Amtrak shut down imminent [Archive]

Tannin

06-21-2002, 08:33 AM

Ahh, now there you have the rub of it. The moment we start to talk about per-passenger costs and shortfalls, we stumble straight into the maze of difficulties that is erected for us by those commentators that either have a barrow to push, or else a non-understanding of economics that beggars belief in an ostensibly educated nation. (Not having a go at the US here, at least not the US in particular, my comment applies in almost equal measure to most of the capitalist world.)

The thing is, the cost of road transport is typically about double that of rail. That's if we use (or mis-use, I should say) the term "cost' in the sense in which it is commonly used - i.e., the ticket price vs the cost of petrol. It is slightly more usefull to define 'cost' as the ticket price plus subsidy vs the cost of petrol plus amortised direct road costs like maintenence, tyres, cost of vechicle, and so on. This may be where the "five times" figure comes from.

But the real cost of anything - and this is Economics 101, really basic stuff - is the sum of the internal costs and the external costs. And this is where we start to see the absolute lunacy of any attempt to claim that road transport is more cost effective than rail. (Yes, yes, there are certain circumstances where it actually is more cost effective, but they do not include transit of city commuters.)

So to get the actual costs, we have to consider:

Direct operating costs:

For road, fuel, tolls, and the like. For rail, fuel, wages, and similar daily expenses.

Indirect operating costs:

For rail, maintence, safety work, training, and replacement of rolling stock. For road, purchase costs, insurance, and the like.

External costs:

For rail: practically nothing. A small amount of land is occupied which could otherwise be used for another purpose (this is an 'opportunity cost'), and it might be claimed that accidents to road users at level crossings is another - though in reality the risk that trains pose to road users is probably far lower than the risk posed by the extra road traffic required to carry that same number of passengers.

For road, the external costs - i.e., the costs directly associated with an enterprise that are not paid for by the users of the service but fall onto the community at large - are enormous. JTR is the expert on this stuff, so I'll leave it to him to give chapter and verse on this, but let me take just one small and oft overlooked example: space.

Have you ever stopped to wonder just how much land in an average city is devoted to pavement? It's reasonable to guess that somewhere upwards of 90% of that pavement is there purely and solely for road traffic. Take that area of prime city land - at a wild guess around 10 to 20% of a typical city - and rent it out. That alone will pay for our "expensive" public transport many times over.

But note well - this cost is never added on to the "cost" of road transport. There are maybe another half dozen major external costs which are not usually calculated, but this one will do to start with.

jtr1962

06-22-2002, 12:31 AM

But the real cost of anything - and this is Economics 101, really basic stuff - is the sum of the internal costs and the external costs. And this is where we start to see the absolute lunacy of any attempt to claim that road transport is more cost effective than rail. (Yes, yes, there are certain circumstances where it actually is more cost effective, but they do not include transit of city commuters.)

When you start to compare the real costs of any form of transport to rail, rail generally wins hands down. I'll do such a comparison here, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each transportation mode:

ROAD

Direct operating costs:
1. fuel
2. vehicle maintainance
3. insurance
4. tolls(pays for right-of-way)
5. parking fees
6. parking and traffic tickets
7. vehicle purchase

Indirect operating costs:
1. medical costs of injuries and deaths caused by uninsured motorists
2. worker productivity lost due to injuries and deaths
3. health costs of pollution on the general population
4. extra cleaning costs associated with pollution
5. structural damage caused by acid rain
6. mental health effects on the general population due to the congestion and noise caused by autos
7. land use for roads that could otherwise be used for housing(~30% of the land in an average city is used for either roads or auto parking)
8. destruction of neighborhoods caused by highways

Advantages:
1. relatively inexpensive to set up, especially in rural areas
2. reasonably high average speed in rural areas
3. door-to-door service with no waiting time

Disadvantages:
1. user must pay for vehicle purchase, maintainance, and insurance
2. large land use for right-of-way
3. greatly decreased speeds with increasing volume(not suited for general high population density use)
4. pollution and it's associated effects
5. time spent driving can't be used for other purposes
6. constant and sometimes severe accelerations induce motion sickness in many people, limit the types of activities that can be performed by passengers
7. very high injury and death rate per passenger mile traveled
8. highest fuel use per passenger mile traveled
9. currently able to use only fossil fuels except for a few specialized vehicles

AIRLINE

Direct operating costs:
1. fuel
2. vehicle maintainance
3. insurance
4. landing fees
5. wages
6. vehicle purchase
7. purchase of land and construction of airports on that land

Indirect operating costs:
1. health costs of pollution on the general population
2. extra cleaning costs associated with pollution
3. structural damage caused by acid rain and vibrations from planes taking off and landing(the area affected by these are huge)
4. damage to the ozone layer
5. land use for airports that could otherwise be used for housing(this is usually prime waterfront real estate)
6. mental health effects on the general population due to the noise made by airplanes
7. worker productivity lost due to injuries and deaths in airline accidents

Advantages:
1. high speed, especially over long distances(>1000 miles)
2. aircraft are relatively spacious, and you can leave your seat once in the air

Disadvantages:
1. large land use for airports
2. aircraft can be hijacked and used as guided missiles, usually with very costly results in terms of property damage and loss of life
3. while more comfortable than autos, the environment on board aircraft is not really conducive to many types of activities
4. pollution and it's associated effects
5. airports are located far from city centers, requiring additional transportation that is usually costly in both time and money
6. constant and sometimes severe accelerations induce motion sickness in many people
7. lower injury and death rate per passenger mile traveled than autos, but most accidents result in near 100% fatalities(low probability, high impact event)
8. high fuel use per passenger mile traveled
9. currently able to use only fossil fuels, and the high energy requirements of aircraft mean that they can likely never be made zero emissions(at least until fusion is invented)
10. wasted time spent at airports due to increased but needed security measures
11. general time spent waiting for next scheduled aircraft
12. high cost of vehicles and airports, and therefore only suitable for medium and high density populations

RAIL

Direct operating costs:
1. fuel(or electricity from power company)
2. vehicle maintainance
3. insurance
4. purchase and construction of right-of-way
5. wages
6. vehicle purchase

Indirect operating costs:
1. pollution costs only if operating diesel trains, electric trains do not pollute
2. land for right-of-way could be used for housing, but note that rail uses the smallest amount of land per passenger per hour, and railways can and are built completely underground in congested areas, thus using zero land.
3. worker productivity lost due to injuries and deaths in train accidents
4. noise made by trains-this is only a factor within a few hundred feet of the line, and generally only for diesel locomotives. The noise is intermittant, unlike the constant car noise near a highway.
5. structural damage caused by vibrations from passing trains(generally only applicable to heavy freight trains, and only relevant near right-of-way)

Advantages:
1. can operate city center to city center, giving the quickest total travel times of any mode for distances of up to 500 miles for state-of-the-art lines
2. lowest fuel use per passenger mile
3. lowest accident rate per passenger mile of any mode(high-speed trains operating on high-speed right-of-ways have not experienced one passenger fatality caused by operational error in over 30 years of operation, although a few from terrorist activity)
4. relatively immune to terrorist activities and trains can't be used to cause collateral damage since a dispatcher can stop an errant train at will(therefore highly invasive security procedures are not needed)
5. lowest land use of any mode of transport, and railways are far less intrusive than roads or airports
6. trains have the smoothest ride of any form of transport and are thus conducive to any activity that one wishes to engage in
7. trains can use electricity from the power grid directly, and can therefore be made zero emission(the total system is zero emission if nuclear, wind, solar, or hydroelectric is used to generate the power)

Disadvantages:
1. sometimes require supplementary transportation at either end of the journey, but often this is only needed for a few miles or less
2. general time spent waiting for next scheduled train
3. high cost of vehicles and rights-of-way, and therefore only suitable for medium and high density populations
4. noise from railways, especially diesel trains(this is generally localized and only of an intermittant nature)

As you can see, I was hard pressed to come up many disadvantages for railways, although I found many for both air and auto. Since most of the disadvantages are associated with diesel trains, I feel that all new lines should be electric only, and most of the existing network should be electrified as well. In Europe and Japan nearly 100% of the railways are electrified for this reason. It is obvious from this analysis that drivers and airline passengers do not pay for many of the costs associated with these modes of transport, and this is, in effect, an indirect subsidy. There are also intangibles. For example, I feel NYC is being taken over by cars, and pedestrians and cyclists are relegated to second class status. Since this is occurring in a city with a wonderful subway system where nobody should even need to own a car, I can only imagine the effects on smaller cities with no subways. Cars as they currently exist are really best suited to rural areas(in fact, they are really the only mode suited to rural areas). In suburban and urban areas, auto use should be restricted to very small battery-powered vehicles used for running errands or traveling to the train stations to go to work. Employers should have transportation available from the local railway station if their place of business is not within walking distance and no public transit alternatives exist. I'll end here for now, but I can literally write a book on this subject.

Prof.Wizard

06-22-2002, 01:21 AM

For example, I feel NYC is being taken over by cars, and pedestrians and cyclists are relegated to second class status. Since this is occurring in a city with a wonderful subway system where nobody should even need to own a car, I can only imagine the effects on smaller cities with no subways. Cars as they currently exist are really best suited to rural areas(in fact, they are really the only mode suited to rural areas). In suburban and urban areas, auto use should be restricted to very small battery-powered vehicles used for running errands or traveling to the train stations to go to work. Employers should have transportation available from the local railway station if their place of business is not within walking distance and no public transit alternatives exist. I'll end here for now, but I can literally write a book on this subject.
I agree with every aspect of your post. Nice stated.

PS. NY is hell with all that traffic!!

