Via John Aravosis, the UK is sensibly reacting to energy trends by expanding rail capacity substantially. We, of course, can't afford to do any such thing even though we're substantially richer than Britain and even though we absolutely can afford to spend over $100 billion per year in Iraq indefinitely -- after all, our troops are dying there at a lower rate than they were before, so what's the harm?
« All New Attackerman | Main | By Request: USA Basketball »
How It's Done
25 Jun 2008 08:41 am
Comments (47)
U R DENS LIEK ENGLAND! WANT LECTRIC CARZ!
This would be more accurate - "the UK is reacting to energy trends by commissioning a study to explore the possibility of expanding rail capacity substantially by 2025 or so, if money can be found."
Not so snappy though.
I read somewhere (Krugman?) that the US actually has a superior record of rail usage for freight than does Europe. We obsess over moving passengers because it's all about Us but the bigger picture needs attention as well. James Hansen has been making a similar point about the focus on automobiles when electricity generation is at least as big a greenhouse problem and much more amenable to improvement (chiefly because we have all this coal).
The U.S. has a much more robust freight rail system than the UK or any other nation for that matter. Rail capacity is being substantially increased around the nation. Here's one example: http://lowtechtimes.com/category/miscellaneous/classic-transportation/railroading/
Interesting point Scott:
"In the United States, half of all freight is shipped by rail. In Europe, only 10% is carted by train."
From Fortune
As the Fortune article makes clear, one of the biggest obstacles to freight rail in Europe has been the lack of common standards. And the Lego-inspired workaround in that article is nifty, but my guess is that as we in the U.S. are investing in new passenger rail infrastructure, in Europe they will be investing in new freight rail infrastructure on a common standard.
$100 billion? I may be incorrect but it seems every off-budget 6 month supplemental that gets approved for Iraq/Afghanistan is in the $145-170 billion range. Yes, 6 years isn't forever but it sure seems a pace we show no signs of scaling back. You could easily double your outlay figure and be closer to the truth. Imagine we'd maintained the no-fly zones and waited Saddam out. That trillion we've spent on war could've gone to alternative energy research, health care, border and port security, mass transit and many other timely investments. Bush. Worst. President. Ever.
There are some useful statistics for passenger traffic growth (section 4) and freight (section 9) on UK railways available in this report:
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DfT_SustainableRailway2007.pdf
Nearly half of all freight in Europe is literally shipped. That doesn't mean there's no room to expand freight rail where the current option is road haulage, but the logistics do matter. (The idea that incompatible gauges were built to prevent invasion is apocryphal, but there's still work needed to regularise things like signalling and power across the continent, especially in the former eastern bloc.)
And yes, the freight/passenger relationship is reflected in the existing US model, where passenger rail is essentially there at the privilege of the freighters who own the infrastructure.
Still, Network Rail in the UK is better positioned to make long-term judgements on expanded capacity than its private predecessor (the unlamented Railtrack).
I'd invite Matt to look at a map of the UK, and then overlay it onto a map of the US. He could then ponder the difference in terms of sheer size.
Deep breath time.
Rail makes sense in Britain because it is a lot smaller than the United States, and the metro areas are denser. The whole island is a little more than 500 miles from end to end. That's about an hour or two more than Washington to Boston.
Rail makes some sense between large city cores over medium distances. It sucks monkey balls over long distances.
Evan for those medium-haul trips, wouldn't a luxury bus service make more sense than maintaining a completely different infrastructure set? A Greyhound spinoff service, Greyhound Purebred, charging twice the price and selling double seats?
Amendment to my last comment to read
"*Passenger* rail sucks monkey balls over long distances."
I don't mind if my Dell computer or Ginsu knives or Amazon DVDs take 6-8 weeks to get from LA to NY. But if it takes me 3-4 days, then I'm probably not going.
