During the state of the union address Obama proselytized for more light rail. Modern rail projects are a proven economic failure and Amtrak wouldn’t exist for 10 minutes if the government wasn’t subsidizing every single ticket. Some rail posts from the past:
- Everything You Need to Know About Mass Transit – “There are just two problems with mass transit. Nobody uses it, and it costs like hell.”
- U.S. utilizies rail for freight more than Europe – Light rail advocates love tsk-tsking Americans for not riding trains as often as the Europeans. They seem to be unaware that we ship more freight by rail than Europe.
- Another fine example of a modern rail project – Whenever someone suggests building a new passenger rail line the immediate response should be “why not just use buses?”
- California attempts to build world’s most *optimistic* commuter rail – Modern commuter rail projects seem to be triumphs of hope over experience, and this is a crowning example.
- Local Rail Revisited in Light of High Gas Prices? – I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone say it, so I will. Trains are similar to circuit-switched phone systems, where only one caller can use a line at a time. Buses are more like packet-switched phone systems (or the Internet), where multiple calls or data packets are interspersed for more efficient use of the system.
RSS Posts Feed
It’s a tricky situation. For 6 years I took a regional commuter train about 25 miles into Seattle. I can’t really defend the subsidy, but given the price of gas parking, and the hours it would take to drive round trip, each train carried 800 people * 5 trains each way.
It’s also really nice for getting to sporting events where downtown parking costs $50 for the day.
This particular line ran on BNSF owned rail ways. Who knows what that cost to “rent”.
I think the commuter math should simply be: what is it worth to keep 4000 off of I-5 each day? I realize it’s fuzzy territory to prove this, but in theory you may be able to trade road improvements for increased mass transit capacity.
Today I’m working equally far, but in a different end of town. The bus is “ok”, but that big diesel train moving @ 70mph with 110v AC outlets, wifi and restrooms sure was nice when I had it.
The buses and trains are all packed where I work and live. I have no idea who is paying how much, but the stuff is used.
There’s no doubt there are a lot of places where rail lines make sense (though even then they tend to be heavily subsidized).
The question is marginal: will the next rail line make sense? And does making it high speed make the proposition better or worse? Follow the link to that story on California’s high speed rail to see how bad their plan for an LA-to-San Fran high speed train is.
Keep in mind automotive traffic is subsidized too. The interstate system for example, was not paid for merely with gas tax receipts. And the Middle East occupations cost money too, not to mention lives.
Nothing government does is pure or virtuous.