Tannin

06-22-2002, 01:46 AM

Thankyou JTR. That was an excellent post. Interesting to see that my wild guess of 10 to 20% urban land use for roads and parking was about 50% too low. And I thought I could get you to give us a neat, carefully researched summary if I just pushed the right buttons. :) Always nice to know that we can rely on someone.

jtr1962

06-22-2002, 02:09 AM

Thankyou JTR. That was an excellent post. Interesting to see that my wild guess of 10 to 20% urban land use for roads and parking was about 50% too low.

I based my estimate on the block where I live. The physical size of the block itself is about 50,000 ft², and the streets associated with it about 18,000 ft², so the percentage here is ~25%, and this is a residential block with relatively narrow streets. You would be hard pressed to find any modern city with only 10 or 20% of the land devoted to roads. I think my estimate may even be on the low side, and there are cities like LA and Dallas where I think upwards of 50% is devoted to roads and parking lots. You should see Queens Blvd(6 lanes in each direction). A waste of space in my book since the 4-track subway line that runs under it can carry about 10 times the number of people per hour, and it produces no pollution and no noise(at least above ground). I recently wrote a letter to the mayor complaining about this, and suggesting that when the highways are scheduled for rebuilding, they should be put underground, with the financing to come from future real estate taxes on the new land. Also, this will eliminate the neighborhoods cut in two by the highways. He hasn't gotten back to me on it yet. :(

Pradeep

06-22-2002, 07:36 AM

jtr1962

06-22-2002, 11:17 AM

Only thing I would have to disagree with is that nuclear energy is "zero-emmision". There is still the nuclear waste to dispose of afterwards, with the associated NIMBY problems, unlike the other sources you mentioned (I won't include flooding a velley for a dam as an emission :) )

Unfortunately, that is true. However, until fusion becomes commercially viable, nuclear power is the next best thing in areas that aren't suited for hydroelectric, wind, or solar. I think new plants should be built to store at least 100 years of waste on site, and hopefully by then it will be cheap enough to launch it into space and send it into the sun for disposal. Every form of energy production is destructive in one way or another. Dams for hydroelectricity cause massive environmental destruction. Just look at what the Three Gorges Dam project is doing in China(relocation of 2 million people and flooding of a few hundred square miles).

I like the potential of geothermal power, but it requires drilling deep holes in the ground, and it's not ready for prime time yet. Methods of harnessing ocean currents, or the temperature differential in oceans are also being talked about. And of course, fusion is always on the horizon, although many people have a standing joke about fusion:"Fusion is the power of the future, and always will be" :lol:

Prof.Wizard

06-22-2002, 12:20 PM

Unfortunately, that is true. However, until fusion becomes commercially viable, nuclear power is the next best thing in areas that aren't suited for hydroelectric, wind, or solar.
Exactly. Most people don't know this unfortunately and are constantly whining of the potential problems of nuclear power. Yeah, it might be dangerous, but modern controls and nuclear power plants don't share the 60s legacy.
I've read a great article about it on Scientific American issue of January 2002:

Next-Generation Nuclear Power
BY JAMES A. LAKE, RALPH G. BENNETT AND JOHN F. KOTEK
Advanced nuclear power plants might be the best way to meet future energy needs without worsening global warming.

NRG = mc²

06-22-2002, 06:24 PM

The reason so many are against use of nuclear stations is because of the Chernobyl crap. To be honest, as long as stations such as these continue to operate in East Europe theres nothing to be afraid of when building new ones in wealthy countries who give a damn about safety - if anything is going to blow, its those Russian/Yugoslavian/Czech/Bulgarian cheapskate reactors which are time bombs ready to explode at any time.

Pradeep

06-22-2002, 07:54 PM

But would you live next to a nuclear power plant yourself?

Prof.Wizard

06-23-2002, 03:23 AM

Near a 21st generation American one?
Sure. Why not?! (this is an honest reply)

Tea

06-23-2002, 05:21 AM

Nuclear power is, essentially, a huge gamble. What you are doing when you fire up a nuclear power plant is saying "I'm going to take the risk of having a truly huge problem for an extremely long time if something goes wrong, in exchange for the knowledge that I'll not have the much smaller but nevertheless serious problem that I will get absolutely and for certain if I fire up a fossil fuel plant".

It's exactly like saying "I'm not going to pay this insurance bill: chances are that I won't have a fire, therefore I'm better off not wasting money in insuring against it." That what nuclear power does: it save the small amount of money (the annual premium, or the carbon produced by a fossil plant) and hopes for the best. Hopes that there is no disaster with the waste products. And just as in my example we risk a total loss from fire with nothing left with which to rebuild, in the case of a nuclear disaster, we risk a truly horrendous problem to which there is no known cure. And in the case of nuclear wastes, we must be confident of not having a "fire" for a quarter of a million years.

That is what is normally described as "a very bad bet".

And yet, because of (a) our absurdly high population and (b) our gross overconsumption of energy, it is a bet we are now forced to make, pretty much whether we like it or not. The increase in fossil fuel consumption has to stop right now, while we still have some kind of remnant of a healthy planet. It's allright for those of you who happen to live in areas which are not afflicted with the results of global warming just yet, but believe me, you are building up some serious resentments in those parts of the world that are bearing the brunt of your incredibly shortsighted and foolish behaviour.

Come back in 30 years, and it won't be the mad arabs and their bombs you mostly have to worry about: it will be people from places like Australia who have had their countries destroyed and no longer have anything to loose. And if you think I'm exaggerating, just take a look at rainfall patterns here over the last 150 years and note the unmistakable evidence of the damage. This is just the start of it. It will get a lot worse before it gets better.

It is a measure of the seriousness of the situation that even the horrors of nuclear contamination are worth risking if in doing so we can buy ourselves a little extra time in which to start reigning in population growth and profligate energy usage.

Bartender

06-23-2002, 01:20 PM

But would you live next to a nuclear power plant yourself?

I do. I am within a 10 mile radius of this plant and will thus be provided with an emergency kit in case terrorists decide to attack the plant. We will be provided with radiation pills that the plant workers have had for decades.

Cliptin

06-23-2002, 03:55 PM

I have been aware of the high incidence of skin cancer in Oz for nearly ten years but it was only recently that I hvae learned that the ozone layer hole has increased it's size to include Oz. This is a serious problem.

Thanks for elaborating on the global problem. You have enlightened me.

BTW, do you see any advantage to the type of rail jtr suggests for your area.

NRG = mc²

06-23-2002, 06:23 PM

But would you live next to a nuclear power plant yourself?

No more than I'd live near a coal-powered plant :mrgrn:

But seriously, does it make much difference? Unless you're tens of thousands of miles away you're pretty much in deep s**t if something happens, right? Or am I talking rubbish?

Tea

06-23-2002, 09:51 PM

I had forgotten about the ozone layer thing, Cliptin. I guess I've become so used to it that it just seems normal now - which is in itself a sort of comment I suppose.

I don't really see high-speed rail as a particularly important factor here in Oz. Oh, you could link the big three cities (Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane) and save a bit of road traffic and a bit of air traffic, but the economics are not very attractive as the cities are a long way apart from one another. Even on the busiest air route of all (Melbourne-Sydney) if you average it out we are looking at a frequency of one 767 every hour or so. (More in the peaks, less off peak, but on average that would be about right.)

Australia has an odd population density profile: two huge cities about the size of LA or Chicago (but both spread out like LA) and three moderately large cities the size of San Diego or Detroit or Phoenix, and little else. Roughly two-thirds of all Australians live in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth or Adelaide. Contrast this with the USA, where the five biggest cities account for a mere 10% of the population. (New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia.) Or to look at it another way, we have about the same land mass as the USA and one tenth of the population, but our third-biggest city, if it were in the US, would rank #4 or #5. (Depending on which has grown fastest since my figures were done - Brisbane or Houston. Probably Brisbane.)

The upshot of this is that we have little need for high-speed city to city rail: to link up the five major cities we would have to lay somewhere around 5000 miles of track. Even Sydney and Melbourne are 400 miles apart. There is often talk of a Sydney-Melbourne link, and from time to time companies form to build one, but they always get as far as the feasibility study and then decide that it's going to cost too much. It will need a major government contribution. And frankly, all respect to JTR, but aircraft pollution is a tiny drop in the bucket. We have much, much worse problems to deal with first.

No, here in Oz, the vast bulk of our energy consumption goes on your ordinary everyday commute to the office and back. We had excellent public transport systems in the 1920 and as late as the 1950s, but they have been allowed to decay and construction has not kept up with population growth. If we are looking at transportation and energy use, this is our #1 problem.

Mercutio

06-23-2002, 10:09 PM

I've worked in both coal and (older) nuclear plants. I felt far, far safer in the nuclear plants, and they weren't even plants with very good safety records (lots of shutdowns, *not* lots of, um, oopses), so far as those things go.

Honestly, other than the matter of waste disposal, I don't have a particular problem with nuclear power in the short to medium term. I understand the science. I understand the safety measures, and I've seen the folks working there, doing everything possible to make things safer.

There's a real sanity in choosing nuclear power. I wish more people could see that.

time

06-24-2002, 06:00 AM

I have been aware of the high incidence of skin cancer in Oz for nearly ten years but it was only recently that I hvae learned that the ozone layer hole has increased it's size to include Oz.

Hmmm, it's not quite that bad yet, as explained by the Bureau of Meterology (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/glossary/ozone.shtml)

Ozone depletion: 2000 and beyond (http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/holper_2001.html) has some additional info, including the fact that ozone levels have fallen over the US and Europe as well.

time

06-24-2002, 06:22 AM

Warning: the following comments tend to be pedantic. :eekers:

Even on the busiest air route of all (Melbourne-Sydney) if you average it out we are looking at a frequency of one 767 every hour or so. (More in the peaks, less off peak, but on average that would be about right.)
I count at least 38 daily flights from Sydney to Melbourne just with the two domestic carriers, over about a 14 hour period. On top of this, international flights often include local segments such as Sydney to Melbourne. That's conservatively an average of three flights an hour (each way of course).