James - nobody expects the U.S. to have robust passenger rail across North Dakota (except maybe the good senators from North Dakota). But most people in this country do live in dense, metropolitan areas which are amenable to British-style rail networks; in fact, look back 80 years and most existing cities had them, including smaller cities than you'd expect (one could apparently travel by light rail as well as heavy rail all the way from New York to Chicago, for instance, back around 1920 or so (see David Nye's Electrifying America and Consuming Power as one source). The fact that Texas is big is no reason not to have a robust rail network both within and connecting Dallas and Houston - to say nothing of the east coast and west coast.
Matt has, in his defense, been perfectly clear on these issues, if not within this post.
The gross figure of "half of all freight is shipped by rail" covers a big range. On the one hand, for bulk cargoes like coal and quarry products, almost all that is sent long distances either goes by train or by barge ... in Europe, which is a great big peninsula with peninsulas jutting off of it surrounded by peninsulas and islands, a lot of that goes by ocean that would be going by rail in the US.
And we have a long way to go in terms of cutting fuel wasted on freight by getting a larger share of time sensitive cargoes onto rail. Since so much of the rail grid is catering to bulk, time insensitive cargo, we do not have the same quality of first class double tracked right of way that the Europeans do. And we need first class, double tracked right of way to get the 100mph superfreighters running, which is required to reverse the door to door time advantage of trucking for cross country freight.
However, even in the seven months I was working at a third party logistics warehouse last year, from June to December, I saw a substantial increase in the number of loads going out the loading dock on intermodal containers. So the price of diesel is pushing things in that direction ... we just need to invest in the infrastructure to allow it to compete more effectively.
Areas in the US served by passenger rail find they lose money, are somehow almost always infested with corruption and union games, and are always in danger of shutting down on strikes.
The "magic, exciting new high speed rail lines" also contend with decades of lawsuits if new rail lines are laid or NIMBYs find out something going 260kph wil be whizzing by at all hours on the railbed 100 feet away the realtor assured them was a right of way long abandoned.
The US would be far smarter to go instead with buses using existing road beds, with several competing for service, so no union strike could shut down millions of peoples ability to get to and from work.
And go to 10 hour days so 1/5 of commute miles are eliminated with a 4-day workweek, which should further be staggered on days and with firms in a city metro ares using different scheduled working hours to cut through the gridlock unchecked mass immigration has caused in the USA.
We would also be better off if antitrust laws were waived so businesses could get together and mutually agree on curbing the massive business air and ground travel that is basically only done because one business worries a competitor will do physical face-to-face and get the contract...even if the whole industry could do it with phone and video-enabled internet.
Matthew expects us to copy a nation of roughly 61 million in an area of just over 93,000 square miles (a little smaller than Oregon according to CIA World Factbook)??? WTH!! Of course passenger rail (subsidized heavily by the govt let's not forget) makes more sense there. As it could very well in our heavily urbanized areas like the Northeast corridor, West Coast of CA, etc.
John Bragg,
But I believe the population density of the "Northeast Corridor" in the United States is actually higher than that of Britain. Generally, while extensive nationwide rail in the United States doesn't make much sense, regional rail networks in the denser parts of the U.S. can make just as much sense as they do in similarly dense parts of Europe.
The problem with intercity bus service is that the operating speeds are now faster than cars, and therefore it has difficulty competing with cars on the low end and airplanes on the high end. That isn't to say intercity bus service is a bad idea in general, but where the volumes are high enough to support intercity rail, rail is likely to be much more competitive because it is so much faster.
If the US ever does adopt a passenger rail system like Britain, I hope they don't charge as much. Or use trains that are as slow. In fact, I don't think Britain is the country to emulate at all when it comes to rail.
Posted by John Bragg | June 25, 2008 10:04 AM: Rail makes some sense between large city cores over medium distances. It sucks monkey balls over long distances.
Even for those medium-haul trips, wouldn't a luxury bus service make more sense than maintaining a completely different infrastructure set?
Name a city of over 1 million plus east of the Mississippi that is not within a 3 hour train trip to another city of 1 million plus by tilt train on conventional right of way. Hint: there are none.
