Posted on 10/22/2009 12:03:49 PM PDT by Willie Green
U.S. President Barack Obama has set aside $13 billion in stimulus and budget funds for high-speed trains in America. If he wants an example of how best to use that cash, Obama might take a look at Spain’s growing high-speed network.
I’ve just arrived in Madrid from Barcelona during a reporting trip. And for the first time, I chose the high-speed rail system, known locally as Ave, instead of a traditional airline connection. My verdict: The train beats air travel hands down.
That certainly wasn’t always the case. It has been years since I’ve traveled between the two biggest Spanish cities, but I remember well that there used to be only two options: Forking out big bucks for an airline ticket on the national carrier, Iberia, or facing five or more hours trundling slowly across Spain’s countryside in a worn-out train.
Since early 2008, though, Spaniards have enjoyed the new, state-of-the-art Ave railway service that makes the journey between the city centers of Madrid and Barcelona in just two-and-a-half hours. (No traveling to far-flung airports, long lines for check-in and security, fighting for space in overhead luggage bins…) It’s another of the superfast train systems that cover Europe and that are the envy of some dreamers in the U.S.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessweek.com ...
But I especially like the comment from a Brit who whined that the UK train from London to Paris “doesn’t even have champagne.”
The market share of train travel in both Spain and France is actually declining, even with the development of superfast trains. More and more people are choosing cheap air travel or driving rather than going by train. But that’s something you will never hear an American journalist admit too — especially one who has just been on a European train ride.
Trains become more cost-effective as the density of the population they serve increases.
With the exception of the NE and perhaps CA, the US isn’t nearly as densely populated as Western Europe or Japan. Outside these limited areas, it doesn’t make a lot of sense here.
The U.S. train system in the early 1970s was far superior to the one we have today.
One of the most short sighted things the USofA did was to abandon the rail roads.
High speed rail systems would work well in the U.S. around a hub system, with hubs designated, for example, as the South, the NE corridor, Texas to Colorado and New Orleans, and Caleeefornia (running north and south). Screw Chicago...after Obama is done, no one will ever want to go to Chicago again.
Whenever i’m in Europe I take the train. Love ‘em compared to an airplane. No arriving two hours early, no long TSA lines, fewer delays, easier on and off, more comfortable seating, a nice view of the countryside, etc.
More and more people are choosing cheap air travel or driving rather than going by train.
That's contrary to everything I've read.
Do you have a source for that information, or are you just making it up?
Oh, so high speed rail systems would work well in the USA.
Sort of like AMTRAK? That’s like saying Medicare and Medicaid are by far the most efficient and cost saving health care plans ever established.
But hey, you can still dream and hope.
If they can make the cost of interstate travel less than an airline ticket and also not require massive subsidies, then I might just use something like this.
but is hsr really do-able in the u.s.? without the government amtrak would be toast, correct? could the free market save amtrak? could competition get hsr up and running? i have always wondered about the possibilities of hsr here in the states and i truly wish to know?
i love trains, i wish we have a huge network of them. The only thing government should spend tax payers money on are infrastructure, which are roads, rails etc
Where did you get that info from? I just got back from Spain, and the AVE is doing great. Air travel, on the other hand, is increasingly bad and increasingly expensive and it’s inconvenient because you still have to get in from the airport to downtown (easier in BCN, but hard in Madrid, where you have a choice between the indirect metro or an expensive taxi).
Spain’s trains were always very extensive, but the problem is that their routes were curtailed in recent years (this is what happened in the US, too, with Amtrak) so a lot of places are no longer served by them and travel has dropped off. People go by bus or by car.
But having recently had a normally 2 1/2 hr bus trip from one point of Spain to another take 4 hours because of a traffic jam about 60 miles north of Madrid, I can tell you that if they revive the routes, people will be taking them again.
HSR is a boondogle...
but lets imagine, what if it succedes?
then we will have to bail out the airlines!
I experienced the same thing in Japan. It’s a very pleasant way to travel.