On top of this, there's the freight planes (post, couriers, etc), although my impression is they mostly fly overnight when the passenger flights have stopped.

Australia has an odd population density profile: two huge cities about the size of LA or Chicago ... Or to look at it another way, we have about the same land mass as the USA and one tenth of the population, but our third-biggest city, if it were in the US, would rank #4 or #5.
Sydney's population passed LA's a while ago, and now stands at a little over 4 million. Melbourne seems hell bent on catching it. Brisbane is still slightly smaller than Houston.

No, here in Oz, the vast bulk of our energy consumption goes on your ordinary everyday commute to the office and back.
I guess you mean the bulk of transport energy consumption? Still not quite right though, I'm afraid. But it's certainly a major contributor to pollution, not to mention other problems.

Here's a rather useful summary (http://www.ara.net.au/sections/rail_facts/rail_facts.html) of the advantages of rail in Australia. Everyone should read it.

time

06-24-2002, 06:38 AM

It's worth reading this comparitively calm cautionary note about re-embracing nuclear electricity generation: http://www.culturechange.org/n_power.htm

The problems with fission reactors are surely their inherent instability, and the waste products that need to be stored for far longer than modern civilization has been stumbling along.

By instability, I mean that they require active regulation at all times. Aside from the core itself, a sustained loss of power would create a disaster just with the spent rods stored onsite. Post 9-11, I'm surprised people are so ready to overlook the security issues.

Then there's the hassle of transporting the waste. I'm going to assume jtr1962 was being flippant about shooting it into the sun. :)

jtr1962

06-24-2002, 09:39 AM

Nuclear power is, essentially, a huge gamble. What you are doing when you fire up a nuclear power plant is saying "I'm going to take the risk of having a truly huge problem for an extremely long time if something goes wrong, in exchange for the knowledge that I'll not have the much smaller but nevertheless serious problem that I will get absolutely and for certain if I fire up a fossil fuel plant".

You can minimize the risk of a nuclear disaster by putting the plants in remote areas. The biggest difference between a fossil fuel plant and a nuclear plant is that a nuclear plant might potentially cause a problem(the risk is astronomically low for a modern plant) whereas a fossil fuel does cause problems, including deaths from cancer and the like. The primary problem with a nuclear plant as I see it is of course the waste disposal.

Come back in 30 years, and it won't be the mad arabs and their bombs you mostly have to worry about: it will be people from places like Australia who have had their countries destroyed and no longer have anything to loose. And if you think I'm exaggerating, just take a look at rainfall patterns here over the last 150 years and note the unmistakable evidence of the damage. This is just the start of it. It will get a lot worse before it gets better.

The climate change you mention is not just occurring in Australia. The weather in NYC the last 10 or 15 years has been bizarre, to say the least. Heavy rains or no rain for weeks, colder than usual temperatures followed immediately by hotter than usual(we went from 45° F one day to 96° F the next this spring). Summers with many 100° F or hotter days(when I was young these occurred maybe once every few years), and highs of 90°+ for weeks on end. This year we had no winter to speak up. Global warming annoys me all the more since I can't stand any temperatures over about 55° F for any length of time. And I've been seeing species of weeds and insects in my yard that I've never seen before. It's all these little things that tell me global warming is not a myth.

It is a measure of the seriousness of the situation that even the horrors of nuclear contamination are worth risking if in doing so we can buy ourselves a little extra time in which to start reigning in population growth and profligate energy usage.

Maybe commercial fusion will become viable within this decade and we won't have to. Of course that's wishful thinking but governments should be pouring alot more money into it. Let the oil companies complain all they want, we've seen the results of doing it their way for the last 100 years, and they aren't pretty. I also agree that we must stop population growth and excessive energy usage. Maybe institute a world-wide policy similar to China's one child per family. And more people should telecommute. There is no reason to physically travel to a job where you're sitting at a computer terminal all day, and this includes upwards of 50% of all jobs.

jtr1962

06-24-2002, 09:54 AM

And frankly, all respect to JTR, but aircraft pollution is a tiny drop in the bucket. We have much, much worse problems to deal with first.

I wish we had the amount of air traffic here that you have over there. I think Americans travel as many miles by plane as they drive. Even though the energy use per passenger mile for airliners is somewhat less than for autos, this would make airliners the second worst source of pollution in the states. And of course there is that damned noise factor. They come as often as every 90 seconds here, and the vibrations have been causing small cracks in some of our ceilings. Since many of the flights in the US are less than 500 miles, this is a market ripe to be replaced by high-speed rail offering the same or smaller door-to-door journey times, and vastly lower energy consumption. Additionally, the trains themselves don't pollute(you can only reach 200 mph with electric traction, not diesel traction), and the electric they use can and should come from non-fossil fuel power plants.

No, here in Oz, the vast bulk of our energy consumption goes on your ordinary everyday commute to the office and back. We had excellent public transport systems in the 1920 and as late as the 1950s, but they have been allowed to decay and construction has not kept up with population growth. If we are looking at transportation and energy use, this is our #1 problem.

We have the same problem here as well. Our cities had many perfectly good trolley lines that were ripped up in the 1950's due to lobbying by the big three auto makers that buses were better. There was also the movement to the suburbs at the same time, and a general change to a lifestyle centered around the auto. Too many of our cities are spread out rather than up, thus making local public transportation unfeasible, as well as destroying yet more of the natural world. We now have miles of suburban sprawl, a situation that you mentioned someplace that you are all too familiar with in Oz as well. What exactly were wrong with the cities in the 1940's that couldn't have been fixed fairly easily anyway? I've never understood why so many Americans like to live in sterile, boring sururban communities(this is unlike living in a true rural wilderness, which is something I think I might actually enjoy, at least for a while).

jtr1962

06-24-2002, 10:02 AM

Then there's the hassle of transporting the waste. I'm going to assume jtr1962 was being flippant about shooting it into the sun. :)

Actually, I was serious. Once the cost of launching things into space becomes very cheap(within a century), it will be cheaper to just send the waste into space on an orbit that will spiral into the sun, thus disposing of it permanently. This stuff is too dangerous to keep around, and there is the security needed to make sure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands. I'm sure OBL would love to get his hands on even one spent fuel rod and make a dirty bomb out of it. And how will we protect our distant descendants of 10,000 years hence from this waste? I doubt they will speak any known language at that time. The best solution is the one I mentioned-use nuclear plants as an interim solution until fusion is viable, then shoot the waste off into space when it becomes cheap enough.

As I mentioned a few posts back, if we could only just make fusion viable now...

time

06-24-2002, 10:33 AM

The biggest difference between a fossil fuel plant and a nuclear plant is that a nuclear plant might potentially cause a problem(the risk is astronomically low for a modern plant) whereas a fossil fuel does cause problems, including deaths from cancer and the like.
That's not even remotely true. Bluntly, I think you've been reading too much propaganda. Check out http://pubs.usgs.gov/factsheet/fs94-00/

Once the cost of launching things into space becomes very cheap(within a century), it will be cheaper to just send the waste into space on an orbit that will spiral into the sun, thus disposing of it permanently.
I can't believe you've thought about this. There is an extremely high cost (in terms of energy as well as dollars), in launching anything into space. And the payload doesn't get much heavier than uranium or its isotopes!

Don't bother saying it will all be okay when someone invents a magic drive that doesn't use fossil fuels or pollute the earth or cost zillions. There's still this little thing called gravity, and it's not expected to go away anytime soon. So the energy expenditure is still there.

Your only hope would be that some sort of elevator as envisioned by Arthur C Clarke et al could be built, but even that needs to lift against gravity, and the materials required to build it are several generations away (if ever).

And then you have to stick it in an expensive vessel and apply still more energy (proportionate to mass) to ensure it actually makes it to the sun (which last time I looked was about 150 million kilometers away).

Tea

06-24-2002, 11:50 AM

it will be cheaper to just send the waste into space on an orbit that will spiral into the sun.

There's still this little thing called gravity, and it's not expected to go away anytime soon. And then you have to stick it in an expensive vessel and apply still more energy ... to ensure it actually makes it to the sun.

There's this little thing called gravity .... :)

(Sorry. Couldn't resist that cheap shot.)

jtr1962

06-24-2002, 11:53 AM

That's not even remotely true. Bluntly, I think you've been reading too much propaganda. Check out http://pubs.usgs.gov/factsheet/fs94-00/

For the record, I don't think nuclear power is an ideal solution. Honestly, I would rather see more use of solar, geothermal, wind, hydroelectric, etc. However, there will be certain instances where none of those are applicable, and I would prefer nuclear over the other options. Whether we should build more nuclear plants or not is open to debate(there is an energy cost there), but we should not shut down existing plants. Regardless of how clean coal can be from a toxic emissions standpoint, it still emits copious amounts of CO2, and I didn't see any mention of a CO2 scrubber in that link. I don't know what the energy costs of separating CO2 into it's components would be(or at least keeping it out of the atmosphere), but if that can't be done, then I certainly don't want any coal-fired plants built. And one thing we're both overlooking is that all of this can be rendered moot by simple energy conservation, so that maybe all of our energy needs can be fulfilled by using only existing nuclear and other non-fossil fuel plants. The simple fact is that most Americans travel too much, waste far too much energy in their homes, and in general don't give a damn about the environment.

One option entirely overlooked is making power for homes locally through solar panels combined with a battery storage system for nights and cloudy days. This can supply the bulk if not all of the power used by the average home, as well as freeing you from the dependancy on the power grid. Were solar panels to be produced in bulk, the price would be cost effective, perhaps even less than the cost of conventional roofing materials. The total system payback cost might be only a few years. Something similar can be done with vehicles(solar panels recharge batteries while the vehicle is parked, providing some or all of the vehicle's needs). Perhaps if these and other options were explored, we wouldn't need to even talk about nuclear power.

