problem won’t be solved in the next 50-100 years! Once solved, the window where HSR is time competitive narrows.
Douglas K. Says: Also, since you’ve apparently never flown, air travel is very inconvenient and uncomfortable — you spend (typically) an extra hour or two beyond the actual flight time in a cramped seat with very limited ability to move up and down a cramped aisleway and no place to go beyond a claustrophobia-inducing bathroom.
JK: Sounds like the last train I was on!
Douglas K. Says: By that “logic” we should ban all air travel because airplanes sometimes crash, ban all automobile travel because pedestrians are sometimes hit
JK: No, just basic safety engineering. If you can avoid building it dangerous, DO SO!
Douglas K. Says: As for the point about population growth, I already stated that rapid growth of the Medford area would require a massive, localized economic surge from either a very successful local company or a rapidly growing economic sector centered there — a possibility that is rather remote.
JK: Yep, and a remote possibility that HSR will ever be useful there.
Douglas K. Says: Your point about historic population growth patterns is accurate, but had absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying.
JK: I was just pointing out the remote possibility of NW population density reaching that needed to make passenger rail economic.
Thanks
JK
You are assuming that the checkin delay problem won’t be solved in the next 50-100 years!
A. The airlines haven’t solved it in the last 50 years, but I wish them luck.
B. Rail doesn’t have, and never has had this problem.
Sounds like the last train I was on!
Then you need to ride more often. The Cascades (just one local, relevant example) has much wider seats than an airline, plug-ins for laptops (which airlines are only just catching up with), no restrictions on when you can stroll, and a dining area.
Cascades coach seating on Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbondsv/4542769702/
The comfort is already there, all that needs to be addressed is trip time issues, which aren’t too far off the mark already, and trip frequency, which additional train sets on order will improve greatly.
I was just pointing out the remote possibility of NW population density reaching that needed to make passenger rail economic.
And, as others have pointed out, “NW population density” is not the relevant metric. Corridor population density and travel demand is what counts.
And you can use your cell phone on the train, too. And no turbulence.
Gawd, I hate air travel. :)
Bob R. Says: (quoting JK) You are assuming that the checkin delay problem won’t be solved in the next 50-100 years!
A. The airlines haven’t solved it in the last 50 years, but I wish them luck.
JK: Sorry, the first time I took commercial air, you just bought a ticket and walked to the departure area. You could get there minutes before departure if you wanted to risk being late. (just like for a train) The current delays are for security reasons.
Bob R. Says: B. Rail doesn’t have, and never has had this problem.
JK: But will after the first big train bombing. Which is a ways off because terrorists don’t like to blow up low population density things
Bob R. Says: Then you need to ride more often. The Cascades (just one local, relevant example) has much wider seats than an airline, plug-ins for laptops (which airlines are only just catching up with), no restrictions on when you can stroll, and a dining area.
JK: Of course they need more comfortable seats for a twenty hour trip to San Jose compared to 2 hrs (or so) for air. And for 30% more cost than air ($128 compared to $99, round trips)
I was able to edit two videos on my last trip with my 6 hr battery on my $299 computer. But one of the planes DID have power.
Bob R. Says: The comfort is already there, all that needs to be addressed is trip time issues, which aren’t too far off the mark already, and trip frequency, which additional train sets on order will improve greatly.
JK: more train sets will increase the cost and increase the required subsidy as long as they can’t even breakeven on operating costs (just like trimet)
Bob R. Says: And, as others have pointed out, “NW population density” is not the relevant metric. Corridor population density and travel demand is what counts.
JK: My comments apply to corridors too.
Thanks
JK
One advantage of HSR over air traffic that I haven’t seen mentioned – and it’s a big one – is that rail trips start and end in the city center, while airline trips require travel time to reach. In most cases, that travel time is a considerable factor in trip time.
Traveling from NYC to DC? How long does it take to get from Manhattan to Kennedy? Hour and a half? From Dulles into downtown is only a half hour or so, which means an additional two hours on a business trip, not counting security lines. Flying into O’Hare and headed to the Loop? 30-40 minutes by cab (and only an idiot rents a car to drive into Chicago) and a bit over one hour on the Blue Line.
The purely subjective advantage, beyond how relaxing rail traffic is, is the view. Most of the route the Coast Starlight takes is well off the freeway route and travels through truly beautiful countryside and woodlands, especially south of Eugene.
JK first argues that trains are no more comfortable than airlines (“Sounds like the last train I was on!”) and then pivots to accept my point that trains are in fact more comfortable, in order to make his next criticism (“Of course they need more comfortable seats for a twenty hour trip to San Jose compared to 2 hrs (or so) for air.”)
