Trains, Planes and Automobiles

Robert J. Samuelson, in an op-ed piece for the Washington Post, issues a rather blistering critique of President Obama's vision for a high-speed rail network in the United States.

The White House promises fabulous benefits. High-speed rail "will loosen the congestion suffocating our highways and skyways," says Vice President Biden. A high-speed rail system would eliminate carbon dioxide emissions "equal to removing 1 million cars from our roads," adds the president. Relieve congestion. Fight global warming. Reduce oil imports. The vision is seductive. The audience is willing. Many Americans love trains and regard other countries' systems (say, Spain's rapid trains between Madrid and Barcelona, running at about 150 mph) as evidence of U.S. technological inferiority.

There's only one catch: The vision is a mirage. The costs of high-speed rail would be huge, and the public benefits meager.

[...]

In a recent report, the Government Accountability Office cited a range of construction costs, from $22 million a mile to $132 million a mile. Harvard economist Edward Glaeser figures $50 million a mile might be a plausible average. A 250-mile system would cost $12.5 billion and 10 systems, $125 billion.

Given the billions being tossed around lately, from Iraq to Afghanistan, from the US bank bailouts to the General Motors rescue, not to mention another $3+ billion in the Cash for Clunkers program, $125 billion for TEN 250-mile rail systems seems like quite a deal, and represents a fraction of the economic stimulus package which has yet to make an impact on most Americans, particularly those unemployed.

I'm certainly willing to concede that, as Mr. Samuelson asserts, we have lack-of-density issues in this country which work against the notion of a successful rail network.

What works in Europe and Asia won't in the United States. Even abroad, passenger trains are subsidized. But the subsidies are more justifiable because geography and energy policies differ.

Densities are much higher, and high densities favor rail with direct connections between heavily populated city centers and business districts.

True, but Obama isn't proposing a vast rail network along the lines of our interstate highway system. No one is talking about high-speed rail between Amarillo and Albuquerque (yet). The focus is in areas where there already is significant population density and frequent airline service between metropolitan areas -- often hourly air service! I can't imagine a scenario more worthy of frequent high-speed rail service to help ease congestion in the air and to provide quick alternatives for airline travel.

Moreover, as the population continues to climb in the US, with more people clustering in urban areas, trains are only going to make more sense as time drags on, not less. But I'll confess it does seem to be very American to wait until a need is overdue -- and even more costly years down the road -- than prepare now for what is going to be an inevitable necessity. And let us not forget the uncertainty of fuel prices which, at some point in the future, are going to start rising again.

Here is a map illustrating some of the proposed high-speed rail corridors.

This makes perfect sense to me as a starting point. Regional rail networks would definitely help to alleviate air travel congestion where they can actually compete with airlines in total travel time. An Austin to Dallas route for example, at around 200 miles should easily be managed in less than 2 hours by high-speed rail, and be significantly more pleasurable that sitting around for 45 minutes in the airport prior to departure, and after having endured the unpleasant security aspects, had your nail clippers and large shampoo bottle confiscated, etc.

Excessive security is precisely the reason I choose not to fly except when absolutely necessary, and I haven't flown anywhere in a number of years. However, I do drive between Austin and Little Rock at least once a year, and that trip takes close to 8 hours if I hustle and keep my rest stops to a minimum. If I had the opportunity to board a high-speed train here in Austin and arrive in Little Rock in roughly five hours, I seriously doubt I'd ever make the grueling drive again.

And because that travel time is about the same as air travel when you factor in the waiting time and layover in Dallas, it would compete quite nicely.

While Texas and Florida certainly have some population density issues which beg for development of high-speed rail options, California certainly is viable.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority has a beautiful and exciting web site illustrating the vision of high-speed rail and even includes some simulated videos which are thrilling to watch. Check out a few of the "Trip Visualizations."

The time to move forward on this is now, not 30 years down the road.

Playing Around With $152 Billion, And Then Some

As President Bush prepares to sign the $152 billion stimulus package bill on Wednesday, I keep wondering how much this is really going to help the economy or whether it will represent a one-time blip for a number of retailers.

I also keep thinking about what else could be done with $152 billion which might have a more lasting impact. Forget starting another war; $152 billion doesn't seem to go very far when the Pentagon is handling things. We're already up to about $200 billion for 2007-2008 and if we don't pull the plug on it soon, we're talking numbers in the trillions. A trillion is a thousand billion if I recall.

What $152 billion would do is pay for at least 75% of the Trans-Texas Corridor. Unfortunately the cost of nearly $200 billion is being put up by private investors and the bulk of it will be toll-roads.

There's also the controversial Interstate 69, or "NAFTA highway" as some call it, stretching from Mexico to Canada, and passing the northern edge of my hometown coincidentally -- an area not exactly blessed with easy freeway access.

For all the potential drawbacks, I'm quite certain a freeway in that area would be beneficial for bringing new jobs which are sorely needed. Where there's an exit, there are gas stations, restaurants, and maybe a motel or two. And such an important freeway could potentially attract industry along the route.

In an article from 2006, the cost for the 185-mile Arkansas portion was reported to be $1.7 billion with the cost for the entire corridor estimated at $17 billion.

Even throwing in a few extra billion for inflation or cost overruns, it seems to me that the $153 billion stimulus package could do a lot of good for our nation, just using new highways as an example.

Prefer public transit? Since 1971, Amtrak has received over $40 billion.

Here in Austin, Capital Metro has projected a cost of $1.9 billion for a 52 mile light-rail system. Granted, there are many who feel that number is unrealistic. Even if it ended up cost $3 billion, that's less than 2% of the cost of the economic stimulus package. And for those of you who are familiar with Austin traffic, such a rail system could be a great benefit to our city.

In Dallas, they are building a 21-mile project in addition to existing rail options, with a $700 million grant from the Federal Transit Administration. Gee, that's less than ONE billion dollars.

Earlier, a study released in May 2007 by the University of North Texas Center for Economic Development and Research projected that DART’s existing and soon-to-be-expanded LRT system will stimulate more than $8 billion in economic activity.

I could keep going with this but I think you get the idea. It's fun to see what we could do with $152 billion. Now imagine if we had all that money back from Iraq.

Don't You Know We're Riding On The Pushpak Express

The New York Times has a very interesting and well-written piece today about the migration of villagers from northern India into Mumbai and other large cities in search of work and a better life. Go read about the 24-hour journey on board the Pushpak Express. It's truly fascinating. After reading the article, watch the video and you'll feel as if you already know these people.

These passengers are also part of a great migration that is changing the world. Goldman Sachs, which has published projections about the Indian economy, predicts that 31 villagers will continue to show up in an Indian city every minute over the next 43 years — 700 million people in all. This exodus, with a similar one in China, helped push the world over a historic threshold this year: the planet, for the first time, is more urban than rural.

To ride the Pushpak Express from Lucknow, in Uttar Pradesh State in northern India, to Mumbai is to see a snapshot of that global metamorphosis.

I really wish I'd been on the train at the moment the three transsexuals in colorful saris boarded.

Alternate link.