"Trains are for Tourists"

[Neil_M]

Sure the TGV isn't supposed to move freight... that's not his point. More likely he's saying it should move more people farther to make up for the lack.

But that is just very stupid. Move people further? I want to got to Lyon, but you make me go to Marseille? I don't get your argument.

France has a few large cities and lots of empty spaces in between. The TGV connects nearly all of those large places together very quickly. That's the whole point and it does it very well.

The whole freight debate is utter nonsense anyway, with up to a 3 min spacing between trains and night time for inspection and maintenance there simply is not the space anyway.

As for ridership, last year saw 98 million passengers use TGV services, surely they cant all be tourists? Can they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV#Ridership

http://www.sncf.com/resources/fr_FR/press/...02_20090212.pdf

 

[volkris]

But that is just very stupid. Move people further? I want to got to Lyon, but you make me go to Marseille? I don't get your argument.

Hey, it's HIS argument, not mine. I'm not agreeing with O'Toole, necessarily, only interested in seeing where it goes.

France has a few large cities and lots of empty spaces in between. The TGV connects nearly all of those large places together very quickly. That's the whole point and it does it very well.The whole freight debate is utter nonsense anyway, with up to a 3 min spacing between trains and night time for inspection and maintenance there simply is not the space anyway.

None of that really matters as per his argument. He is saying that we've spent a similar amount on our interstate system as they spent on their TGV, adjusted for population, and yet our interstate system moves more people and more freight, again, adjusted for population.

It's equivalent to saying that every person in the US bought into our system for $5, and every person in France bought into their system for $5, but that each American got 13 beans (and some...peas?) while each Frenchman got only 1 bean and no peas.

There are big problems with his argument. For one, it doesn't seem to take into account recurring costs like maintenance and upkeep. For another, it doesn't consider scalability. But on its face it's a valid point.

As for ridership, last year saw 98 million passengers use TGV services, surely they cant all be tourists? Can they?

Well it's a puzzle. I assume that means 98 million rides, some number of which were from the 65 million natives. Each native rode 300 miles... well if you start guessing some numbers you might be able to estimate how many passengers were tourists and how many were citizens. Then again, maybe someone traveling across the country would generally be considered a tourist anyway even within his own country. *shrug*

This page, which I found through wikipedia, paints a rather dismal picture of the usefulness of the train as well, saying that it accounted for less than 10% of distance traveled.

But again, there are certainly different ways of judging the value of the trains, and one isn't necessarily better than another.

 

[Neil_M]

Well it's a puzzle. I assume that means 98 million rides, some number of which were from the 65 million natives. Each native rode 300 miles... well if you start guessing some numbers you might be able to estimate how many passengers were tourists and how many were citizens. Then again, maybe someone traveling across the country would generally be considered a tourist anyway even within his own country. *shrug*
This page, which I found through wikipedia, paints a rather dismal picture of the usefulness of the train as well, saying that it accounted for less than 10% of distance traveled.

But again, there are certainly different ways of judging the value of the trains, and one isn't necessarily better than another.

I would assume that the 98 million passengers counts 1 outward trip as one passenger and a return journey as another passenger...

The French do tend to holiday in their own country, so do the many thousands of people travelling during the ski season or off to the coast in the summer count as "tourists"?

And anyway, once the railway is built, does it really matter what nationality the person is who slaps his money down for a ticket to travel?

The car usage does not surprise me, there are many small towns and villages in rural France that have zero public transport, car is the only way to get about.

 

[p&sr]

He's not complaining that the line doesn't see freight; he's saying that not only does the line not transport people as far, it doesn't move ANY freight at all.

That's like comparing Bicycles with Airplanes. Not only does a typical bike ride NOT go as far as a typical plane flight, but the bike actually doesn't FLY at all!

Of COURSE the rail lines in France do not transport people as far as the American Interstate Highways are capable of. I would guess that is because the U.S. is a bigger place than Europe, as far as travel distance goes... This would still be true even if the TGV were Totally Dedicated to Freight, and passengers were prohibited. (After all, everybody knows that Freight is an "economic benefit". People apparently aren't allowed to be a benefit, they just sit around and never contribute anything to the Economy like by making things or doing things or buying or selling things or going places for important and productive purposes...)