And that does not require infrastructure dedicated to passenger rail: what interferes with Express speed rail is sharing that infrastructure with services operating at substantially different speed. If that is shared with high speed container super-freighters, there's no conflict ... well, assuming that the platforms are on sidings rather than right on the running track, otherwise the passengers trains would slow down the superfreighters.
And electrifying that would be an upgrade that can be performed on an incremental basis (since diesels can operate perfectly well under the wires), with existing technology, rather than waiting for the miracle battery.
As far as luxury buses ... the problem is the speed. All the metro areas east of the Mississippi can be connected to one and normally several others in a one to three hour train trip ... given the substantially slower speed of buses, a luxury bus network cannot accomplish the same thing.
That should be NO faster, not NOW faster, in my comment above.
Does wifi change the equation?
Taking a bit longer to go from one place to another on a bus or train would be more palatable to me if I could use that time to work. I know Matt mentioned taking one of the fancy cyber buses from NY to DC recently, but I don't recall if he ever said what he thought of it.
John B:
Agreed much of our NE corridor is denser than the overall UK, but that is the overall. Nevertheless, agreed that a higher speed commuter rail between major urban areas which would share existing rail with freight probably makes economic sense.
By using existing rail you avoid having to lay entirely new track as well as the land acquisition/emminent domain costs which are astronomical.
I do not know if any research/studies have been done into upgrading the existing freight rail lines (say a public/private partnership) to increase the operating speed of freight rail. The would seem to alleviate the conflict between higher speed commuter and slower freight as exists now.
K
Posted by chris ford | June 25, 2008 10:17 AM: ... The "magic, exciting new high speed rail lines" also contend with decades of lawsuits if new rail lines are laid or NIMBYs find out something going 260kph wil be whizzing by at all hours on the railbed 100 feet away the realtor assured them was a right of way long abandoned.
Well, we can rest assured that this won't happen. Bullet trains require dedicated high speed corridors ... they don't run in regular rail ROW. Since there are no dedicated high speed rail corridors in this country ... let alone dedicated high speed rail that have been abandoned ... the 160mph train whizzing by on a previously abandoned branch line is not going to be a common issue.
WRT Nimbyism, since rail has a higher capacity per square foot of corridor, both freight and passenger, than interstates, and since so many of our existing ROW are under-built, with almost all ROW laid out for quadruple tracking and most with single or double tracking built, expanding the freight and passenger capacity of the rail network is easier on Nimbyism than a new I-state highway project. And cheaper per person or ton of cargo.
Indeed, except for SF/LA, Miami/Atlanta, and Chicago / New York, its not clear exactly where you would consider putting in a dedicated new line for a bullet train when there is so much opportunity to put in 110mph trains connecting metropolitan areas with a majority of our country's population, with most of the required work to be done in rail ROW already in use.
Nevertheless, agreed that a higher speed commuter rail between major urban areas which would share existing rail with freight probably makes economic sense.
Its commuter heavy rail that tends to require the higher densities ... while tram/trains might run partly on existing rail ROW, at current public transport mode splits and densities, most commuter transport would be light rail or quality buses. And once the patronage is available to support commuter heavy rail at mass transit frequencies, it tends to start hogging the line and pushing freight off onto other lines.
Its the inter-urban rail that can operate between metro areas and with two to four stations within each metro area (including connecting to the main hub airports), and can be comfortably built up to share with existing high speed freight.
Indeed, we have had the technology for 100mph rail freight for over 50 years ... the "new technology" there is all on the passenger side, since high speed freight does not require the tilt train technology that the passenger trains require to operate at 100mph in conventional rail corridors. Its just that in the age of ultra cheap crude oil, the economics were unfavorable. Now that we have moved to crude oil being only moderately cheap, with it possible to imagine crude oil hitting moderately expensive levels within the next decade, the economics have shifted.
