Rail: The Case for "Interstate II"

Washington (DC) Highway Transportation Fraternity | May 1999 | Gil Carmichael

[Phantom Lord]

Not my electricity, nor the raw corn syrup in my pepsi, nor the steak in my bicycle, nor the coal used to process it, nor everything else hauled by rail. Only most final products get to stores by truck but if most of the steps in the process were on rail, your point becomes kind of meaningless doesn't it.

Alright, ill give you electricity, but how did the components of the plant get there? I am sure trucks were involved a great deal.

How did the Pepsi get to the store you bought it at? Why do you have a steak in your bicycle? And how did the bicycle get to the bike store and the steak to the supermarket or butcher?

And since you only mentioned industrial rail, is that what you plan on having us ride?

[Publius]

Everything you buy got to where you bought it by truck. Build all the rail you want, but eventually every product you purchase still got to the store in a truck.

But there is a difference between long-haul and short-haul trucking. The author of this piece understands that a higher-speed freight rail system can free the interstates of many long-haul trucks. Virginia and Tennessee are both looking at funding rail expansion in lieu of building more lanes on I-81 and I-40.

[Phantom Lord]

Only most final products get to stores by truck but if most of the steps in the process were on rail

It is not the case that most of the raw materials that go into all products got the the assembly plant by rail. It just is not the case.

[T. P. Pole]

For something like this be effective, it needs to be done in a few prime corridors to prove it can be successful. For instance a highspeed line connecting Vegas and LA. Once people see it can work, people will use it. Building a nationwide system that is unproven in American terms would truly be a boondoogle.

I've always liked the idea of something like this LA to Vegas idea. This would work because between LA and Vegas are only maybe 3 stops (somewhere near San Bernardino, Victorville, and Barstow). But one thing I haven't seen mentioned is setting it up so you could load your car onto the train cheaper than you can drive. Without stopping much you could do the trip in about 2 hours and have your own car on either end. I think then it would work. It might even be faster than flying, when you count the checkin and checkout.

I think that this is where the article goes wrong. He mentions intermodal, but doesn't make it clear about what he is intermodal with. I think he is thinking airports and buses. Why not cars/interstates also?

[balrog666]

So do we need light rail? No, we don't need it, but what makes more sense -- 3000 automobiles or, say, 50 train cars? Anyone who drives that route on a daily basis -- including my wife -- would tell you in the most graphic terms imaginable just how badly some alternative is needed.

Is the train going to pick you up at the door? Is the train going to drop you off at your office door? Won't you still need your automobile to take to the station, take you around town, or to take you anywhere else the train doesn't go? Are you going to carry your groceries home from the train-accessable grocery store every day in your backpack?

Or are you going to continue to do things the way that is most efficient for you?

[Phantom Lord]

Just face it. Commuter and light rail is a pipedream. It is not a viable alternative. Outside of large cities where you do not need a car, like NY, it is not a good idea and is a sure money loser.

If it was such a good idea, it would have taken hold when Trains were the masses way of travel. But it didn't and Henry Ford became Americas first Billionaire. And if it was such a good idea and the publics demand for it was so great PRIVATE BUSINESS would be competing with eachother in the market place. But private business is not competing with eachother because they know it is a loser. And I will say, that MOST of the people who support rail and want more people riding rail are leftists and socialists. And their main driving force behind it all is their uncontrollable urge to control our lives, tell us where to live, how to live, how to get around and what to do. It is about power and controlling the way people live.

[balrog666]

higher-speed freight rail system can free the interstates of many long-haul trucks

Really? How do you know what the fianl cost tradeoff analysis will be? Especially, when there are NO REAL EXAMPLES of a high-speed freight rail operating anywhere in the world.

[Publius]

Apparently you've never lived in a city or an older rail-connected suburb where you can walk from home to the station and walk from the station to the job. There is no need for us to be slaves to our cars if a meaningful public transportation alternative is available.

[Publius]

High(er)-speed freight rail operates in Europe. At least it's higher when you compare it to travel on their roads.

[GoreIsLove]

The Caltrain station is used for mass transit, though. The idea for SF is to use the old transit building at Spear and Market since the Caltrain Station is already in use, though the TransBay terminal would be a logical alternative as it truly does connect rather pain-free to BART, MUNI, AC Transit, SAM Trans and Golden Gate.

Jack London Square is where the Amtrak station is, and would be logical, but in order to get into the City, people have to hop onto a bus and cross the Bridge to get to their final destination.