The lack of freight means that the cost effectiveness, as he proposes to measure it, is even lower.

And the lack of flying proves that bicycles, as I propose to measure them, are completely useless. So what if people enjoy them or consider them practical?

If the natives aren't riding, but the trains are full, then that pretty much leaves tourists, right?

Everybody knows that tourism is way down now. So if tourist aren't riding, but the trains are full, then that pretty much leaves locals, right?

Maybe France and Japan are happy to do non-cost effective things...

The problem with "cost-effectiveness" is that it always considers the cost but NEVER seems to consider the benefit! What should be a measure of relative efficiency is used only as an axe against projects considered "too expensive".

 

[p&sr]

It's equivalent to saying that every person in the US bought into our system for $5, and every person in France bought into their system for $5, but that each American got 13 beans (and some...peas?) while each Frenchman got only 1 bean and no peas.

The Frenchman got what he bargained for, and is content. The American has to hire a team of bean-counters, who eat up half his beans. Then he wonders what to do with all those leftover beans, which he never wanted anyway and has no use for.

The peas he will use to hire a satisfaction-analyst to inform him as to why he is not content with the bargain.

 

[George Harris]

Here's the core of his argument:

Japan and France have each spent as much per capita on high-speed rail as we spent on our Interstate Highway System. The average American travels 4,000 miles and ships 2,000 ton-miles per year on the interstates. Yet the average resident of Japan travels only 400 miles per year on bullet trains, while the average resident of France goes less than 300 miles per year on the TGV

He's saying that so far the interstate highway system has been far more cost effective, in terms of miles traveled and freight shipped per dollar spent on infrastructure, than high speed rail in Japan and France. I take exception with his use of the term "elite", as he didn't present much backing for that claim, but then you guys aren't exactly countering his argument by saying "I saw lots of non-tourists that time I rode!"

It is essentially a "straw man" arguement where he plays with the statistics to make them support his position. A lot, if not the overwhelming majority of the trips on the US Interstate system are very short. Short train trips do not exist on the TGV or Shinkansen. Instead, if by rail they are on other lines. It is also worth remembering the differences in size between these countries and the US. The other end of the tirp scale, the cross country drive, has a lot fewer miles in France or Japan than it would in the US, which also serves to reduce the trip length on these systems.

Put it another way: In a previous life, I drove about 12 miles a day five days a week on an interstate numbered highway in an urban area, plus about twice a year drove about 800 miles on an interstate numbered highway. That gets to 3,800 miles which is really close to the 4,000 miles per year. If I were doing all these trips by rail, the local commute would not be on the TGV/Shinkansen systems, but a local commuter system. There is 3,000 miles of the 3,800 miles. And, a 400 mile trip in one direction could put you outside the country from most places in France, so even if by rail it would not be on the LGV tracks but in part on somebody else's tracks.

As has been said, Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

 

[Neil_M]

And, a 400 mile trip in one direction could put you outside the country from most places in France, so even if by rail it would not be on the LGV tracks but in part on somebody else's tracks.

Just about. Paris to Marseille is 489 miles, Paris to Nice is about 700, Paris to Lille is 142 (the channel tunnel another 60 on that) Paris to Strasbourg is 300.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

What the heck? The man is simply an neanderthal utilizing an outdated concept that was proven wrong time and time again. The world needs regulation. Unless things move with an overall plan and goal for the human enterprise, too many people controlling the reins send the human enterprise off onto a rock.

Which is where we are now.

Maybe if this didn't happen every single bloody time we deregulated, I might pay a tiny bit more attention to the concept as a valid hypothesis. But every time we do it, within about 10 years SMASH! our economy is back on the rocks. Track records mean something, even if people tend to ignore them.

 

[George Harris]

What the heck? The man is simply an neanderthal utilizing an outdated concept that was proven wrong time and time again. The world needs regulation.

NOT. Probably too political for the forum and I should ignore it, but:

If you want it, you are welcome, but so far as I am concerned, the less regulation the better in most fields. We have way too much in most areas already.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

What the heck? The man is simply an neanderthal utilizing an outdated concept that was proven wrong time and time again. The world needs regulation.

NOT. Probably too political for the forum and I should ignore it, but:

If you want it, you are welcome, but so far as I am concerned, the less regulation the better in most fields. We have way too much in most areas already.