BruceMcF,
The argument for new ROW and higher speed trains is that it creates more viable routes within the network as a whole. For example, St Louis-Chicago is about 300 miles, and for that route alone a 110 MPH train might be competitive. Similarly, Chicago-Detroit is just under 300 miles, and again a 110 MPH train might be fine for such travel. But St Louis to Detroit via Chicago would be almost 600 miles. At that point, a 110 MPH train is going to struggle to compete with air travel, but a faster train could be viable.
BruceMcF, you make a valid point about speed differences between freight and passenger trains limiting the capacity to move more trains. While there may be a benefit in speeding up some intermodal freights, it makes no sense to move most freight at that speed or higher because speeding up would waste a lot of energy. I do not forsee railroads accelerating mile long coal trains to 100 mph +. When I worked for Norfolk Southern, they'd use just enough power on the front to crest the steepest grades. Going up some grades, I remember watching the speedometer fall below 5 mph with the throttle wide open. Slow but efficient.
FYI, this isn't "the UK" proposing to expand rail capacity. It's Network Rail, a technically independent (though government backed) non-profit which owns and operates the railway infrastructure. The rail regulator might not approve the plan and the government might not cough up any money for it - they've shown absolutely no willingness to do so for the last 30 years.
One problem for me is that this is all just dreaming anyhow. It's not going to happen, and it smacks of either an early 20th century vision of people commuting by jet packs or a conservative's pointing us to vague technological promise so as not to address environmental concerns. In fact, I can't get over thinking that this has become Matt's idee fixe recently because he's 20-something and it sounds, like jet packs and hydrogen cars, way cool.
And sure, part of the problem, too, is feasibility. Besides distances in America and freight rights, no one's noted the different layout of a country like France, with Paris as a center. Washington is neither a geographical nor, for that matter, economic and intellectual center except in the minds of the Beltway.
Mostly, though, for me it's about priorities. Sneer all you like at the privileged northeast corridor, but it serves the purpose of just what Obama asked: building up the concept of a metro region, connecting centers that serve personal and business travel while stimulating each center to develop transit, urban housing, and other means that reduce ecological footprint per person. Right now, New York subways are facing cutbacks, with plans to replace some god awful stations on indefinite hold. Other train lines need cars replaced. Light rail within metro areas like southern California should continue to develop. And we're worried instead about putting money to shoot people from distant city to city?
Think about it. It's nice to imagine alternatives to travel from Chicago to Detroit, although a longer distance than the corridor from New York to Washington. But I'm not hearing the main thing: what purpose is served? Is there a demand? Would it build them and towns between into interlocking metro regions? Do business travelers actually spend a lot of time flying between one and the other, rather than (say) from a corporate headquarters near Chicago or Detroit to New York?
As for Chicago to New York, that's 3.5 times as long as the corridor from New York to Washington. And that's before we factor in reasonable detours, like through Pittsburgh, to make the plan sound. Fantasize all you want, but would you give up flying for that experience, and would it make even an iota of difference to America's environmental and transportation needs? Debate the merits of railroads all you want. You still have to make the case for what this is all about.
We are not "substantially richer" than Britain.
IMF has both are per capita GDP at about $45,000, and I remember there were some articles a few months ago about how the UK has overtaken us.
It will take a little while for the drop in the dollar to register with most Americans. For both health care and infrastructure, the idea that Americans are richer than Europeans and can therefore afford to buy better than whatever they have in Europe, no longer holds true.
We are not "substantially richer" than Britain.
IMF has both per capita GDP at about $45,000, and I remember there were some articles a few months ago about how the UK has overtaken us.
It will take a little while for the drop in the dollar to register with most Americans. For both health care and infrastructure, the idea that Americans are richer than Europeans and can therefore afford to buy better than whatever they have in Europe, no longer holds true.
John Haber,
The short answer to your question is that yes, it turns out there is indeed a lot of regional traffic in places like the Midwest.