That said, I’m not comfortable with the idea of tax dollars going to rail subsidies. Then again, I’m not really comfortable with what we already spend building interstates or subsidizing airlines, either... I think all “long distance travel” routes (rail, interstate, and air) should fully pay for themselves so we can finally get this government favoritism to particular types of travel out of our system.
But, as long as we’re going to keep subsidizing road and air travel, then I wouldn’t be too opposed to at least have rail be on par with it. But I’d want to see it done through shifting existing spending, not through new spending.
The important thing is population density. An expensive high-speed train has to go from some place where lots of people live to some place where lots of people want to go (NY-DC-NY, for example).
Regular non-high speed trains also have to go places where people want to go, but not necessarily in the same volumes; however, they have to be regular, plentiful enough so that it’s not a choice of going one day and coming back on the next, and priced at about what it would take you in gasoline, tolls, maintenance/car payments and parking to go in a private car. The reduction in anxiety and the ability to sit on the train and read a book instead of worrying about getting rear ended is free...
but is hsr really do-able in the u.s.? without the government amtrak would be toast, correct? could the free market save amtrak?
Amtrak's biggest hurdle is that most of the track it travels on is owned by the freight railways who will not upgrade for high-speed passenger service. So since the freight lines hold a monopoly over existing rail rights-of-way, government must get involved when upgrading track or acquiring new right-of-way.
I think rail and highway should be on the same level as far as subsidies go. The difference is that ALL highways are built by government at one level or another, and profit is not a consideration. This is never taken into consideration by our anti-train Freepers.
On the other hand, rail travel actually could be profitable and might attract private industry competition, as it did in the past.
but lets imagine, what if it succedes?
then we will have to bail out the airlines!
No, the airlines will still survive by providing service for longer trips ( > 600 miles) or shorter flights to cities where there are too few passengers to justify construction of passenger rail. Rail should be built only on those routes where there is sufficient passenger volume.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9753
"Since Japan introduced high-speed bullet trains, passenger rail has lost more than half its market share to the automobile. Since Italy, France, and other European countries opened their high-speed rail lines, rail's market share in Europe has dwindled from 8.2 to 5.8 percent of travel."
The full article and source for the above info can be found at the pdf link on the page link above. Just going by what he says, that's all.
i do not usually advocate govt spending or interference but they seem to have set aside a sum of money for hsr, soooo what if the govt put in a certain amount of cash to be matched by investors willing to upgrade/replace old unused passenger service lines with the proviso that they be used for hsr? we all see train tracks that are no longer being used by any trains at all since passenger service is virtually obsolete. i find the idea of hsr intriguing and i think it would be a great thing if it could work in the free market without govt subsidies. would it not create jobs and improve travel conditions for those who do not wish to fly?
Hey guys, remember Amtrak was another Great Society initiative - kinda like urban planning - we all saw how well that turned out. There is no, I repeat no, economic demand for high speed trains in the US. The only demand is for a bigger slice of pie for the unions. If there was an economic demand for passenger service the railroads themselves would cater to it. They decided in the 1960s that it was a revenue loser and agreed to let Amtrak use their rails for a fee.
Amtrak’s high-speed Northeast corridor service works pretty damn well. Clean, fast, on time and getting cheaper. Anywhere other than the Northeast and California though, and there are major problems. Wherever Amtrak doesn’t own their own tracks, everything suffers. Also, most Amtrak rolling stock equipment is 40+ years old. Amtrak ridership is at an all time high, and new service is being implemented in places like Virginia and Michigan.
Depends on the route and the travel time and the reason for the trip.
From London to Paris, rail's market share is said to be over 60%, if not higher.
I can't vouch for that -- or for Cato's statistics, either.
Well, since highways are entirely a government iniative (private firms do not propose and build highways, although they are contracted by one or another government entity to do it, thus providing juicy pork) I guess that’s okay then.