Let us agree to disagree, Mr. Harris.

 

[volkris]

It's not that much of a straw man argument. You may say that high speed rail doesn't compete with interstates but rather with flight, but in reality it often is a choice between funding interstates and HSR. O'Toole's comparison is reasonable in that case.

While it's true that France is a smaller country so we wouldn't expect each individual to rack up as many miles, that also means they shouldn't have had to pay as much to lay the track in the first place. The population is denser, which should have been another advantage in this cost vs use analysis.

So O'Toole's argument remains: when we look to decide between spending money on interstate expansion vs spending it on high speed rail we should consider that we've gotten more bank for our buck on interstates than either France or Japan has gotten on high speed rail.

 

[birdy]

Well, I don't think you can address the issue by the overall efficiency of any individual mode of transportation.

If that is the metric then Cato guy could just as easily argue: "Studies show that bicycles are by far the most efficient way of moving a human being. With just a tiny fraction of one horsepower, a man can be propelled at one third the speed of an automobile at highway speed. Therefore, subsidizing a wasteful form of transportation such as highways is bad policy. Chairman Mao had the right idea. Millions of bicycles and low-speed rail transit only."

Or only slightly less absurdly: "Air transport is wasteful. We should have only highway and low speed rail transport. They are demonstrably more efficient ways to move both human beings and freight" and: "disproportionate numbers of airline seats are occupied by tourists compared to highway usage. (true) ergo, government support of aviation is wasteful."

As to his observation that TGVs are tourist trains, I guess that's a matter of opinion--if you are delusional. I suppose he would be entitled to his opinion that Moscow is warm in January, too.

His assertion that TGV is less fuel efficient than air or automobile is, well, false.

These Cato guys always have a blind spot when it comes to the operation of markets. The facts are:

1. HSR is being built all over the world at an accelerating pace. i.e. the systems are being purchased at great expense by governments of every type of political persuasion. Instead of listening to the markets, the Cato guys turn their backs on the verdict of the markets and simply go into denial mode: The purchasers of the systems are fools.

2. HSR kills air transport at distances up to about 350 miles. That is a fact. Even rinky-dinky Acela has captured almost 2/3 of the NE corridor market. When it goes against his ideas, Cato man ignores the verdict of the markets, or makes a comparison to an almost completely different market. Comparing the market for PCs to he market for Macs is meaningful. Comparing the market for PCs to the market for pen and paper is not. The only meaningful market competition for HSR is short-haul airlines, period. The fact is, HSR competes so well with shot-haul air transport that it appears to have some effect on auto traffic at the margin, but that's not the measure of the usefulness of the system.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Like LA to NY will never be a viable train route to beat flying,

I'm unconvinced. There doesn't seem to be any solid evidence that trains will never be as fast as typical jet airplanes, and even if trains never go faster than 220 MPH, if a roomette on an overnight train that covers 95% of the miles at 220 MPH sells for the same amount of money as a coach seat on a plane, I suspect many travelers will prefer the roomette.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Just laziness on the part of NPR. They want to have balanced programing, so they get a random Cato guy on to say whatever he wants, without checking facts such as: "110mph for train" I've searched all over for any definitive statement, and president Obama always seems to talk in terms of true HSR. To be sure there is a lot of grass roots support for 110 mph, but its not official policy, just supposition of Cato guy.

The NARP newsletter I recieved a few days ago has discussion of the ``high speed'' economic stimulus stuff being 110 MPH.

 

[jackal]

Like LA to NY will never be a viable train route to beat flying,

I'm unconvinced. There doesn't seem to be any solid evidence that trains will never be as fast as typical jet airplanes, and even if trains never go faster than 220 MPH, if a roomette on an overnight train that covers 95% of the miles at 220 MPH sells for the same amount of money as a coach seat on a plane, I suspect many travelers will prefer the roomette.

There might be some, but I don't think "many" is the right word.

I was going to draw a comparison between long-distance service in Europe, but to get comparable mileage as LAX-BOS, you need to do something wild like Lisbon to Moscow. Unfortunately, such long trips aren't easily bookable on any of the European rail ticket engines, although DB's site can get you schedule information:

http://bahn.hafas.de/ (Input Lisbon Oriente to Moscow and pick a random set of dates)

The fastest journeys take 60 hours--that's only about eight hours faster than Amtrak's connection from the SWC to the LSL. Amtrak has the advantage, though: one connection in SEA vs a minimum of four connections (and up to 9, some of which aren't easy--riding the Metro in Paris to connect from Gare Montparnasse to Gare de l'Est: makes BOS to BON look easy!).