Generally, if you look at things like the Brookings study of economic linkages between cities (based on data regarding advanced services firms), you will see quite a concentration of linkages in the Midwest. For example, St Louis's top ten linked cities includes Minneapolis, Detroit, Cleveland, Indianapolis, and Pittsburgh (the others are Boston, Philly, Washington, Atlanta, and San Diego). Kansas City's top ten includes Minneapolis, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, and St Louis (the others being Boston, Charlotte, Miami, Dallas, and Denver). Pittsburgh's top ten includes Cleveland, St Louis, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, and Kansas City (others being Washington, Dallas, Philly, Charlotte, and Boston). And so on.
It's odd that we can get so far down this thread without anyone mentioning climate change. Other countries are looking for the US to cut emissions by 80% or more by 2050 - well within the lifetime of any investment in infrastructure made today.
skraeling,
Although one reasonable response to a weak currency is to buy more domestic products. And that is basically what we would be doing to the extent we shifted more transportation to rail and away from airplanes and cars.
IMF has both are per capita GDP at about $45,000, and I remember there were some articles a few months ago about how the UK has overtaken us.
PPP comparisons put Britain's per capita GPD at about 35K USD, meaning on the same basis the US is still nearly a third richer than the UK. I call one-third "substantial" although no doubt under King George The Incompetent the gap between America and lots of countries has narrowed.
I don't think the railways will be built in the UK (actually, really, just England). France can do it because its population density is about a quarter that of ours. We'd have trouble building new railway lines without knocking down a shitload of houses, and even now the average price of a house in England is about £190 000, ($360 000).
I don't think the railways will be built in the UK (actually, really, just England). France can do it because its population density is about a quarter that of ours. We'd have trouble building new railway lines without knocking down a shitload of houses, and even now the average price of a house in England is about £190 000, ($360 000).
What Dave said. Bear in mind that straight GDP comparisons, even on a PPP basis, don't really have much bearing on this sort of thing. The cost of building this sort of infrastructure is vastly more expensive in the UK than the US (indeed, probably anywhere in the world). Land is very expensive here, it's almost all developed, and labour costs are high. Even relatively simple large projects in the UK far more than they do in other countries. Our most recent high profile project, the new Wembley stadium, cost £800m to build, and seats 90,000 people. And that was on the same site as the existing stadium. By contrast, the Stade de France, built a few years earlier and with only a few thousand fewer seats, cost Eu300m.
DTM, I appreciate the correction on the degree of regional travel, but I'll still contrast it to the metro building project. The chief destinations you list for, say, St. Louis are all much further still than Chicago and Detroit and generally 2.5 times as far apart as New York and Washington. Do you really think we'd still have Acela service or even Amtrak if the only points of embarkation were Boston and Atlanta? Do you think it'd help address a real problem in urban design and mass transit?
Sorry about the wording there. I meant that the destination points to and from St. Louis are much "further apart still than are Chicago and Detroit," not that they are much further from St. Louis than is Chicago or Detroit.
John Haber,
Well, that is why I think in the Midwest it will end up being a true high speed network, as opposed to something like Acela. A trip from St Louis to Detroit via Chicago could be around a four-hour trip by true high speed. That is a viable competitor with flying.
And of course that route doesn't just serve people going from St Louis to Detroit. Part of that route is also serving people going from Kansas City to Chicago. Part is also serving people going from Milwaukee to Detroit. And so on. And that is just the big cities--these routes will also serve people living in between, and even with limited stops (meaning people will have to go longer to get to the nearest stop), fast trains will provide a viable alternative to flying for these people. Which is good, because a lot of airline service in such areas is being cut.
So, yes, I think this makes sense, and indeed I think it is very likely to happen if the current fuel prices persist.
DTM: I doubt it. Let's look at the cost of the highest speed rail in the US, the Acela. From BWI to NY Penn, it's $206 one way. That's about 180 miles, so let's take your 300 mile example, and not quite double it - Assume it's only half again as expensive (which is charitable, IMHO), and runs $300 one way. At the speed the Acela goes, that will require something like 4 hours (unless it's non stop, which is unlikely).
