Rail: The Case for "Interstate II"

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

[discostu]

You've put in here a number of times that you think the car and the interstate highway system it created are destroying the classic town concept that you love oh so much. I have shown that the initial destruction of small towns started when the railroad didn't go to them all and has recently accelerated because the economy has changed, especially in the root area of providing raw materials and harvesting food which is what small towns did. They have no money coming in because they have nothing to sell to people other than each other and small economies can't survive that way (because they'll need supplies from the outside world, that sends money out, if they can't send enough goods out to get at least that much money back the town will starve).

Now refute it. This is the third time I've put this forth and the only thing I've heard from you since the first one is that I'm a car lover that doesn't read what you write.

[DoctorHydrocal]

I was a fourth generation railroad worker in my family. I rode the trains since I was in my mother's arms. My experience tells me two constants of rail transportation won't change no matter how much is invested in the system:

1. The freight train hauls, the truck delivers.

2. People who ride inter-city passenger trains outside of heavily populated corridors aren't concerned with adherence to the timetable.

[cicero's_son]

I agree that a major problem with railroads is that they don't go anywhere. Part of what I'm arguing for, I suppose, is increased public sector investment in creating light rail routes that service small and medium sized cities. Take South Florida, for example. They recently built a "light rail" system that runs from Miami all the way up to Jupiter. It stinks.

There's only one stop per town. That stop is usually 10 miles West of the Intracoastal. Essentially, you have to drive 15 minutes, park, get on the train, then take a cab for another 20 minutes if you want to go anywhere.

No doubt this system will be cited by opponents of light rail everywhere as an example of why "railroads just don't work."

Now....here's my big admission: they may be right. We may already be so far down the track (if you will) of being a car and road-oriented society that overlaying a new infrastructure of light rail is not feasilble. Our towns and cities, unlike those in Europe, have grown up in the car age and are therefore much more spread out. Having spent a lot of time in South Florida recently, I can say that it would take a monumental investment to make the train a realistic option for most people. For Heaven's sake, you've now got people living practically in the middle of the Everglades and working in Ft. Lauderdale!

The car has fundamentally altered the sense of scale in these towns, and there is probably no going back...ever. THAT is what I have been lamenting. I have admitted that I am probably just a "nostalgic curmudgeon," and I have no illusions that mere legislation or activism could (or should) be used to turn back the clock. But when I go to my hometown in Indiana, it makes me sad to see how the town has basically abandoned the beautiful, historic, and now decaying Main Street area in favor of (imho) somewhat souless and ugly strip malls near the highway.

Now, to the question: do I blame cars for this? Yes, though I do not blame cars exclusively. I also happen to agree with you that cars have been a tremendous and necessary engine of economic growth. On the whole--and it pains me to say it--I would even have to say that their impact has been largely "positive" in the sense that what we have gained outweighs what we have lost.

However, I am an anti-modernist at heart. Like Tolkien, I guess, who saw the first encroachments of factories and new suburbs on his West Midlands English countryside and knew that many beautiful things would pass out of the world as a result.

Among other things, I hate (most) International Style buildings, cell phones, and magazines.

More than you asked for, but I figured you deserved it since I flew off the handle at you.

[Alberta's Child]

The C-Train is successful primarily because you have a government up here that works on an annexation system. That allows them to plan the route extensions without having to worry about facing local opposition by an adjoining municipality.

The one complaint you hear a lot is that they should have build some parts of it underground. The on-street constraints in the downtown area really limit the capacity of the system.

[GoreIsLove]

The idea of loading your car is a good one that I've never though of before. The Vegas/LA run is good because of the relative cheapness of building the line in the middle of the desert, and the amount of people who would frequent the line.

[GoreIsLove]

BART is about 12 blocks away from Jack London Square, a pretty long hike

[Tauzero]

"(Is that Fortran or C?)"

Doesn't matter. You can write good fortran in any language. :)
( although it's a little harder in OCaml.)

[T. P. Pole]

The idea of loading your car is a good one that I've never though of before. The Vegas/LA run is good because of the relative cheapness of building the line in the middle of the desert, and the amount of people who would frequent the line.

Thanks. I think that in order for rail to work (at least out west) is to consider the connection between the stations and the destinations. If that means loading up cars, then so be it.

I feel it is our nature as Americans to desire the freedom of movement that the car allows. In Europe they just do not understand that desire like we do. And that feeling is that much stronger out west. It may work in New York or Boston, but it is not likely to work in Fresno or Nevada. That desire for freedom of movement is why I think rail will never work without address the station-to-destination issue.