So, given that ticketing is so hard (you can't buy through tickets on the DB site for that routing), and given the number of changes, it's not a fair comparison. However, even if there were a hotel train that spanned the entire route, I highly doubt you'd see high through usage when so many low-cost airline alternatives exist. Unfortunately, I can't use it as a data point because I'll bet you NO ONE would do a crazy routing like what you'd have to do to get that distance!

So it's hard to test your theory without expensive experimentation...

 

[volkris]

At the risk of being quote happy...

If that is the metric then Cato guy could just as easily argue: "Studies show that bicycles are by far the most efficient way of moving a human being.

That's why he calculated distance traveled per cost. I think it's safe to say that transportation is about moving people and things, so considering the amount of people and things moved is pretty reasonable.

Or only slightly less absurdly: "Air transport is wasteful. We should have only highway and low speed rail transport. They are demonstrably more efficient ways to move both human beings and freight" and: "disproportionate numbers of airline seats are occupied by tourists compared to highway usage. (true) ergo, government support of aviation is wasteful."

You do realize that the first half of his thing had nothing to do with fuel efficiency, right? Anyway, feel free to post your own stats doing a similar comparison between air travel and investment. I'm not really sure how that would come out.

Also, you guys are really focused on his use of the word tourist when that wasn't nearly the focus of the analysis. The tourist charge was an implication of the argument, not a premise.

His assertion that TGV is less fuel efficient than air or automobile is, well, false.

He made no such assertion. He said that in the coming years the fuel efficiency of cars and planes will continue to increase, closing the gap.

1. HSR is being built all over the world at an accelerating pace.2. HSR kills air transport at distances up to about 350 miles.

1. Ahh, the old bandwagon argument. Shall we jump off that bridge before seeing what's below?

2. O'Toole didn't say otherwise. He only questioned whether the investment required to GET to that point was worth it, which is a fair question.

I'm sorry, but you guys seem to be letting your support for rail blind you to the arguments of those who question it. It's one thing to disagree with evidence--even disagree silently!--but I'm seeing a lot of people here who read what they wanted in this essay instead of what O'Toole actually said.

I'm unconvinced. There doesn't seem to be any solid evidence that trains will never be as fast as typical jet airplanes, and even if trains never go faster than 220 MPH, if a roomette on an overnight train that covers 95% of the miles at 220 MPH sells for the same amount of money as a coach seat on a plane, I suspect many travelers will prefer the roomette.

Physics starts to get you as you try to run faster and faster. The air just doesn't get out of the way fast enough at ground level. That's an advantage planes have that trains just can't match, and, in my mind at least, whether trains can use their other advantages to catch up is still an open question.

Also, it's not as if air travel is standing still either, even though the advancements aren't coming as quickly as they used to.

 

[AlanB]

I'm sorry, but you guys seem to be letting your support for rail blind you to the arguments of those who question it. It's one thing to disagree with evidence--even disagree silently!--but I'm seeing a lot of people here who read what they wanted in this essay instead of what O'Toole actually said.

Volkris,

I for one respect all that you've said in your various posts, and I always read thing put out by the opposition simply because it is a good idea to know what they're talking about, be it right or wrong.

The problem here, and specifically in your paragraph above is the word evidence. As I noted back on the first page in post #13, Cato is well known for massaging and looking for the spin on the evidence or statistics that prove their point. Like that stat that I quoted about how less people are now carried by mass transit in Portland. They make no mention what so ever of how much Portland's population has increased during the time frame presented, because that would make that true stat useless. They only tell you enough to make things look damming for the rail project.

I haven't gone looking at the numbers for this current article, but I'm sure some where in there a hole big enough to drive a truck through can be found. There's something that they did, something left out, or a certain number of years were sampled, to make the data come out the way it did. Someone looking hard enough with access to the raw data would be able to find something that either invalidates the entire thing or at least makes it irrelevant in the light of the actual numbers.