On that second point, I was talking about the Cascades, and I showed a picture of the Cascades. The Cascades is a service which goes between Eugene and Vancouver, BC.
I realize you may have been continuing to argue with Dave or Douglas about other routes way off in the future, but I was mentioning a specific route, today.
For what its worth, I’ve never, ever had a 2hr total trip time flight to San Jose when including terminal rigamarole.
Now on to other things:
But will after the first big train bombing.
There have been rail bombings, including in the dreaded socialist Yurp. For whatever reason, people haven’t had the same kind of collective security freak-out about those as people have about air travel, thank goodness.
Which is a ways off because terrorists don’t like to blow up low population density things
Except of course for things like the suburban shopping malls occasionally targeted in Israel and elsewhere.
Sorry, the first time I took commercial air, you just bought a ticket and walked to the departure area.
Sorry, I correct myself and the record: I said past 50 years, but universal searches and other measures came about after a wave of hijackings and weren’t really widespread until the early 1970s, so let’s make it 40 years.
Corrected sentence:
The airlines haven’t solved it in the last 40 years, but I wish them luck.
Discussion of terrorism on aircraft vs rail
One advantage of rail over airplane in this context is that trains cannot be easily turned into de-facto surface-to-ground missiles. HSR trains are generally electric, and so don’t carry thousands of gallons of explosive hydrocarbons, and they have an awfully hard time going where there aren’t rails.
Jeff F Says: One advantage of HSR over air traffic that I haven’t seen mentioned – and it’s a big one – is that rail trips start and end in the city center,
JK: Why would having trips originate were most people DON’T live and parking is hard to find an advantage?
(I presume you noticed that only a tiny % of the people (or jobs) are in the downtown areas these days.)
Thanks
JK
JK: Why would having trips originate were most people DON’T live and parking is hard to find an advantage?
A lot more people live in or around city center than live in or around airports, JK. While many travellers have their final destinations outside of downtown, many others do indeed want to get downtown. I can assure you that almost nobody flying into Portland intends to remain in the vicinity of PDX for their entire time here. Perhaps if there’s a convention at an airport hotel…
Uh, that should be AIR-to-ground missiles a couple posts above.
JK: Why would having trips originate were most people DON’T live and parking is hard to find an advantage?
(I presume you noticed that only a tiny % of the people (or jobs) are in the downtown areas these days.)
I suspect that “tiny percentage” of jobs (can you define a number?) makes up the bulk of business travelers, JK. Also the bulk of business destinations. People in the service industry aren’t likely to be taking a jet or a train to the Bay Area on business.
And as Scotty notes, our highest density is still close in. http://tinyurl.com/2adc8h7
If you’re leaving from downtown, JK, you don’t really need to worry about parking–just leave the car at home. It’s notably simpler to get downtown, at least from within the City of Portland, then to get out to the airport.
A most appropriate quote for this thread:
“a mile of road or rail takes you exactly one mile, while a mile of runway takes you anywhere in the world.”
Thanks
JK
You’re exactly right, JK, which is why we should try to free those runways of regional trips and leave them available for the really long-distance flights where air travel is the most useful.
Of course, last I heard, PDX decided it don’t need another runway for many years and stopped planning for one.
Thanks
JK
A mile of runway only takes you to wherever there is another runway. Then, assuming you don’t want to walk, roads and/or rails are needed to go beyond the airport.
Yeah. Airports don’t really get you anywhere you need to go. But they make for fantastic shortcuts along the way.
In the FWIW column: my wife & I both have low six digits in our respective frequent flyer accounts but we’re finding ourselves less and less likely to be going to the airport in favor of Amtrak and occasionally Greyhound. It’s just not worth the hassle except for the longest trips or when time is paramount.
Right now, Ruth is on a Coast Starlight trip to SFO. She’s also taken Amtrak to Nevada and the midwest within the past year as well as the Cascades north.
The point is that rail is a real alternative, but the amount and nature of subsidies is open to debate.
How much of Amtrak subsidies are because the lack of economies of scale? For example, a small-town depot (Salem, for example) that is staffed much of the day but doesn’t have that many trains?
Plus, airlines have the luxury of having everyone go the full distance. Amtrak, meanwhile, may have a peak in use along a route, but may not be able to fill those seats on 100% of the other portions of the route. Now, they can add and remove cars from the train, but that costs money (given work, legal rules I don’t think its cheap to do).
Jason McHuff Says: How much of Amtrak subsidies are because the lack of economies of scale?