As an aside, does anybody remeber It (or Ginger, or whatever it is they ended up calling it)? What was the major comment here about that? "Where do I hold my groceries?" Or "What do you do when it rains?"

[mlocher]

damage is proportional to the fourth power

i will bow to your younger mind. it has obviously too many years and my mind must be going. thanks for the correction, it strengthens my argument

is that fortran or c?

i may have to take back my earlier comment, everybody is using c++ these days. an object oriented language at that, and 'object' is a word in strong play at this site!

[discostu]

Now we're getting somewhere. Cells phones are nasty. My only problem with magazines is that there are so damn many of them, especially of the "specialty" kind (no one has yet convinces me that running is such an amazingly technical and fascinating thing that it requires 5 monthly publications).

I don't think cars caused urban sprawl so much as they caused urban merger. The Tucson area (I always have to deal with home because that's where I know) used to be a dozen different little towns. Most of the area now known as Tucson was either a town in its own right or space between town (which might or might not be developed). But rapid transportation caused all those places to get gobbles up. In sheer land mass Tucson is a huge city (about 25 miles by 15 miles), but it grabbed onto the motife of the west (multi-story building are the exception here, unlike back east).

The Miami-Jupiter line sounds like an extreme example of the basic problem all mass transit has. Basically they can be considered under two words: stops and schedules. Unless you're one of the luckiest SOBs on the planet no form of mass transit goes from your front door to the front door of where you work. This isn't anybody's fault, it's a matter of logistics if the bus stoped at every single house it would never get anywhere. On top of that you have to coordinate the you schedule with theirs, often you have to make connections so you also need to coordinate their schedule with itself. That's the stuff cars provide that mass transit (at least as it is currently understood) can never beat.

Now, in the spirit of goodwill, cause deep down I am a nice guy just don't tell anybody, I will throw out an idea for mass transit that can beat the car. Now, there are some other logistical nightmares that might make this idea impossible, certainly it's more of an urban solution than a method of connecting urban areas but if cities were wired this way then the train would actually not suck. I put that proviso there because you might thinking I'm poking fun when I put forth the idea but I'm not, it's just an idea with serious technical limitations. Here goes: people movers. Anybody that's been in one of the large airports in this country has seen them, as a kid I always thought they were the coolest part about being at O'Hare. Endless belts, possibly with seats in one area, replacing the sidewalks of our nation would solve the majority of our transport problems. There are major technical problems as I said, but if you think about it they do all the things mass transit currently cannot and it's more efficient than cars. As you pointed out walking give you the same stop and start conveniences as a car, but as I said walking sucks. Sitting on a chair connected to a people mover gives the best of both worlds. Just not sure how they interact with motor vehicles (which we'll still need, if only delivery trucks to supply stores). And I'm not sure how the chair idea deals with the end of the belt. And clearly you won't be able to sit in one chair for the whole trip because you'll prboably switch belts to make turns at intersections. But the basic idea is there, and, unlike trains, it's actually a technology that's newer than the car and more likely to be able to replace the car.

Just a thought anyway. I've noticed from these threads that most of the pro-train folks focus on how to get from town to town. While most of the pro-car folks (myself included) focus on how to get around town. For anything to replace the car it will have to solve both equation at least as well as the car does (which, as you guys note, the car doesn't do a good job of solving the multitown travel equation, so it won't have to be real good at that). What you need is something that gets me from work to home via the mall and the grocery store about as well as the car, which trains will never be able to do, but probably something else can.

[cicero's_son]

Good points, all. And you're right of course, to point out that economic development has had far more to do with the deterioration of small town life than have cars and freeways.

But strictly on an aesthetic basis, I still maintain that cars have damaged our cities. No one can convince me that my hometown in Indiana, for instance, really needed five new strip malls or that they have someone improved the quality of life of Eastsiders. As I see it, developers bought up land on the cheap, built stip malls on the cheap, and rented the strip malls out to national chains with economies of scale. The national chains lowered prices and benefited from massive advertising campaigns. The smaller mom and pop shops closer to downtown lose business, and ultimately go under. Eventually, everyone finds themselves driving an extra 15 minutes to get to WalMart or Sams or Outback Steakhouse, and more farmland gets swallowed up in concrete. Can people buy toilet paper and ground beef and prime rib a bit cheaper than before? Absolutely. But we all miss the way our town used to be, with the little family owned shops and the vibrant Main Street.

I'll concede that my argument is more aesthetic than economic--and therefore may not be much of an argument at all!