I can't believe you've thought about this. There is an extremely high cost (in terms of energy as well as dollars), in launching anything into space. And the payload doesn't get much heavier than uranium or its isotopes!

We're not talking about the gravity well of a black hole here. ;) Earth's gravity well is fairly puny on the cosmic scale.

There is something called a mass driver(similar to a maglev in concept) that will be able to send payloads into space very cheaply. The energy cost for a pound of material to reach escape velocity is about 28 million joules, or 7.8 KW-hr. You only need a little push past escape velocity to send the material into a long slow orbit that will gradually take it into the sun in a few thousand years(or a slightly greater push to get there in a decade). At current(relatively high) NYC rates, this is about $1.15 per pound. Assuming that such a system would have only 25% efficiency(due to heat losses in the mass driver and atmospheric friction), the energy cost of launching materials to escape velocity is only about $5 per pound, or $10,000 per ton, at current rates. I think the latest estimates for transporting and storing nuclear waste are a few orders of magnitude above that, so my idea is not as off the wall as it sounds. Mass drivers will be used in the future to send vast amounts of raw materials into space to construct huge(miles wide) orbiting space habitats. They can't be used to send people into space due to the huge accelerations needed to reach orbital velocities in a reasonable distance(you can't have a 1,000 mile long mass driver ;) ), but for materials they are ideal. At 100g acceleration, you need just 40 miles to reach escape velocity(or 20 miles for orbital velocity).

Tea

06-24-2002, 12:11 PM

Using aircraft for short journeys is just lunacy. Even if we ignore the environmental and cost aspects, consider this example - and here I am using a relatively long journey, one that it is sensible to use an aircraft for.

Let's say I want to go visit James. Now I'm not sure whereabouts in Sydney James lives, but let's assume he's up near Parramatta somewhere, which is probably within cooee of the geographical centre of town. Here is what I do:

Drive to Melbourne airport: 1 hour 20. (Probably more than this for most Melbournians - I live 120k out of town, but I'm on the same side as the airport and, if you know the shortcuts you can sit on the speed limit (or a little over) all the way.)

Park and walk to terminal: 20 mins. (Or wait for the courtesy bus - still takes 20mins on average.)

Check in, hand over baggage, board: 30 mins.

Push out, taxi, wait for take-off clearance: 10 mins.

Fly 400 miles to Sydney: 1 hour

Fly around in circles waiting for a landing slot: varies, maybe 10 mins, maybe longer, maybe nothing at all.

Land, taxi, disembark: 10 mins.

Wait for baggage: 10 mins.

Taxi to James' house: 30 to 120 mins depending on traffic and where exactly he lives. Say 60 mins.

TOTAL: 4 hours 50 mins

Now, let's do it by road:

Leave home, drive to James' house: ~12 hours.

TOTAL: 12 hours

Now, let's assume a decent rail network. Both of the links I am assuming are planned, though not actually certain yet,

Drive to station: 5 mins.

Wait for train to Melbourne: 10 mins.

Change trains. 30 mins.

Train to Sydney: 3 hours

Get off at outer suburban interchange station, take taxi to James's house: 60 mins. (Probably less, as train stations tend to be more central, and you have a choice of stations.)

TOTAL: 4 hours 45 mins.

Sort of speaks for itself, doesn't it.

time

06-24-2002, 10:40 PM

We're not talking about the gravity well of a black hole here. ;) Earth's gravity well is fairly puny on the cosmic scale.
So are we. :) It's 33 years since Apollo 11, but we struggle to land a (working) probe on Mars, and can't begin to understand how to cope with the conditions of Venus or the gravity of Jupiter.

There is something called a mass driver(similar to a maglev in concept) that will be able to send payloads into space very cheaply.
The shot-out-of-a-cannon school of space travel dates back to Jules Verne at least. The origins of the electomagnetic slingshot variant are a little more unclear, but I recall the 1960s puppetry production 'Fireball XL5' employed a long launch ramp. Their 'Thunderbirds' production had a small launch ramp for Tbird 2 as well. :)

This site (http://www.permanent.com/massdriv.htm) separates some fact from the science fiction:
Unfortunately, the Mass Driver is feasible to operate only on the Moon, because it needs vacuum. A Mass Driver operating on Earth would cause meteoric friction heat to such hypervelocity, Mach 40 (!) payloads, at the dense bottom of Earth's atmosphere (ocean of air) as they left the catapult tunnel.

Secondly, the air would aerodynamically deflect such objects in unpredictable ways thereby making them miss the collector up in geostationary orbit.

Thirdly, an operable Mass Driver on Earth would require a long vacuum tunnel (much longer than on the Moon, since the escape velocity is higher).

Fourth, the air would create hypersonic sonic boom shockwaves that would be loud for a long distance. Individual payloads would have to be massive enough to punch thru the atmosphere in an acceptable way; such massive payloads demand alot of the catapulter as well as the orbital based catcher/collector.

It also helps that the escape velocity for the moon is a fifth what it is for Earth.

DrunkenBastard

06-24-2002, 11:35 PM

Of course to take a current train from Melbourne to Sydney takes around 20 hours if I'm not mistaken"

Tea

06-25-2002, 12:06 AM

From memory, DB, it's about 12 to 14 hours. I took the Southern Auroa up about five years ago and I think it was about that long. It was nice to be delivered right in the centre of town though: we actually walked to our hotel, no need for a taxi.

jtr1962

06-25-2002, 01:01 AM

It's 33 years since Apollo 11, but we struggle to land a (working) probe on Mars, and can't begin to understand how to cope with the conditions of Venus or the gravity of Jupiter.

This is more due to lack of funding than lack of technical know how. The American public lost interest in the space program after the moon landings, which frankly were more expensive oneupmanship with the USSR than of much real scientific value. If we had followed a logical space program, we would have had a space station before we went to the moon(probably in the mid-70s), a lunar landing a few years later, a moon base by the mid-1980s, a Mars landing in the 1990s, and we would be in the process of planning a Mars base now. Unfortunately, Congress and the American people didn't see much value in space exploration and pretty much killed off manned space exploration. The money spent between the late 1960s and now on social welfare programs(~$4 trillion), which incidentally didn't make a dent in the poverty rate, would have easily provided the funding for such a program, and probably enough jobs for all those who received handouts. And then of course there's the spinoffs, such as the ICs that are in the computer you're now using. :)

Unfortunately, the Mass Driver is feasible to operate only on the Moon, because it needs vacuum. A Mass Driver operating on Earth would cause meteoric friction heat to such hypervelocity, Mach 40 (!) payloads, at the dense bottom of Earth's atmosphere (ocean of air) as they left the catapult tunnel.

Remember that they had heat shields that protected the Apollo space capsules reentering the atmosphere at 25,000 mph over 30 years ago? The problem that exists with the mass driver is actually easier to solve since the heat shield does not need to dissipate much energy. The purpose of the blunt heat shield on the Apollo capsule was to slow the craft down to ~300 mph, so it had to be able to dissipate alot of energy. Since we are not interested at all in slowing the mass driver payload(in fact quite the opposite), it can be placed into a highly aerodynamic, fairly inexpensive container coated with enough ablative material to protect it on it's short ride through the atmosphere at Mach 40. This is an easily solvable problem, to say the least.

Secondly, the air would aerodynamically deflect such objects in unpredictable ways thereby making them miss the collector up in geostationary orbit.

In this case, it doesn't matter. We're merely inserting it into a low energy solar orbit so we have a much larger margin of error.

Thirdly, an operable Mass Driver on Earth would require a long vacuum tunnel (much longer than on the Moon, since the escape velocity is higher).

Since the payload bucket is one use only, there is no need to operate in a vacuum, although it wouldn't hurt. How on earth would we make an airlock for an object passing through at Mach 40 anyway? Now that's something even I can't imagine a solution to. :D

Fourth, the air would create hypersonic sonic boom shockwaves that would be loud for a long distance. Individual payloads would have to be massive enough to punch thru the atmosphere in an acceptable way; such massive payloads demand alot of the catapulter as well as the orbital based catcher/collector.

I think we can both agree that depleted uranium would be massive enough. ;) As for the shockwaves, a transoceanic trajectory is called for, both to avoid shockwaves over inhabited areas, and to provide an acceptable place for the payload to fall should something go wrong(if it falls in a fairly shallow area it can be recovered, if not it will do no harm under a few miles of water).

BTW, I'm not suggesting that we go about doing this today but the simple fact is that we will have an enormous nuclear waste disposal problem whether or not any new plants are built. My best guess is that within 100 years disposing of the waste in space will be cheaper than any other method, so we'll just have to figure out what to do with it until then. The truth is that today we really have no method at all for dealing with it. Burying it anywhere is totally unacceptable in my view. Putting aside the chances of it falling into the wrong hands and the cost of guarding it forever, exactly how can we warn people in 10,000 years who might stumble upon it? We can't even decipher many ancient languages nowadays, so exactly what warnings would we place? This is a legacy I would rather not leave to my descendents.

Here are a couple of interesting links I came upon researching the subject:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.01/reality_check.html
http://www.engin.umich.edu/class/ners211/project2002/con/completeoutline.doc
http://www.ideas2000.org/Issues/Foreign/NuclearMaterials.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1964000/1964202.stm

Given the cost estimates in some of these, my previous estimate of $10,000 per ton for energy costs(plus maybe the same for the mass driver and payload bucket) sounds like a bargain.

James

06-25-2002, 01:16 AM

Even on the busiest air route of all (Melbourne-Sydney) if you average it out we are looking at a frequency of one 767 every hour or so. (More in the peaks, less off peak, but on average that would be about right.)
Sorry, but that's absolute twaddle. Before Ansett went south Sydney - Melbourne was the third busiest air route in the world, according to ICAO (http://www.icao.org) (and widely quoted in the press when Virgin Blue launched).