I'm not suggesting that they deliberately altered the numbers to fit their premise and are lying, but again there is without a doubt something that is missing, something left unsaid that changes the perspective once it's been found.

 

[George Harris]

I was going to draw a comparison between long-distance service in Europe, but to get comparable mileage as LAX-BOS, you need to do something wild like Lisbon to Moscow. Unfortunately, such long trips aren't easily bookable on any of the European rail ticket engines, although DB's site can get you schedule information:
http://bahn.hafas.de/ (Input Lisbon Oriente to Moscow and pick a random set of dates)

The fastest journeys take 60 hours--that's only about eight hours faster than Amtrak's connection from the SWC to the LSL. Amtrak has the advantage, though: one connection in SEA vs a minimum of four connections (and up to 9, some of which aren't easy--riding the Metro in Paris to connect from Gare Montparnasse to Gare de l'Est: makes BOS to BON look easy!).

Moscow - Lisbon involves travel in six different countries over the same number of different national railroad systems with two changes of track gauge as well as multiple changes of trains.

Los Angeles to Boston is all within one country, involves tracks of only three railroad companies (BNSF, NS, CSX). Plus, the companies and their predecessors have worked with interchange agreements for over a century.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Volkins, cars are quaint antiques, a paean to an outdated and unrealistic idea called personal mobility. In 50 years, nobody will drive cars. Few people will fly. It will simply be too expensive to fuel or build them.

Either

1) we make them so fuel efficient that they can be ran, but due to the exotic materials thus required, they cost too much to buy and are not particularly durable

2) we make them reasonably affordable, but they will cost too much to run.

If we invest in rail transpiration now, people might be able to travel with some degree of frequency. If not, we will simply lose the ability to move about the way we have for the past hundred years or so.

Cato is looking at things through the perspective that cars will equal the efficiency of a train? Bullcrap. There is no way a car could ever approach the efficiency of a train along the lines of NJ Transit's 12 car bi-level monsters. 12 "Multi-Level" cars, as NJT calls them, can hold 1920 people in seats, and countless more standing - easily 2500. If it takes a gallon of oil to generate the electricity that train uses up to move a mile, I'd be surprised. If it takes more than 3 I'd be astonished.

Given my most dismal prediction of performance, that train is getting getting 833 passenger miles for every gallon of oil it consumes. The best car on the U.S. Market is the Mercedes/Dodge/Freightliner Sprinter, and it gets 250 passenger miles to the gallon. The best 5 passenger sedan on the market, the Fusion Hybrid, gets (the Prius can't hold 5 people in any degree of comfort) gets about 200 passenger miles to the gallon.

Now then, do you really think we can possibly dream of making 5-passenger sedans FOUR TIMES as efficient as the very best we produce currently are?

The efficiency statistics people quote have a lot to do with underfunding and certain transit companies tendencies to send commuter trains out with full compliments of cars at the most lax periods of the day, only opening and running one or two of them.

Our trains aren't close to maximizing their efficiency potential. Fact of the matter is, until the past 2 to three years, nobody even tried.

Investing money in the automobile and its infrastructure is about as pointful as eating it.

 

[jackal]

I was going to draw a comparison between long-distance service in Europe, but to get comparable mileage as LAX-BOS, you need to do something wild like Lisbon to Moscow. Unfortunately, such long trips aren't easily bookable on any of the European rail ticket engines, although DB's site can get you schedule information:
http://bahn.hafas.de/ (Input Lisbon Oriente to Moscow and pick a random set of dates)

The fastest journeys take 60 hours--that's only about eight hours faster than Amtrak's connection from the SWC to the LSL. Amtrak has the advantage, though: one connection in SEA vs a minimum of four connections (and up to 9, some of which aren't easy--riding the Metro in Paris to connect from Gare Montparnasse to Gare de l'Est: makes BOS to BON look easy!).

Moscow - Lisbon involves travel in six different countries over the same number of different national railroad systems with two changes of track gauge as well as multiple changes of trains.

Los Angeles to Boston is all within one country, involves tracks of only three railroad companies (BNSF, NS, CSX). Plus, the companies and their predecessors have worked with interchange agreements for over a century.

Right, that was kinda my point.

Initially, I was going to try to make the argument that despite a fast and functional rail system, air travel still reigned supreme for longer journeys. Unfortunately, no matter which way I tried to look at it, you just can't do in Europe what you can do on America's long distance trains.