JK:
How many Amtrak lines turn an operating profit?
How many turn a profit INCLUDING amortized construction costs?
How many HSR (world wide) turn a profit INCLUDING amortized construction costs?
Thanks
JK
How many Amtrak lines turn an operating profit?
The NE Corridor Acela lines are very profitable, JK.
And the trains are generally full–if Amtrak wanted, they could be even more profitable by charging higher fares.
But how many highways are profitable? I-5 generates very little revenue (the only direct revenue I can think of is weight-mile tax paid by trucks using it); yet it still exists.
These things are public goods. They’re not expected to turn a profit–the public benefits from their existence and therefore it is not reasonable for them to be subsidized.
Oh, and airlines seem to go bankrupt all the time…
“therefore it is not reasonable”
Therefore it is not _un_reasonable. :-)
Dang double negatives. :)
But how many highways are profitable?
And let’s exclude gas taxes seeing that if they went first to oil defense, pollution cleanup, health effects and other things actually related to oil use there would probably be nothing left for roads.
Now Amtrak does use fuel, too, but I believe it is pretty efficient on a per-seat basis (which is what one rider actually uses), meaning that it would be less affected by those costs. And trains can easily be powered by electricity or other sources.
Jason McHuff Says: And let’s exclude gas taxes seeing that if they went first to oil defense, pollution cleanup, health effects and other things actually related to oil use there would probably be nothing left for roads.
JK: Lets NOT because that is simply not true. Unless you want to claim that the US would let the rest of the world’s oil supply get cut off or tripled in price. As to the health canard, busses are far dirtier than cars.
See: http://www.seattleweekly.com/diversions/0322/diversions-bus.php
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/big_rig_cleanup/rolling-smokestacks-cleaning-up-americas-trucks-and-buses.html
Jason McHuff Says: Now Amtrak does use fuel, too, but I believe it is pretty efficient on a per-seat basis (which is what one rider actually uses), meaning that it would be less affected by those costs.
JK: Table 2.10 from The Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 25 – 2006, a publication prepared for the U.S. department of energy by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory shows Amtrak at 2935 BTU/passenger-mile.
At 123,976 Btu/gallon & 2.2 people per car, this would be like driving a car that got 19 mpg highway. (If you want to credit empty seats as having some value, don’t forget that most cars seat around 5 people and cars may actually have an average load factor higher than transit.)
Jason McHuff Says: And trains can easily be powered by electricity or other sources.
JK: And cars can easily be powered by electricity or other sources. Currently you can get cars powered by gas, natural gas, electric, and propane(?).
Thanks
JK
At 123,976 Btu/gallon & 2.2 people per car
Um, sure… if someone isn’t taking the train or plane, they’ll round up an additional 1.2 people to ensure they get good energy efficiency? Not likely.
Table 2.10 from The Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 25 – 2006
They’re up to Edition 29 – 2010. Here’s the link:
http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/index.shtml
In the current edition “Table 2.10” is actually “Fuel Consumption from Lawn and Garden Equipment”, so obviously that has changed. I’m going to assume you meant what is now Table 2.12, “Passenger Travel and Energy Use”, which shows Amtrak at 2,398 BTU per passenger-mile. (If you can’t provide links to data, best to cite both a table number AND title in case the edition has changed.)
But that table shows ALL of Amtrak, including the low-performing “social service” routes which are maintained at the behest of various governments to prop up rural areas. Whether or not those should exist is an entirely separate debate from Acela and HSR which is what this argument used to be about, just a few comments ago.
This constant pivoting on tangents while abandoning the previous line of argument is neither intellectually rigorous, nor productive. You’re changing the nature of the argument in the middle of defending your position.
But really, JK, this has gone on far enough. This is a pro-transit, pro-planning blog. We’re here to talk about ideas in a pro-transit, pro-planning context. You’ve stated and restated your dissenting views plenty of times, and have been given plenty of opportunities in hundreds of threads. Time to move on from this one.
[Moderator: Lengthy protest about ignoring warnings and freedom of the press removed. This is not your press, JK. This is a moderated discussion and when you’re asked to drop a particular tired, oft-repeated argument, you drop it. That doesn’t make you a victim of government censorship. You have your own numerous web sites where, I must remind you yet again, you practice 100% censorship of other views by not permitting any comments whatsoever. You’re already the #1 outside commenter on this entire site. This is a conversation of guests, and you don’t get to dominate any thread you choose. This thread is closed to you now. Blogs about evolutionary biology don’t have to have “intelligent design” debates in every thread either. – Bob R.]
Thanks for showing JK the door.