The problem is that passenger rail was completely undermined by Amtrak and even by earlier heavy regulation of rail traffic in a way highways have never been regulated because they are fundamentally government undertakings and profit is not a concern.
Congress created Amtrak during the Nixon years, after Penn Central collapsed. It wasn't one of Johnson's Great Society programs.
Amtrak works pretty well in some areas. The other side of the coin, though, is all that the government did to kill off the railroads through regulation and highway/airport subsidies for decades.
High Speed rail is very viable if executed correctly, Medium distance travel by High Speed is far more convienent and enjoyable than Air ever will be. I am not holding my breath however to see it seriously executed in the US.
Are you suggesting that Amtrak is self funding? Don’t be rediculous - even its flagship NE corridor run is heavily subsidized. I drive a car, I pay gas taxes that build roads. I ride Amtrak my ticket doesn’t even cover the full expense of the trip. Don’t make comparisons that don’t hold up. All mass transit schemes constantly are looking for ways to convert gas taxes into subsidies. Apples and oranges. There is a reason the railroads don’t do passenger service (here and in Canada) it can’t compete with cars, buses, and air travel. We’ve had this discussion before. The fundamentals never change. The railroads realized this fundamental in the 1960s and got out of passenger service. Now you and every collectivist want the government to become Thomas the Tank Engine. We are out of money - repeat - out of money. We cannot do stupid things anymore.
Here is a quote from an article by Randal O'Toole at cato.org, "High Speed Rail: The Wrong Road for America":
Cato is not an unbiased source of information.
In fact, in this instance, Randall O'Toole is literally a sockpuppet for the Oil Lobby.
Cato was founded by Charles Koch, the billionaire co-owner of Koch Industries, the largest privately owned company in the United States. Koch amassed most of its fortune in the oil trading and refining industries.
Other petro-donors to Cato include American Petroleum Institute and ExxonMobil.
I do not expect Cato to endorse transportation infrastructure that would jeopardize the Oil Lobby's dominance in the transportation market.
I can't vouch for that -- or for Cato's statistics, either.There is good reason that Cato's statistics might be suspect and misleading.
Your point is irrelevant. Currently one-third of all freight traffic goes by rail. Building more passenger trains would force that freight to go by road or air which are less eneregy efficient than rail on a ton-mile basis. Oil consumption would therefore stay the same or increase were that to happen.
If you look at the full article, you’ll find that Cato’s data regarding the decline in rail’s market share in Europe is based on official figures from the European Commission. Here is the footnote citation in the article:
European Commission, Key Facts and Figures about the European Union (Brussels: European Commission, 2004), p. 52.
These will form the backbone of the HSR system between Milwaukee and Madison, as soon as “they” begin to study whether the existing road beds will support the train. That naturally will be followed by another huge tax increase to fully subsidize the train.
Which ideally will connect with the local rail stretching from Green Bay to Chicago and the subsequent huge tax increase to fully subsidize that train system.
The jobs generated are projected to be in the area of 82 temporary ones. Further, the train taxes will continue until ridership rises above 100 a day for both systems or until the Wisconsin Transportation fund is raided repeatedly, finally achieving zero balance and road repair is discontinued forcing every one to use the trains to nowhere.
Yes we in Wisconsin are well ahead of the curve and leading the way back to the 18th century.
Good explanation. The proponents of high speed tt always exalt the Japanese or European fast trains never taking into account the factors you mentioned. If high speed train is more viable, it would have happened here. But what's the point of a high speed train from say Chicago to LA when a plane will get you there much faster? We're talking two thousand miles, not less than two hundred. I think these advocates aren't seeing the whole picture.
I am one of those Friedmanites who believes there is a way to have everything privatized except the military and a few other forgotten items.
No, my point was precisely that Amtrak - like the highways - is not self funding. While a profit could be made, it won’t be as long as the government is in charge, and this is what has destroyed passenger rail. Personally, I think the passenger railways should be private and, except for possible government seed money from local jurisdictions, and then we’d get traffic that really went places people wanted to go, when they wanted to go there.