For the record, I live close to the centre of Sydney in Redfern. It's the first station from Central by rail, and about 14 minutes from the airport by taxi, less on a good day.

jtr1962

06-25-2002, 01:42 AM

Using aircraft for short journeys is just lunacy. Even if we ignore the environmental and cost aspects, consider this example - and here I am using a relatively long journey, one that it is sensible to use an aircraft for.
...
[snip]
...
Sort of speaks for itself, doesn't it.

Thanks for saving me the trouble of providing a similar example, and you even did it for a fairly long journey(~500 miles by my reckoning). Furthermore, your time estimates seem very realistic. Frequently I've seen studies done by those with an axe to grind(i.e. the airline industry) that give 15 minutes journey time to and from the airport, and also don't account for the time moving around the airport, time spent moving from the gate to the runway, etc.

I'll also add that the train journey is a good deal more pleasant than the plane journey. Less vehicle changes and dragging your baggage about, a nice block of time of about 3 hours straight where you can stretch out and relax(try doing that on a one-hour flight), no dealing with the stress of takeoff and landing, and no security checks where you're treated like a criminal. You also spend way less of your journey in an auto, which is the most inefficient means of transport going.

As it is, I heard Amtrak's Acela and the Boston-NY(240 miles) and Washington-NY(225 miles) shuttles are neck and neck. Acela has journey times of 3:00 and 2:40 and those routes, respectively. It's not high-speed rail by any stretch of the imagination yet it is taking a good deal of business away from the airlines. If Amtrak could build a new line and get the times between each city down to 1:30 the shuttle will go out of business. And at 3 hours Boston to Washington(465 miles), that shuttle will likely fold as well.

The lesson here is that planes are best suited to long journeys(~1000 miles or more). Anything less can be done as fast or faster by high-speed rail. A plane might save you an hour or two on a 1000 mile journey(5:50 total by air versus 7:45 by rail extrapolating your figures), but many people might still opt for rail if the cost was the same or less just to avoid the hassle of the airport. They might even pay a bit more for it since they can often avoid taxi fare at the ends of their journey because many train stations are smack in the city center(sometimes within walking distance of where you're going).

Check in, hand over baggage, board: 30 mins.

Is this pre or post 9/11? I would say in the states a realistic figure for this is closer to two hours. Yet another nail in the airlines' coffin as far as I'm concerned.

Tea

06-25-2002, 04:30 AM

I haven't travelled post 911, JTR, so that was going on what I used to allow, The airlines tell you to roll up at least one hour before departure, but that's just for bunnies who get lost walking around the terminal and wind up at the wrong gate or something. In reality, I used to aim at 15 mins prior and was usually a few minutes later than I planned. But that was (a) pre-911 and (b) being careful to always choose off-peak flights so that I could get a window seat. :) I love flying. Just don't like airlines much.

James, "twaddle", eh? Well, the numbers were off the top of my head (that 1 x 767 per hour, averaged out) but I know that some years ago Anset used to have a DC-9 or 737 leave Melbourne for Sydney once an hour from early morning till about 8pm, while Australian had about half as many flights of the (much bigger) A300. Multiply that out and it's about half the frequency I said. Allow for traffic growth and it's about right.

Just for the hell of it, I'm going to flip over to www.qantas.com and take a look at their schedule. I will return shortly. Possibly with egg on my face, but let's see.

I suspect that you are getting mixed up with the frequency of Sydney airport as a whole, which indeed among the busier ones worldwide. (Though nothing like Heathrow or one of the major US hubs, of course.) There is a simple reason for this: there is far, far too much international traffic routed through Sydney. Somewhere around 60 or 70% of international travellers are actually headed for another destination (Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Gold Coast, and so on) and shouldn't be going through Sydney at all. Take away that needless pressure and Sydney's current airport would do just fine for many, many years to come. This idea of building another airport for Sydney when there is massive unused capacity at Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, and nearly anywhere else you like to name is ludicrous. The only reason it gets any attention at all is because of the traditional NSW-centric government of this crazy country.

Tea

06-25-2002, 04:38 AM

Yup. My figures are about right.

Qantas has 20 scheduled flights going Melbourne-Sydney today (including some BA flights that appear on their timetable too). Assume that every one of those flights is a 767 (i.e., a large aircraft) and throw in the piddling little influence of Virgin Blue's handful of 737s, and we are within cooee of my "one 767 flight an hour, averaged out".

time

06-25-2002, 07:51 AM

Virgin's one-class 737s seat almost as many as a Qantas 767 anyway (and given their higher seat occupancy, probably carry more people on average). Qantas also prefers 737s for domestic routes and has been busy buying another 15.

But that's cute, converting real planes to virtual 767 units. :) How about I choose the Cessna as my virtual plane unit?

With regard to Qantas' schedule, I can't help it if you can't count. :P 26 flights my friend, not 20, and a further 12 with Virgin Blue, all of which are domestic flights stopping at domestic rather than international terminals. I think the BA planes are part of their ongoing co-operation and swaps, aren't they?

Tea

06-25-2002, 08:44 AM

Ha. You are quite right. I can't count. I went back and checked. On a more careful reading of their (badly designed) web page, I see that it's 29 flights. All 767s bar one of the morning ones that is obviously an international repositioning - 747s are not economic for that route, it's too short - and a couple of evening odd-bods - presumably another international, and a 737. That's still within cooee of my one 767 worth an hour. Or, at least, certainly closer to the mark than Seagate are with their seek time claims. :)

A 737 seats ~150 or just over, a 767 ~250 or just under. Round figures, two 767s = three newish 737s.

As a matter of interest, Qantas didn't select the 737 initially, they were hot to trot with A320s to go with the A380s and A330s they just ordered. But one of the major US airlines - Continental as I recall - had just ordered a whole stack of 737s when September 11th hit. They were going to lose their non-refundable deposit and Boeing were going to lose the sale. So the two of them got together and made Qantas an offer they just couldn't refuse.

The Qantas-BA relationship is indeed a long-term deal. BA own a portion of Qantas now, I think it's 25%. Must be nice for BA to own something that is making a profit.

DrunkenBastard

06-25-2002, 02:51 PM

Sydney airport has been sold for $5.3 billion I believe?

time

06-25-2002, 09:00 PM

737-800 = 189
737-400 = 168

Note these are one-class seating arrangements, which boosts the numbers for Virgin Blue.

767-238 = 205
767-338ER = 229-253 (Qantas doesn't say which seating patterns are most common. I'd guess their ultimate plan would be lower numbers for international and higher for domestic).

Ah, I just noticed that Qantas is using a seating pattern of only 158 with their new 737-838. Now I understand. And now that I've spotted the high capacity variant of the 767, I understand where you're coming from. Any idea which 767s they are using for domestic, though?

Tea

06-25-2002, 10:07 PM

They have two sizes in service. From memory, the 200 and the 300. About 90% of the Melbourne Sydney trips are the bigger one. ("338" in Qantas speak - the "38" indicates that this particular aircraft was built for Boeing's customer number 38 (which is Qantas)). In theory, if they were to buy a second-hand 767-300 from, say, Saudia, then that would be a 767-394 (or whatever Boeing customer number Sauida are). I'll look the capacities up a little later and get back to you.

(Woops - didn't read your post properly - yes, it is the 200 and the 300. Two or three of the scheduled Mel-Syd trips were thet 238, the others the 338. I should imagine that they mostly use the 200s on medium-density routes, such as Sydney-Perth or Melbourne-Brisbane. Somewhere around here I should have a listing of their current fleet.)

Cliptin

06-25-2002, 11:04 PM

I'm not going to pretend to understand it but I found some interesting stuff.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45036-2002Jun25.html

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-419es.html
http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-29-01.html

Cliptin

06-25-2002, 11:08 PM

But would you live next to a nuclear power plant yourself?

What do you consider "next to"?

It turns out that there are four nuclear power plants within a 130 mile radius of me. In addition, there is a fuel rod and weapons grade plant within 130 miles.

Three of the plants are within 30 miles and one is within ten miles.

It didn't bother me when I didn't know and it doesn't really bother me now.

timwhit

06-26-2002, 12:42 AM

Where did you find that information Cliptin? I would be interested to know how far the plants are away from where I am.

Mercutio

06-26-2002, 01:02 AM

There are five plants in Illinois. Four of them are owned by ComEd (usually only two or three are running at any one time). The fifth is down state in Clinton, IL. AFAIK, no surrounding states have nuclear plants.

If you wanted to worry about a local plant, it'd probably be the Dresden facility. Honestly, though, if you ever get the opportunity, take a tour. It's pretty interesting and you will probably come away feeling a lot safer, until you ask where they're storing waste (ComEd likes to rent warehouses close to its plants. Just plain ol' warehouses. Nothing special about them. They're filled with 55 gallon drums of whatever is "hot").

The other thing that's amazing, and I know it's public relations, but the grounds of every plant I've been to are utterly, utterly pristine.

timwhit

06-26-2002, 01:18 AM

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/map-power-reactors.html

Here is a map of all the operating plants in the US. The Dresden plant is about an hour west of me in Morris, IL. There are no nuclear power plants in Indiana though Merc. Wisconsin and Michigan both have a couple though.

NRG = mc²

06-26-2002, 02:24 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/graphic/0,5812,180750,00.html

Fuck that, I do live next to one. Actually, four of them. I'm right next to Bradwell.