Therefore, I couldn't even make the comparison, because cross-continent rail travel in Europe is filled with so much more hassle than it is here. (However, even if you could easily book an easy two-segment train from Lisbon to Moscow, I still think air travel would hold the edge, but alas, there's no data to back that claim up since that system doesn't exist.)

As far as integration and ease of use, I'm beginning to form the opinion that Amtrak is almost the lone example of a good, if limited, system.

Oh, and I think it's more than six countries, by my count (if I'm remembering the route correctly): Portugal, Spain, France, Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Poland, Belarus, and then Russia. But now I'm just being pedantic...

 

[Neil_M]

As far as integration and ease of use, I'm beginning to form the opinion that Amtrak is almost the lone example of a good, if limited, system.

Well, it is a lot easier if its just one country........

How many rail links are there into Canada or Mexico?!

It is getting a lot easier to book across Europe,the new HSLs make it that way anyway.

The other thing its easy to forget is the huge distances trains travel in the US, West Coast to Chicago is about 2400 miles and Chicago to New York is 1000 or so.

London to Nice is 1000 miles and you can do that with one easy change in Lille or a cross city change in Paris, takes around 8 to 9 hours. 3400 miles takes you an awful long way away from London, probably somewhere in Africa.

I use the DB office in South West London for my travel needs and even with my staff discounts they are very good and always come up with the goods, normally email them on day 1 and the tickets are with me on day 2.

 

[George Harris]

Volkins, cars are quaint antiques, a paean to an outdated and unrealistic idea called personal mobility. In 50 years, nobody will drive cars. Few people will fly. It will simply be too expensive to fuel or build them.

I probably won't be around in 50 years to see if this is a true statement or not, however I have my doubts. Why?

It may be a true statement for dense urban areas, but it is not a universal truth. There are many parts of this country and the world where if you want mobility it has got to be by a vehicle you own, unless you have the time and energy for very long walks. Whether that vehicle is a car, motorcycle, bicycle, or something that has not yet been invented, if you do not intend to walk everywhere, you better have your own conveyance.

Right now I live and work in the middle of San Francisco and do not have a car here. Why? For the simple reason that I can walk to work, to the nearest grocery, and to the closest restaurants, my dentist, and bank. The city and area also have a very comprehensive public transportation system which I use regularly to do such things as visit doctor, other stores and locations not in walking distance. If none of the above work, then I can walk a half block down the street and rent a car, whcih works out to be far cheaper than owning one for occasional use.

If I go back to where I grew up, the story is entirely different. There, if I want to do any of the above, I had better have a car, because the nearest anything commercial is around 2 miles away, and for some things I am looking at 12 to 15 miles away.

What is wrong is to see the many people squandering fuel to go between places that are easily accessible by public transportation, and there is plenty of that right here in San Fran.

 

[Neil_M]

What is wrong is to see the many people squandering fuel to go between places that are easily accessible by public transportation, and there is plenty of that right here in San Fran.

Spot on. SF was the first place I visited in the US and despite my impressions of the US as a public transport desert I was impressed with the system there. As you say, using a car there is not a very good thing to do.

 

[henryj]

Volkins, cars are quaint antiques, a paean to an outdated and unrealistic idea called personal mobility. In 50 years, nobody will drive cars. Few people will fly. It will simply be too expensive to fuel or build them.

Investing money in the automobile and its infrastructure is about as pointful as eating it.

These are some of the most ignorant statements I have ever seen posted on here. The automobile or 'personal mobility device' is the most revolutionary device ever invented by man and there is no way it is going to disapear. It will get more efficient but it aint going away. The farmer still has to get to market and to town. The suburdanite still has to get to the grocery store and take the kids to school. You people that live in these big cities and don't own cars think that is the norm. Well it's not. Public rail based transportation will help us get to work perhaps, but it will never become a personal transportation vehicle. Highspeed rail is enormously expensive and will only work in heavily populated short distance markets. In the vast hinterland that is America it will have little impact. What is much more likely is that people will work from their homes and connect electronically with each other. Meetings will be over the internet. Inovations such as this will affect air travel more than any other means. But, you still have to fly to get to Europe. You can't ride a bicycle to London from New York. Dude.

