Train people are hard core. I saw a tweet the other day whining about why we don't have more trains and how high speed rail is the answer to all of our transportation problems. I pointed out that I currently live in Minneapolis, and frequently travel to KC to visit friends and family. It is currently about a 7 hour drive, straight down I-35 which costs me about $80 each way for gas. If I want to fly, it's a one hour flight and can be had for as low as $114 each way. I just checked Amtrak and they have no service between the two cities. So I could book MSP to CHI for $88 and enjoy a 10 hour trip to CHI, then I oculd book from CHI to KC for $101 and an 11 hour trip. This would almost certainly include an overnight stop in CHI which would entail another @ $150 hotel stay plus Uber rides back and forth. So if I was to avail myself of the miracle of rail travel, I'd turn a 7 hour relatively inexpensive trip into a 2 day slog though the Midwest for more money.
My problem with trains is that they are incredibly limited in where they can go, and they end up making multiple stops which slow down the trip. I get it, for a train to make money they have to stop in a lot of places to pick up more passengers.
Now, there are places in the US where trains might be a viable alternative IF you can eliminate all the stops (LA-SF for example), and if you can get speeds up high enough. The problem I see with this is that you then lose the opportunity to transport a lot of people between LA and SF, and a lot of potential revenue.
Not to mention that new train lines are ridiculously expensive. CA just built a BRIDGE for $11 billion dollars, that took 9 years, and spans 1600 feet. Of course that bridge isn't connected to anything. But seriously, the costs per mile are outrageous, the cost of the trans themselves are high, and if a fast express is the goal, then the potential ridership is lower.
So, if you build high speed between LA and SF spend tens/hundreds of billions on laying the track, millions? on the rolling stock, before you even get to operating expenses what will ticket prices look like. As this moment that fastest drive time between the two is 6 hours and 381 miles. IF you had a train that could average 150 mph, you'd cut that drive almost in half, but at what cost? Let's estimate that gas for the drive would be $5.00/gal, and that it would take 40 gallons of gas to make the trip, that's $200 for gas. So, can this imaginary train get you there for less than $200?, $300? $400? who knows, but given the costs, it seems unlikely. What if your ultimate destination is not close to the train station, wouldn't you need to rent a car, Uber, or take public transportation (if possible) which adds time, costs, and hassle.
Look, I get that some people like trains. I personally have several trips that would be perfect for a train, but none of them involve efficiency in travel. But let's get serious, the notion that it makes any sort of sense to start building train tracks across the US in hopes of getting high speed express trains for the elites to travel between high density urban areas in a way that assuages their conscience is absurd.
Seriously train folks, find another hobby.
2 comments:
Somehow it is believed that trains over cars/planes help the environment. But that's only true, if true at all and in any way, if the numbers of people moving about are reduced. If everyone is taking trains to get where they want to go (assuming, as you said, a train goes there), is it really improving anything. Certainly not, especially given the costs. I think there's a move to prevent people from moving about freely, or at least easily.
I think for most of the ones on social media it's more like a cult. Look at Europe or Japan, why can't we do that. Well, one reason is that you'd have to pay crazy high prices to convert productive, privately owned, farmland into railroad. Hell our light rail is almost $200,000,000 per mile and that's for a relatively short line. Imagine Chicago to Dallas at $200,000,000 per mile. They'd never break even, let alone make a profit.
It's a bunch of coastal liberals who think that cramming people into high density urban areas and forcing them to use public transportation will result in some sort of paradise. The problem is that they'll expect it to be heavily subsidized so it won't cost them very much personally.
I grew up traveling on a train. In some ways it's probably better then flying, if speed isn't a factor. I've got several train trips that I'd love to take someday. But pouring billions into something that is so limited, seems stupid.
Post a Comment