[T. P. Pole]

These is a Amtrak route that runs (from and to city centers) between Milwaukee and Chicago. I-94 also runs directly in between those two cities. The train is probably somewhat faster, but it costs $50 roundtrip while my cost of gas is about $10. $50 + massive ferderal subsidy and Amtrak is still losing money each time I ride it. Every day thousands of people make the trip to Chicago on I94 while hundreds take the train.

I've thought much about this. Almost everytime you fly from Milwaukee you fly to Chicago or Minneapolis or Detroit. How about setting up a system of short haul and long haul airports. Say, Chicago for long haul and Milwaukee for short routes. Set up a high speed train between the two. You could probably get the round trip to about 30-40 minutes. This could help with the problem of airport congestion as well.

Do it right, and many folks would book a "flight" on the train. You might even be able to set up the car-loading idea I posted above for these routes.

LAX long haul, Burbank and Long Beach short. San Fran long, San Jose short. This just might work...

[Publius]

Or they can take BART, which goes into Jack London Square.

[Phantom Lord]

Apparently you've never lived in a city or an older rail-connected suburb where you can walk from home to the station and walk from the station to the job.

And that is the ONLY places where rail is a viable option and works because you dont need a car in those places. But unless that is the case, you NEED a car.

[GoreIsLove]

Thanks for the info. Eisenhower had something to do with that too, if I'm not mistaken.

[biblewonk]

Just remember who paid for the interstate system and who pays for railroads. Hint, government and private business respectively, you socialist.

[Publius]

Your ignorance of transportation history astounds me. Every American city, major and small, had electric interurban rail transportation until after WW2. These companies were capitalistically run and made profits. Many cities had steam-powered commuter rail in competition with the electric interurbans.

The Depression killed many of these systems, and the government's highway-building program killed off the rest. Then a consortium involving GM and a number of others bought up the remainder and converted them to buses.

In cities today where diesel commuter rail has been recently instituted, it is a success.

[Moosilauke]

The discussion of costs is totally absurb; suburban right-of-ways, urban comdemnations, union contracting and workers, and the supporting infrastructures for subsidiary transportation, cargo-moving, and people-handling would be enormous, disruptive, expensive, and never-ending.

Exactly right! This is a chance to recreate the Boston "Big Dig" fiasco (where a $2 billion dollar project becomes a $15 billion dollar hole in the ground with no end in sight) on a national scale.

[balrog666]

Apparently you've never lived in a city or an older rail-connected suburb where you can walk from home to the station and walk from the station to the job.

You describe a situation that includes less than 10% of the taxpaying population. Even less when you consider that only a small percentage of New Yorkers, Chicagoans, or BART-area people use their systems.

There is no need for us to be slaves to our cars if a meaningful public transportation alternative is available.

The point is public transportation isn't available, isn't useful, or isn't cost effective in 99% of the USA.

High(er)-speed freight rail operates in Europe. At least it's higher when you compare it to travel on their roads.

A piss-poor comparison - turtles are fast compared to the snails in the swamp, so what. It isn't high-speed, it isn't efficient on an intracity basis, and it is totally taxpayer subsidized. All high-speed rail systems are highend commuter or expensive passenger systems - that's the only way they are cost effective.

[Tauzero]

"I don't think this country wants to be that efficient though."

Efficiency is not an objective term. Calling something efficient or inefficient is a subjective value judgement.

[T. P. Pole]

Apparently you've never lived in a city or an older rail-connected suburb where you can walk from home to the station and walk from the station to the job. There is no need for us to be slaves to our cars if a meaningful public transportation alternative is available.

OK, I'll bite. I used to live in Simi Valley and work in Chatsworth, CA. About a 12 mile ride. In Simi Valley it was about 3 miles to the only commuter station in town. In Chatsworth it was about 1 mile by track, and 2 miles by road between my work and the only commuter station in town. On the Simi Valley end it was about a one mile walk and one bus to the station. On the Chatsworth end it was about 1/2 mile walk and 2 buses (with a transfer).

Sure, the train ticket allowed you on the bus for free. But since they set up Simi and Chatsworth in two different zones, the ticket was something like $20 a day (this one I am not sure about. I do remember doing the math and finding out it was cheaper to buy the car, gas and insurance).

Is this what you had in mind by "meaningful public transportation?" If so, sorry, no go. If not, then almost all of southern CA is out.