 

[birdy]

At the risk of being quote happy...

If that is the metric then Cato guy could just as easily argue: "Studies show that bicycles are by far the most efficient way of moving a human being.

That's why he calculated distance traveled per cost. I think it's safe to say that transportation is about moving people and things, so considering the amount of people and things moved is pretty reasonable.

Or only slightly less absurdly: "Air transport is wasteful. We should have only highway and low speed rail transport. They are demonstrably more efficient ways to move both human beings and freight" and: "disproportionate numbers of airline seats are occupied by tourists compared to highway usage. (true) ergo, government support of aviation is wasteful."

You do realize that the first half of his thing had nothing to do with fuel efficiency, right? Anyway, feel free to post your own stats doing a similar comparison between air travel and investment. I'm not really sure how that would come out.

Also, you guys are really focused on his use of the word tourist when that wasn't nearly the focus of the analysis. The tourist charge was an implication of the argument, not a premise.

His assertion that TGV is less fuel efficient than air or automobile is, well, false.

He made no such assertion. He said that in the coming years the fuel efficiency of cars and planes will continue to increase, closing the gap.

1. HSR is being built all over the world at an accelerating pace.2. HSR kills air transport at distances up to about 350 miles.

1. Ahh, the old bandwagon argument. Shall we jump off that bridge before seeing what's below?

2. O'Toole didn't say otherwise. He only questioned whether the investment required to GET to that point was worth it, which is a fair question.

I'm sorry, but you guys seem to be letting your support for rail blind you to the arguments of those who question it. It's one thing to disagree with evidence--even disagree silently!--but I'm seeing a lot of people here who read what they wanted in this essay instead of what O'Toole actually said.

I'm unconvinced. There doesn't seem to be any solid evidence that trains will never be as fast as typical jet airplanes, and even if trains never go faster than 220 MPH, if a roomette on an overnight train that covers 95% of the miles at 220 MPH sells for the same amount of money as a coach seat on a plane, I suspect many travelers will prefer the roomette.

Physics starts to get you as you try to run faster and faster. The air just doesn't get out of the way fast enough at ground level. That's an advantage planes have that trains just can't match, and, in my mind at least, whether trains can use their other advantages to catch up is still an open question.

Also, it's not as if air travel is standing still either, even though the advancements aren't coming as quickly as they used to.

Well, the problem is that Cato guy as a Libertarian purports to be a proponent of market reality. But when the experiential facts don't support his suppositions he dispenses with reality and markets in favor of fantasy and impliedly, command and control economics.

For example, his assertion that many more people use cars than HSR is true. The problem is that its a stupid observation. Airlines are also elite by this observation. No one would argue that having airlines is bad public policy. His assertion that highways are unsubsidized is untrue, unless one takes into account the network effect (or ripple effects) of a modern highway system. And Libertarians pooh pooh any accounting of network effects as so much pie in the sky.

HSR is much more fuel efficient than either cars or planes, costing about $1 per hour per passenger in fuel. Cato guy's response is to this is magical thinking--cars will be much more efficient in the future then the wheel will turn.

As far as your pejorative argument regarding "bandwagon" thinking, this is also called "market based" thinking. Purchasers of these systems have many options for public investment. They choose HSR. If you deride this mode of thinking, may I sell you stock for 30% over today's closing price? Its true that other market participants believe that they are not worth 30% over today's price, but why get on the bandwagon?

No, Cato guy didn't compare HSR to short-haul air transport. He compared it to the interstate highway system, which is at best ignorant, and at worst disingenuous. That's the problem.

If you hold yourself out to be a think tank, you have an obligation to be intellectually honest and informed about what you are doing. If you are a think tank with a point of view--ostensibly hard-headed Libertarianism--you have an obligation to stay true to your beliefs. So I will make the Libertarian argument for him:

1. These things are really expensive--about as expensive per mile as a new highway.

2. Environmental benefits are overblown. Lots of enviromental detriments to having a train move through town on completely grade separated crossings.

3. Carbon savings are there, but at the cost of other environmental detriments. Is it worth building a whole new mode of transportation to get these marginal benefits? besides, technology might make autos more benign.

4. We are Libertarians. Cost causers should be cost payers. The market will provide. Privatize roads, airports and rail and let the chips fall where they may.