Highways don’t have to make a profit, however, because they are totally government funded. The paradox is that some reason people like you think that it’s okay to totally fund highways but not okay to fund railways.
Exactly how fast does one need to get from one Spanish city to another ?
European Commission, Key Facts and Figures about the European Union (Brussels: European Commission, 2004), p. 52
Thanks.
Data presented for 1980 and Y2K for the EU-15.
That's pretty sparse data... not really much to go on.
Too sparse to conclude that rail actually "lost" ridership to other modes of transportation.
For instance, EU economic integration would have led to an increase in longer distance air travel, which doesn't really compete with rail anyway. Yet would show up as an increase in "market share".
Similarly, European "suburban sprawl" or population growth in less densely populated regions would necessitate an increase in automotive usage, yet not detract from rail system ridership. A lot of that depends on how local communities have upgraded their local transit systems, which I'm sure some have and some haven't.
Anyway, it would be a gross oversimplification to say that Europeans simply "choose" air and car over rail. And absolutely foolish at prohibitive European gasoline prices. LOL!
Exactly how fast does one need to get from one Spanish city to another ?
I don't know...
I never been to Spain
But I kinda like the music
They say the ladies are insane there
And they sure know how to use it
So you might want to travel as fast as you can!!!
I am one of those Friedmanites who believes there is a way to have everything privatized except the military and a few other forgotten items.
That sounds more like one of those Rothbardian, libertarian kooks.
I, like Rothbard, believe that very little good can come from government. I don't blame those in government. In many cases they mean well.
It's just that government forgets the need to be transparent when it is under attack by normal market (or press) checks and balances and veers off into a surreal combativeness (ala Obama's war against Fox) because it can't seem to reconcile its hunger for the allocation of resources/power on the basis of patronage instead of merit.
Then discouraging achievement/merit, it wonders why it fails.
But new technologies do offer the promise that there is a third way. Highways don't need to make a profit or at least a huge one AND they don't need to be controlled by governments.
They could be built by authorities, empowered to build but not to tax, to bring blood/traffic to certain areas who need them based purely on their ability to repay their cost and maintenance (for example, toll roads in which the charge for usage is simply charged to users bank accounts or credit cards).
This is actually an old idea (i.e. industrial development authorities) that might be transformed by new technologies.
Trains played an important role in settling the American West well before there was a substantial population. Rail in America has been overlooked for too long and is a good alternative to overly congested airports with high fuel costs. As a matter of pride we should have the best and fastest trains in the world from Seattle to San Diego.
But what's the point of a high speed train from say Chicago to LA when a plane will get you there much faster? We're talking two thousand miles, not less than two hundred. I think these advocates aren't seeing the whole picture.
Why pick a 2000 mile trip for your example?
Nobody's proposing to use high-speed rail for that long of a journey.
High-speed rail is intended to provide service for trips between 100 and 600 miles... replacing inefficient short-hop air travel, not longer distance air flights.
Another socialist assault on freedom. Mass transit systems almost always are socialist jobs programs. Stop wasting my money on garbage like this!
The government that doesn’t build roads is derelict in its duty. Road building is explicitly governmental and one of its most important functions and reasons to exist at all.
Roads and highways aren’t profitable to build, that’s why the government has to build them. Some people are taking their anti-government prejudice too far. Road building is possibly one of the governments most important function.
Currently one-third of all freight traffic goes by rail. Building more passenger trains would force that freight to go by road or air which are less eneregy efficient than rail on a ton-mile basis
No, freight traffic would not be forced onto the highways.
True high-speed rail proposals call for laying entirely new track that is totally separate from the existing freight track.
Even Amtrak upgrades involve increasing track capacity to reduce schedule interference with freight, not shove freight off the tracks.
I agree. I took my first American train ride from NJ to NY recently. Slow and lumbering compared to the whisper quiet express trains of Europe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.