Let's now assume that you decide to drive that trip in an SUV that gets 15 MPG. That's 40 gallons of gas round trip, which, if we take current prices, is around $167 - round trip.
Now assume that instead of the SUV, you take something as economical as the 19 year old clunker I drive, which gets 34 mpg in town. On the highway, it gets around 38.
That's around 16 gallons, which, at current prices, is around $67 - round trip. Even if we assume outrageous parking fees, there's no way that the train will be less expensive than driving (and, sadly, given the need to make stops in order to attract enough people, it will only be marginally faster).
So let's look at flying Detroit to Chicago:
A quick trip to Expedia reveals that, so long as I plan 7 days in advance, it'll cost me $126 (including tax).
Hmmmm
Explain to me again how rail that does not exist now will compete against car (even inefficiently large SUVs) or air travel? The math doesn't support it. Even if gas goes to something worse, say $6/gallon, it still doesn't work. Rail travel is also impacted by fuel costs (less, but I can see that the Acela has gone up by $20 each way just since the spring). Unless you have some magic up your sleeves, I can't see any way to make intercity rail even vaguely competitive against car and/or air travel.
James Robertson,
Your assumption that the per-mile price of tickets in the Midwest would be the same as the per-mile price of Acela is unwarranted.
Why? The lines for those high speed trains you want don't exist, so:
-- the rights of way have to be acquired
-- the lines have to be graded
-- the tracks have to be laid
That's not cheap - especially when you count in the various lawsuits that will erupt over the first part. There's absolutely no reason to believe that those runs will be less expensive that the existing lines in the NE corridor. Heck, the existing ones would probably stay cheaper just due to the fact that the costs have been sunk already, and much of it's been paid off - what remains now is the ongoing operational cost (including maintenance)
Any new lines would have that as a base, plus the initial cost. Unless you want to magically assume a zero for that initial cost.
But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that this new rail line somehow comes online and offers a fare that is semi-competitive - say $150 each way. That's still more than flying, and way, way slower to boot. It's not that much faster than vehicular traffic, and not much less expensive than the gas hogging, 15 mpg SUV (see above, previous comment).
You'll never manage to get the rail fare under the cost of asomewhat efficient car (not even the 19 year old clunker I drive, which manages 38 mpg on the highway).
So if we take a modern hybrid vehicle that gets, say, 50 mpg on the open highway, we're now down to using 12 gallons round trip - or just over $50. There's no way you'll get close to that with rail. Heck, if we double the cost, and assume $8/gallon gas, my clunker is still cheaper than the rail system you so desperately want to see put in place.
Heck, if you want a more efficient transit system, it would be cheaper and more cost effective to just buy every adult in the nation a Prius.
Damn your facts, James Robertson, just go $h!t me a rail network!!
This would be more accurate - "the UK is reacting to energy trends by commissioning a study to explore the possibility of expanding rail capacity substantially by 2025 or so, if money can be found." Not so snappy though.
Yes. What the article actually says is:
Network Rail will examine the case for constructing new lines
Filtered through Matthew's rail fanboy wishful thinking, that becomes:
the UK is sensibly reacting to energy trends by expanding rail capacity substantially
The article also notes that "Britain has built just one new mainline in the past century."
DTM,
James Robertson, Your assumption that the per-mile price of tickets in the Midwest would be the same as the per-mile price of Acela is unwarranted.
The per-mile price of tickets in the Midwest would likely be vastly higher than the already high per-mile price of tickets on Acela. You'd have to pay the astronomical costs of acquiring land and building the high-speed track, and your load factor would almost certainly be lower.
But of course, that's why this whole "Midwest regional high-speed rail system" notion of yours is such a ridiculous fantasy.
Comments closed July 09, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Hillary would have sorted this out. Too bad the misogynists won the battle.
Posted by Tim K | June 25, 2008 9:09 AM