As for the slow leeching of talent and youth from our small towns, I blame that on corporatism run amok rather than the car.

[Andrew Byler]

I have a high suspicion that if you sum up all of the money currently raised by federal state and local gas taxes, add in all of the money raised by car fees, truck fees, licensing, driver's licenses, etc. then take out all of the money spent on roads and highways, that you will have a huge pile of money left over. In other words, roads pay for themselves and are not subsidized by taxpayers.

A simple intellectual exercise.

Gas taxes run about 40 cents per gallon and fleet economy is about 20 mpg, so 2 cents per mile (all those other fees barely pay for the DMV operations they are related to).

A really, really, really busy urban 6 lane highway might get 180,000 cars per day per mile (maximum capacity is about 2500 cars per lane per hour - one car every 1.5 seconds).

180,000 cars/mile * 2 cents/mile * 365 days = $1,314,000 annual gas tax revenue per mile.

On the other hand, the cost of building an urban freeway is easily $100 million per mile (Boston's Central Artery is costing over $1 billion per mile), to say nothing of maintenance and police costs, lost property tax revenue, 4-5% interest costs on bonded indebtedness to finance construction, etc.

Rural interstates are cheaper, but also have much less traffic to generate revenue. It is clear that a "profit and loss" statement on almost ALL highways would show an operating ratio of close to 10 (that is, gas tax revenue is 1/10th of costs).

The interstate system is not supported by self generated gas taxes, but by gas taxes from mileage driven on local roads, which in turn are paid for from the property tax rolls. In addition, most states take large sums of money from General Funds (Income and Sales taxes mostly) to augment their gas tax money. For example, Virginia gets up around 50% of its state highway funding from the sales tax, I believe.

To put it more succinctly, my gas taxes from driving on local roads to the supermarket supports your use of interstates for commuting, since I commute on the train and mostly use the PA and NJ turnpikes for my intercity trips.

A typical drive from New York to Florida would be subsidized to the tune of $200 each way by property taxes and sales and income taxes. The typical 15 miles each way on the expressway commuter is getting a subsidy of well over $1500 per year from property taxes.

A typical single complex interchange project between two or more expressways is providing an annual subsidy $150-$300 per year for each driver using it daily.

A typical large "free" interstate bridge carrying 200,000 vehicles per day, like the Woodrow Wilson over the Potomac on the Beltway (its replacement is expected to cost $1 billion, with another $1.75 billion for its approaches), represents a "gift" to daily users of roughly $1750 per year over and above gas taxes derived from use.

Clearly, drivers are subsidized by thousands of dollars per year. Imagine the gas tax going to $4 per gallon, or having to pay $0.15 per mile tolls and $4 fees for each major bridge crossing, and you can imagine a world where automobiles actually support themselves.

On the other hand, Amtrak makes about 75% of its costs, and has been steadily closing that gap despite being starved for capital, and thus prevented from starting more variable profit routes to cover its large fixed cost overhead.

Rail sure seems like a better mode financially to me as a taxpayer, seeing as most trains make money on direct operations costs (though the system isn't large enough anymore to cover fixed costs).

[Andrew Byler]

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?

I only have one car because I ride a train from a station 1/2 mile from my house to my office, which is 2 blocks from the center city station. My wife uses the car for errands, as she doesn't work. In much of the built up area of Philadelphia and its suburbs where I live, it is difficult to find a house more than 2 mile from a commuter train line. And the commuter trains go places with roughly 1/3 of the regions jobs readily accessible, mostly Center City and local business districts in Philly, but also certian major suburban office parks, like Radnor and Conshohocken.

Its an extremely pleasant and much more affordable lifestyle (no 2nd $5000-6000 per year car to pay for), and my only gripe is that my property taxes and gas taxes go to subsidize big whiners like you who would never dream of supporting $4 per gallon gas taxes to get cars to pay their true costs, rather than mooching off gas taxes derived from local road mileage, said roads being paid for by local property taxes, and not gas taxes.

[balrog666]

and my only gripe is that my property taxes and gas taxes go to subsidize big whiners like you who would never dream of supporting $4 per gallon gas taxes to get cars to pay their true costs

Buzz! Wrongo! Your local property taxes don't pay for anything on interstates. Period.

Oh, and also: BUZZ, WRONGO AGAIN. The current US Highway Trust Fund has expanded it's assets for the last 15 years and spends less each year than it receives. No new $4.00/gallon taxes are need to pay for the Interstate Highway system. Period.