NRG = mc²

06-26-2002, 02:25 AM

Excuse my language... I let that slip :oops:

jtr1962

06-26-2002, 05:50 AM

I found a few "pearls of wisdom" worthy of comment in those links Cliptin posted:

Amtrak has failed to secure an increasing portion of Americas growing transportation market. It carries only about three-tenths of 1 percent of all intercity passengers. Its on-time performance on most routes is terrible, and it covers up this fact by measuring punctuality at a limited number of stops and building in lots of extra time before those stops.

Of course this is true, but the article should also mention that Amtrak has failed to get enough funding to enable it to be competitive. Try throwing the same amount of money at Amtrak as the government has put into roads and airlines, and then if Amtrak still fails to capture riders you will at least have something to talk about. Most of Amtrak's trains run on freight railroads' tracks, and are therefore subject to their dispatchers' whims, meaning that it is not unusual for an Amtrak train to be put on a siding while a freight train gets priority. Amtrak needs more lines like the Northeast Corridor where it has exclusive ownership. And frankly, no passenger train running at 79 mph can be competitive with air or even auto. We need high-speed lines here, and not the 110 mph diesel-powered being talked about, but 200 mph electric trains like every other developed country either has or is planning.

Many of Amtrak's trains run much more slowly today than did trains on the same routes earlier this century.

The fact that these routes haven't had anything other than emergency money poured into them is why. It takes a certain amount of maintainence to keep a line suitable for a given speed. Anything up to 125 mph is relatively inexpensive. After that the costs gradually start to go up.

In a "Three Stooges" approach to the future, Amtrak proposes to build so-called high-speed train routes more than a thousand miles long. But not even the fastest train can compete with aviation for more than a 300-mile trip. Such absurd projects are guaranteed to become astounding burdens on public treasuries.

This is so ridiculous I couldn't help but laugh my ass off for a while. Just look at Tea's post in this thread-he(sorry, she) eloquently showed rail and air neck and neck on a 500 mile trip. Add in the usual 1 to 2 hour security delays nowadays and rail is competitive at 600 or 700 miles. Throw in the fact that you'll save running around and taxi fare by taking the train, and I think most people will still go for the train even on a 1000 trip. Increase the running speed from 186 mph up to 223 mph(France is planning this, and any new line built in the US should feature at least 225 mph running speed) and you're neck and neck with air at 700 miles(or at 800 to 900 miles if the airport security delays continue).

Given that you're treated no better than a common criminal at airports these days, I venture to guess that a fair number of people wouldn't bother flying at all any more if we had an interconnected series of TGV-like lines across the US. It would take you maybe 20 hours to go coast-to-coast vs about 10 by air, and I'm quite sure the comfort, safety, and convenience of rail would be worth those extra ten hours for most people.

Even Amtrak at its best is disappointing. Amtrak's fresh-out-of-the-factory Acela Express between Washington and Boston is slower than high-speed trains that have been running for many years in Europe and Japan.

I don't know whether to laugh at something this asinine, or cry over the writer's ignorance(if you're going to write about something, you should at least research it properly). All of the high-speed lines of which he speaks where built brand new expressly for high-speed passenger trains only. There are no freight trains or slower conventional trains on these lines, period. There are no grade crossings, and the signaling system and train controls are designed to eliminate the consequences of human error. So much so, in fact, that not one passenger has been killed on any of these high-speed lines in over 30 years of operation. You simply can't expect Amtrak's new 150 mph Acela to perform up to potential when it's running with mixed traffic, and on commuter lines with many curves for a good portion of it's run.

Perversely, under the guise of patriotism, some lawmakers want to lavish record-high subsidies on Amtrak. One bill would give Amtrak $3.2 billion in "emergency" aid because its ridership increased. (Ironically, the airlines are receiving $15 billion because ridership decreased.)

So the formula should be that you give more money if riders are lost? Or reward failure, in other words. The airlines screwed up big time, and not just with 9/11. They have been allowed to operate noisy, inefficient planes for years. If any other group or industry made the noise and pollution that the airlines do, their executives would be doing hard time but the airlines get away with it by greasing the palms of our lawmakers. $15 billion could have built hundreds of miles of new high-speed lines and paid for the new trainsets to run on them. It would have been enough to make all of the short range shuttle flights a thing of the past, and once people saw how much more civilized train travel was, they would be begging for more, and the airlines would have some real competition. Not to mention that many cities would gain acres of prime waterfront real estate when the airports shut down, plus clean air and silence to boot.

Amtrak averaged only 10 passengers daily on a slow Wisconsin train. When earlier this year Amtrak learned the empty seats were to be shown on NBC's "The Fleecing of America," bureaucrats suspended the route.

I'll agree here that running trains when there is little ridership is wasteful. I'll grudgingly admit that some markets are better served by buses or even autos. However, Amtrak is not solely to blame for this since frequently legislators get a train running through their district as a sort of trophy even if it makes no financial sense. Amtrak has little choice but to run the train as best they can.

Cliptin

06-26-2002, 08:35 AM

My basic issue with the problem as it stands right now is that I'm being asked to fund something that I will not use. It fact, most of the rest of the country is asked to fund something that only a very small percent of the population uses.

A basic component of the problem is that people should not be expected to commute to NYC. If NYC lost its precious commuter lines, I guess it have to resort to hiring actual NYers. D.C. is the only city that I think people should be making long commutes to. People should be working in the communities in which they live.

Trans-contenental travel is a different story.

Cliptin

06-26-2002, 08:35 AM

At least there is some hope for you jtr.

http://www.dot.gov/affairs/Amtrak%20Announcement.htm

time

06-26-2002, 08:57 AM

That's well stated, jtr1962.

I wonder though whether your call for ultra-fast trains is the wrong priority, based on the existing problems you identified. My state has ancient tracks that are shared by freight trains, long distance diesel passenger trains, and medium speed electric tilt trains. (http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/queensland/)

The tilt trains have been trialled at 210kph (131mph), but their operational speed has been limited to 170kph (106mph). The longest route so far is roughly 800km (500 miles), which with stops takes seven hours. But that's still faster than by car non-stop, so it's quite popular.

BTW, the trains are narrow gauge of only 3'6". With 4'8½", yours should be able to do better.

My point is that all this is possible because the business is 100% government owned, and we happen to have a government that isn't either obsessed with ideology or needs to sell assets to cover their debts.

Whether it be highways, communications, or railway lines, essential public infrastructure needs to be either owned or closely controlled by government. There just isn't enough incentive for private companies to co-operate in the public interest.

Tea

06-26-2002, 09:33 AM

Remember how I fantasised about a high-speed rail link from Ballarat to Melbourne a few posts above? Well, it's official. The Premier announced it today. Contracts are signed, the opening day is set: 64 minutes Ballarat to Melbourne. :)

Mercutio

06-26-2002, 10:58 AM

Cliptin

06-26-2002, 11:28 AM

I have no problem with traffic. I can certainly see why other people would have trouble with their city's level of traffic but if they have trouble with it then they should move closer to their job.

jtr1962

06-26-2002, 12:16 PM

My basic issue with the problem as it stands right now is that I'm being asked to fund something that I will not use. It fact, most of the rest of the country is asked to fund something that only a very small percent of the population uses.

As Mercutio pointed out, most people fund something that they will either never use or don't think is worthwhile. In my case, I'm less than thrilled about the trillions poured into social welfare programs with little results, and I'm 100% in agreement with Mercutio about social security. I doubt I'll ever see a dime of what I put into the system, and even if I get what the government claims I will, this is a less than 2% return. Other things my taxes personally fund that I'll likely never or rarely use are the airlines and most of the nation's roads. Nevertheless, I recognize the value of the Interstate highway system, and wouldn't for a moment suggest that we stop funding it(although measures should be taken to make vehicles zero emission). Airlines are another matter, and can eventually be replaced entirely by rail or maglev depending upon the situation, and those modes will offer equal or better journey times with far less pollution and noise.

A basic component of the problem is that people should not be expected to commute to NYC. If NYC lost its precious commuter lines, I guess it have to resort to hiring actual NYers. D.C. is the only city that I think people should be making long commutes to. People should be working in the communities in which they live.

Here I agree. There is no good reason for people to commute 60 miles each way on crowded roads, especially if their job is amenable to telecommuting. There should be more affordable housing in NYC, and employers should make a greater effort to hiring NYers(improving our public schools here would help that matter considerable). That being said, if people must commute 60 miles, it is best done on rail. I do in fact have a major problem with suburban automobile commuters. Just look at the pollution and noise from traffic jams on the LIE every day. I'm not sure if the current rail system has enough capacity to absorb all of these drivers, but if so, then nobody should be driving in. Ditto for commuters from NJ and Connecticut.

Tea

06-26-2002, 12:30 PM

My basic issue with the problem as it stands right now is that I'm being asked to fund something that I will not use.

Here we have a perfect example of the way that most people misunderstand basic economics. It ain't like that at all Cliptin.

On the face of things, that seems like a perfectly sensible point of view; something to balance up against Mercutio's argument that we all of us fund lots of things that we don't use: we all help pay for hospitals but many of us are not sick, we all help pay for schools but many of us don't have children, and so on.

However, we need not resort to Mercutio's argument (which is in itself quite valid nonetheless) to refute it, as it rests on a gross distortion of the economic facts of life. For every passenger that travels by road, you (the taxpayer), pay too, and pay a great deal more than you pay for rail passengers. You are already paying for road construction and maintenence, hospital care for people who injured in road accidents, health care for people who have pollution-related respiritory problems, massive police coverage (much more than rail needs), inflated land values because so large a part of our cities is taken up with unproductive pavement, even a number of quite obscure but in total financially significant expenses that result directly from road travel: for example, increased storm water and flood control costs because pavement has much faster run-off than forest or grass or housing, and increased water quality management expenses because the run-off contains a much higher number of particles. I mention this last 'obscure' cost not because it is in itself an enormous burden, but because it helps to highlight the enormous ramifications of our dependance on the motor car: motor vechicles push up the cost of all sorts of things that on first sight seem to be totally unrelated.

But there is more. You are already paying the higher interest rates that are a direct consequence of your country's dependance on imported products to support the motor car - fuel is the most obvious of these but by no means the only one. Every imported product affects your balance of payments and thus the national debt, and the higher the debt rises the higher your central bank has to raise interest rates in order to attract enough foreign capital to fund that debt. And (more controversially, this one, but quite possibly equally true) you are already paying for the world's most expensive military force, and a good deal of US military spending is (according to many observers) required in order to guarantee continued US access to foreign petroleum products. (Other car-dependant nations take other approaches to this same problem - in Europe it is common to spend the money on more diplomacy and more aid, as opposed to more fighter planes - but they still spend money in the hope of maintaining access to foreign oil, just spend it a different way.) And you are already paying higher life insurance and medical insurance premiums because of the high rate of car accidents, the health effects of air pollution, and the increased stress levels that car drivers suffer as compared to public transport users (the stress leads, of course, to a greater number of heart attacks, strokes, and so on - and these all cost you money). And you are already paying for a small but no doubt measurable decrease in national produtivity because of the lost production of those expensively-trained and highly skilled people who are killed or crippled early in their lives and never go on to make a contribution to the nation. Not to mention the vast numbers of people who spend their working lives dragging crash victims out of cars and trying to repair the damage - hell, there is real work for our doctors and physiotherapists and mechanics to do.

I could go on, but it's late and there are already enough items for which you are already paying listed above to easily outweigh the very low cost of a decent public transport network. The point of rail systems is that they save you money. Lots of money.

jtr1962

06-26-2002, 12:33 PM

That's well stated, jtr1962.

Thanks for the compliment. :D

I wonder though whether your call for ultra-fast trains is the wrong priority, based on the existing problems you identified. My state has ancient tracks that are shared by freight trains, long distance diesel passenger trains, and medium speed electric tilt trains. (http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/queensland/)

The tilt trains have been trialled at 210kph (131mph), but their operational speed has been limited to 170kph (106mph). The longest route so far is roughly 800km (500 miles), which with stops takes seven hours. But that's still faster than by car non-stop, so it's quite popular.

Tilt trains do have a use on existing trackage. In fact, Amtrak's Acela has a tilt mechanism for that very reason. We do in fact have many lines running through populated areas with many curves that would benefit from such trains. This would allow a system where a high-speed tilt train can run on existing tracks for a portion of its journey at lower speeds(but still faster than a conventional train), and switch to dedicated high-speed trackage at some point in its journey. This is done in Europe right now in order to offer more one-seat rides while taking advantage of the high-speed network. The US has more miles of railway than any other country, and any technology that can use existing trackage to greater advantage is certainly welcome.

My call for ultra-fast trains would be mainly along existing airline trunk routes. The traffic already exists, it is simply a matter of making the train more attractive than the plane, and the rest will take care of itself. The original Paris-Lyons TGV line opened in 1982, and put the Paris-Lyons shuttle out of business in a few months. The economics of high-speed rail has been proven, the technology exists. It is only a matter of getting it built. Besides the obvious benefits of less noise and pollution, and faster than air or auto journey times, there is also a side benefit to those who must drive in the form of lower traffic(=faster journey times).

My point is that all this is possible because the business is 100% government owned, and we happen to have a government that isn't either obsessed with ideology or needs to sell assets to cover their debts.

Whether it be highways, communications, or railway lines, essential public infrastructure needs to be either owned or closely controlled by government. There just isn't enough incentive for private companies to co-operate in the public interest.

100% correct. Building anything on this vast scale requires more money than private investors can come up with. The government should provide the initial capital outlay for these types of projects, and then they should be self-sustaining through operating revenues. In the case of rail, the benefits exceed the cost by many times over.

Cliptin

06-26-2002, 10:55 PM

Cliptin, everyone funds things with their tax money that they don't use and don't like. I happen to strongly dislike social security. Why should I have to pay in such a huge chunk of my gross income when it's highly unlikely I'll ever get anything back? I also have to pay for silly things like missle defense and the lifetime care and upkeep of some presidents and other politician I don't like.

Oh please. Well, since I'm already spending money on things, please find 17 more things for me to fund. That way I can sleep at night. I already feel privileged to participate in this funding endevour but I want to feel extra special. You argument is nonsense.

But jtr's trains have merit in a different way, even if you personally will never use them. Assuming enough routes were put into place to actually be useful, think of how much less traffic would be on the road on a given day. That isn't a benefit?

Answer this question, if you please: Can you envision a train route that would acceptably get you to your jobs?

timwhit

06-26-2002, 11:09 PM

The trains to Chicago are pretty useful. I can get on about 3/4 mile from my house and in about 45 minutes I will be downtown Chicago on Michigan Ave for about $3. Versus driving which costs a couple bucks for gas and then between $10 and $20 for parking. The train is a bargain.

On the 3rd of July when over a million people go into the city to watch the fireworks the trains are the only way to get down there. There is no parking even if you wanted to drive.

The last time I drove downtown I got a damn parking ticket $30, I was only parked on the street for 20 minutes, at least I could pay it online...

Mercutio

06-27-2002, 12:18 AM

Some, yes. I wish I could hop on a train someplace close to my apartment and arrive in Oak Brook or Naperville.

When I work over there, if I don't leave at 5:00AM, it takes me close to two hours to drive maybe 35 miles. If I *do* leave at 5:00AM, I'm there at a quarter to six, waiting for someone to let me in.

At worst, the same 35-mile ride has taken me up to six hours(!)

Still, I hate being in traffic. I feel like I'm killing my car. The brakes and transmission, if nothing else.

Also, yeah, the train into Chicago. Totally worth it. A $13 train ticket vs. gas + $15 to park all day in an inconvienent place (under Grant Park) + $6 in cab fare to whereever I'm going? And if I needed to park someplace besides Grant Park, and I got there after 9:00AM (for a meeting or a job interview), $18 - $25 an HOUR to park. Plus it's not like it takes longer than driving (30 - 45 minutes).

In northwest Indiana, where I actually live and do most of my working, there is simply no public transportation nor design for pedestrian traffic (Gary is the only city with any buses at all and most of the other towns don't have sidewalks except in a small downtown area) so a train probably wouldn't be as easy a solution.

Fushigi

06-27-2002, 08:29 AM

The last time I drove downtown I got a damn parking ticket $30, I was only parked on the street for 20 minutes, at least I could pay it online...I have a solution to this. At least one that'll work once. I went downtown on a Saturday, in the rain, & parked on the street while a friend of mine & I went to a shop for about 20 minutes. We returned to find a parking ticket. I was surprised because in Indianapolis, where I grew up, you don't have to feed the meter on weekends. Silly me had assumed that Chicago was the same.

Anyway, I ignored it and waited. A couple of months later they mailed me about it. I wrote a letter back that basically said I live in the suburbs, I work in the suburbs. I don't go in to Chicago so this can't be me. OK, I lied. Still, it worked. They never asked for payment & my record is clean.

- Fushigi

Fushigi

06-27-2002, 08:53 AM

Some, yes. I wish I could hop on a train someplace close to my apartment and arrive in Oak Brook or Naperville. This is one of the major problems. Going to/from downtown Chicago is OK but travelling around Chicago - suburb to suburb - is not really feasable unless the burbs are on the train's route & your destination is very close to the station.

Still, I hate being in traffic. I feel like I'm killing my car. The brakes and transmission, if nothing else.I try to be easy on both by accelerating slowly & coasting before braking. My last car went almost 90K miles before it's first brake job & I got 61K on my current car before the rears needed work (fronts are still fine) so it must work. Still, stop-and-go driving does seem to slightly confuse the fuzzy logic in the trans.

Also, the potential for stop-and-go is what keeps me in cars with automatic transmissions. Too much clutch work ...

Also, yeah, the train into Chicago. Totally worth it. A $13 train ticket vs. gas + $15 to park all day in an inconvienent place (under Grant Park) + $6 in cab fare to whereever I'm going? And if I needed to park someplace besides Grant Park, and I got there after 9:00AM (for a meeting or a job interview), $18 - $25 an HOUR to park. Plus it's not like it takes longer than driving (30 - 45 minutes).The Grant Park & Millenium Park garages are relative bargains at $10 for up to 12 hours; $13 for 12 - 24 hours. My car is in Millenium Park right now as this is one of the unusual days where I'm working downtown.

For me it is a convenient place. Up the elevator & across the street to the Aon building, where our company has a few floors.

Now, I will be taking the train sometime to compare it to driving. It's not faster but is cheaper. Not faster because it takes 60 - 70 minutes to drive vs. 10 minutes to drive to & park @ the station, 48 minutes on the express traing to get downtown, a few minutes to disembark & go wait for the shuttle bus, and 7 to 15 minutes for the shuttle bus.

In northwest Indiana, where I actually live and do most of my working, there is simply no public transportation nor design for pedestrian traffic (Gary is the only city with any buses at all and most of the other towns don't have sidewalks except in a small downtown area) so a train probably wouldn't be as easy a solution.Many of the Chicago burbs are similar. Availability of sidewalks varies widely. You can generally find them in neighborhoods but not along more major roads (that would lead to the bus/train).

Avalability of buses varies as well, but they generally exist to shuttle people to popular shopping malls and the like. Some exist for corporate campuses (campi?) but again, it's very hit-and-miss. For me to get from home to the office, my normal office and not downtown, I would have to drive or taxi to the train station, take the train partially in, and then taxi to the office complex. Definitely more time & probably more expense.

...