Why don't you read the first 200 posts here or at least check your facts before you jump into the discussion with your ignorant comments and hateful namecalling?

[Phantom Lord]

Using the Boston Artery as an example to compare costs is not representative of the average cost. Bostons costs are way above anybody elses when it comes to building roads or transportation of any kind.

When someone wants to build a tunnel should we use the Big Dig as the baseline for doing a cost/benefit analysis?

[Phantom Lord]

There is a big difference between getting around a big city with rail and getting around smaller towns and between small towns.

You don't know anything about how the cities of Raleigh, Durham, Cary, Apex, Chapel Hill and the others in the area are structured and where employers are located. Trust me, train will fail here. IBM and Cisco are 2 of the major employers in the area. Each of their locations cover more than 10,000 acres. I sure hope that the train will stop in front of my building, if not I have one hell of a f**king walk. Oh, not to mention that the closest train station to my house is going to be 15 miles away!

And the socialized central planners who designed RTP, where most people here work, are at fault for the traffic problems to begin with and now those same people want to "Fix" the problem they created with a big giant waste of tax money. How did they create the problem and what is the problem? Well, the problem is traffic, commuter traffic. And why is it a problem? It is a problem because when they designed and zoned "The Park" they zoned it so that there was NO residential property allowed. Thus insuring that there would be 100% commuter employment. If they had allowed residential developement, both subdivisions and high density we would not have the traffic problems they are trying to fix. People who worked in the park would live in the park. An entire city would have been created at it would have been self sustaining. But no, the social engineers who knew best then think they know best now. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

[Andrew Byler]

and my only gripe is that my property taxes and gas taxes go to subsidize big whiners like you who would never dream of supporting $4 per gallon gas taxes to get cars to pay their true costs

Buzz! Wrongo! Your local property taxes don't pay for anything on interstates. Period.

The interstates cannot pay for themselves from self-generated gas taxes, because the taxes are far too low. They rely on gas taxes generated from driving on local roads (which is by far the largest source of vehicle miles); and local roads are paid for by local property taxes through local Streets Departments. My trips to the grocery store on the street in front of my house subsidize your interstate commute. So do my drives to the in-laws on the PA Turnpike.

Oh, and also: BUZZ, WRONGO AGAIN. The current US Highway Trust Fund has expanded it's assets for the last 15 years and spends less each year than it receives. No new $4.00/gallon taxes are need to pay for the Interstate Highway system. Period.

Again, Interstates exist because they get money from gas taxes derived from non-interstate driving. No Interstate could ever have been built based on the gas taxes produced from driving upon the interstates alone. And certainly, no private companies are coming forward with new Interstate proposals.

Anyway, the gas tax only pays for construction. It doesn't pay for maintainance and police.

Why don't you read the first 200 posts here or at least check your facts before you jump into the discussion with your ignorant comments and hateful namecalling?

I did Mr. Balrog666. Why don't you read my factual analysis of how Interstates don't make their own money for costs, but suck it out of the property tax roles and admit you are wrong?

[balrog666]

Anyway, the gas tax only pays for construction. It doesn't pay for maintainance and police

So what? If you object to the way the US Highway Trust Fund operates, work to change it.

But that has nothing to do with the above voluminously noted objections to taxpayer-funded railroad boondoggles. Nor the related New-Urbanist-lifestyle zoning restrictions imposed on private property to inhibit automobile usage.

[tortoise]

my only gripe is that my property taxes and gas taxes go to subsidize big whiners like you who would never dream of supporting $4 per gallon gas taxes to get cars to pay their true costs, rather than mooching off gas taxes derived from local road mileage, said roads being paid for by local property taxes, and not gas taxes.

Several states fund roads with nothing but gas taxes. For example, Nevada pays for its roads (which are typically in very good shape) with just a gas tax. The logic being that the tax will scale with the amount of road usage. California does not do this (I believe their road funding comes from the general fund) and has some of the worst roads in the west. The price of gas in Nevada is typically about the same as it is in California and sometimes a little cheaper. So clearly it doesn't have to cost that much.

What this doesn't take into account is the relative efficiency of the road building agencies in various states. California spends something like 12 times as much money per road mile per year as Nevada, and with much worse results. CalTrans is widely considered the gold standard of gross inefficiency, so this has to be taken into consideration when you calculate how much a gas tax would have to be. I personally prefer the Nevada model, since if people stopped driving the agency would become defunded (currently though, they seem to have more money and time than they know what to do with and have resorted to adding non-essentials to the road system since the roads are pretty much in excellent shape).