As to funding things we don't want/use, that's a simple fact of life in the US & most of the rest of the world. But funding the railway system, road system, airports (not airlines!), and sea ports is important as those are the means by which the goods we use are delivered. So while you may not directly use the railway system, it's highly likely that 20+% of what you use on a daily basis was delivered via rail alone. That Florida OJ needs some method of transporation to get from FL to your local grocer. Most autos are rail-shipped to the destiniation city before being trucked to the dealer.

That said, I am against gov't funding of Amtrak. Amtrak needs to adjust their pricing to at least break even. If they continually operate in the red then they should face the consequences that every other company doing so faces. Amtrak owns many of the train hubs in the cities (Union Station, etc.). Amtrak should sell those off to raise the capital they say they need. They have had decades of government funding and have not been able to approach profitability. Enough is enough.

- Fushigi

Cliptin

06-27-2002, 09:22 AM

*snip*

Hey, I am getting better at this rational argument thing. At least I can recognize a strawman when I see one. This disscussion is not about how I like the auto. It is about how I do not want to fund commuter train routes in states I may never visit.

Why is it that we expect certain methods of funding for a subway system and different methods of funding for commuter trains? Do they not do the same thing? Do they not require the same type of infrastructure?

Cliptin

06-27-2002, 10:22 AM

As Mercutio pointed out, most people fund something that they will either never use or don't think is worthwhile. In my case, I'm less than thrilled about the trillions poured into social welfare programs with little results, and I'm 100% in agreement with Mercutio about social security. I doubt I'll ever see a dime of what I put into the system, and even if I get what the government claims I will, this is a less than 2% return. Other things my taxes personally fund that I'll likely never or rarely use are the airlines and most of the nation's roads. Nevertheless, I recognize the value of the Interstate highway system, and wouldn't for a moment suggest that we stop funding it(although measures should be taken to make vehicles zero emission). Airlines are another matter, and can eventually be replaced entirely by rail or maglev depending upon the situation, and those modes will offer equal or better journey times with far less pollution and noise.

I think what you suggest here is a great idea (including SS :) ). I too recognize the value of the nation's Interstate highway system even if I use them rarely. For those who don't know, the US interstate system is first and foremost a method to transmit troops in reaction to a ground war on US soil. The government graciously allows its citizens to use it. I think this concept could be enhanced by including high speed rail lines in the center divider (a suggestion from jtr). The land is already owned by the government. If the rail becomes popular, expansion would be easy as there would be dormant asphalt right next to the current track that could be torn up. It could also be used for troop movement.

Cliptin

06-27-2002, 10:50 AM

inflated land values because so large a part of our cities is taken up with unproductive pavement, [and other assorted reasons why we should get rid of cars and roads].

Personally, I wish I could ride my bicycle all the place that I need to go. The biggest problem is a lack of secure racks. Even if we all had electric vehicles we would have nearly all the same problems.

Let's assume that there is edge-of-city high speed rail service with tracks maintained by the federal government and service run by the state or privatized. I think that the intra-city track network should be built and maintained locally. Just like the roads and subways.

Tea

06-27-2002, 11:00 AM

James

06-27-2002, 02:46 PM

James, "twaddle", eh?
[...]
I suspect that you are getting mixed up with the frequency of Sydney airport as a whole, which indeed among the busier ones worldwide.
No, I'm not. As I said, according to the ICOA report on air routes, Sydney - Melbourne is the third busiest air route in the world, counting number of passengers carried. Note that's prior to Ansett biting the big one, but still. It doesn't seem to still be available on their web site, but have a poke around.

Sydney is way, way down the list of busiest airports in the world (http://www.airports.org/traffic/td%5Fpassengers%5Fdoc.html) (it doesn't make the top 30) in terms of both passengers and movements. Bankstown airport is in fact by far the busiest airport in Australia in terms of aircraft movements.

Perhaps "twaddle" was a bit strong, but I don't get to use it nearly often enough. :mrgrn:

jtr1962

06-27-2002, 03:31 PM

Why is it that we expect certain methods of funding for a subway system and different methods of funding for commuter trains? Do they not do the same thing? Do they not require the same type of infrastructure?

Well, the technology is similar but obviously there are differences in both the ridership and the method of operation. Subways are generally used on short trips(~5 miles average), have more frequent stops, lower speeds(NYC subway travels at 50 to 55 mph maximum), more frequent service, run mostly in tunnels or on elevated tracks, and receive a greater portion of their funding from the city they serve(which is only fair).

Commuter rail operates with fewer stops, less frequent service, higher speeds(70 to 100+ mph), and receive the bulk of their funding from either the state and/or federal government. I'm not sure how much the localities contribute, but I gather it isn't much. Commuter lines also generally require more subsidies per rider, and also as a percentage of operating costs.

To put things into perspective, the fare covers about $0.70 of every dollar it costs to run the NYC subway but only $0.45 per dollar for the LIRR. Both are operated by the same agency, the MTA. For all the complaints by many people in other states(I know you're not one of them :) ) about how much money they send to New York for it's subway, it's about as close to operating at a profit as any transit system is ever likely to be. Add in the pollution costs saved by about 2 million people a day not driving(not that the already congested roads would be able to accommodate them anyway ;) ), and the subway is insanely profitable. Of course, a system as vast as this one only makes sense in cities of several million people, but the living patterns of the majority of the US is another matter for discussion entirely.

Personally, I wish I could ride my bicycle all the place that I need to go. The biggest problem is a lack of secure racks. Even if we all had electric vehicles we would have nearly all the same problems.

There are many trips that are not convenient by public transit that are ideally suited to the bicycle. The bicycle is the world's most used method of transportation, and unfortunately it is frequently overlooked by transportation planners in the United States. We do need decent, secure bicycle parking, and business establishments should have indoor racks near the front door where the security guard usually stands. Crowded cities like New York should also permit bicycles on sidewalks(they are in most European and Asian cities, as well as in some US cities) since many novice riders are afraid to ride in traffic, and even an experienced rider like myself will occasionally take to the sidewalk when the traffic gets too heavy. Given how sloppy many people's driving habits are, there is a real need to separate bicycle and pedestrian traffic from auto traffic.

Let's assume that there is edge-of-city high speed rail service with tracks maintained by the federal government and service run by the state or privatized. I think that the intra-city track network should be built and maintained locally. Just like the roads and subways.

Exactly. A high-speed train system is useless if the stations can only be reached by auto. The whole approach I mentioned requires that there be a reasonably comprehensive local transit system in place, and this can be done in most medium sized cities. The savings in health care and cleanup costs alone make public transit cost-effective once it is viewed from a "big picture" perspective. Another thing overlooked by the detractors of high-speed rail is the fact that many Americans willingly give up their cars to fly because it is faster even though airports are for the most part inconveniently located. They would certainly take a train that offered similar or better journey times than air, and much more convenient terminals. A good local public transit system would just be the icing on the cake. In very small cities where public transit makes no sense, a rent-a-car at the local train station will do just as well.

jtr1962

06-27-2002, 03:46 PM

That said, I am against gov't funding of Amtrak. Amtrak needs to adjust their pricing to at least break even. If they continually operate in the red then they should face the consequences that every other company doing so faces. Amtrak owns many of the train hubs in the cities (Union Station, etc.). Amtrak should sell those off to raise the capital they say they need. They have had decades of government funding and have not been able to approach profitability. Enough is enough.

- Fushigi

I think the government should fund capital costs only, and the fares should cover most or all of the operating expenses. Highly unprofitable routes should be eliminated, especially the "trophy" routes I mentioned. I agree that there should be more accountability, and trains should only run where it makes sense.

However, if this is done, then in fairness drivers should also be made to cover the true cost of their driving(including the damage done by pollution). The best way to implement this would be a gas tax since the damage is proportional to the fuel burned. I'm not sure exactly what the rate would be, but I have heard figures on the order of $5 per gallon. You simply can't look at each mode of transport in a vacuum. When considering train travel, you need to look at the saved medical, cleanup, and real estate costs in order to make a fair decision. Given that drivers don't pay many of the hidden costs of driving, this is in effect a heavy subsidy on auto use that we all pay. It can even be argued that 9/11 was a consequence of our heavy petroleum use. Had we not been dependent upon imported oil, we would have had no need to be in that region at all, and by extension no reason for OBL to attack us. The total economic fallout from 9/11 will likely eventually exceed $1 trillion.

jtr1962

06-27-2002, 04:00 PM

Getting rid of cars is a pipe dream. But I see no reason at all why we should not use them a great deal less than we do. We could sit around all year talking about ways and means, but (if I may take a leaf out of the New Right's book) by far the best and simplest would be to simply pay some attention to getting the billing structure right. To make, in other words, the as-experienced-by-the-user costs proportional to the actual costs.

Once you remove the artificial externalisation of costs from the road system and require road users to pay something approximating the true cost of the service they use, then you can pretty much leave it up to the market to sort the problems out.Markets are actually very good at sorting problems out, but the moment you introduce distortions into the pricing structure, you destroy the ability of the free market to function as designed.

This is exactly what I mentioned in the previous post. Once pollution costs are added to driving, we will likely see a good deal less of it, much smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles, the death of SUVs, and probably an acceleration to zero emissions vehicles which wouldn't be subject to the pollution tax. You would also see a groundswell of support for public transit in places where it didn't exist simply because the daily auto commute that used to cost $15 per week for gas is now costing $100. A daily train fare of a few dollars would suddenly sound good by comparison, and add in the fact that in certain circumstances people could save a bundle by getting rid of their vehicles entirely. Considering how expensive cars are to own, operate, maintain, and park, I'm amazed that so many people have chosen to live in areas where they are the only means of getting around(in NYC, it would cost me $8,000 annually just for basic liability coverage since I would be a new driver, and hence an assigned risk). Not to get too off-topic, but when a place of business decides to move to an out of the way area to save rent(and sometimes wages), in all fairness they should provide transportation for their employees(i.e. a company van or two making the rounds).