CSX Headquarters to get New Signage

[urbanlibertarian]

How much of that is paid for by landing fees charged by the airport authority and added to passenger ticket prices?  I believe it's most if not all of it.  Those are user fees not taxpayer subsidies.  Do Amtrak passengers pay their share of the infrastructure costs in the ticket price?

[ProjectMaximus]

How much of that is paid for by landing fees charged by the airport authority and added to passenger ticket prices?  I believe it's most if not all of it.  Those are user fees not taxpayer subsidies.  Do Amtrak passengers pay their share of the infrastructure costs in the ticket price?

Good question. But based on what many on this board say, I think you're way off. Air travel is heavily subsidized by the govt through airports, air traffic control and security infrastructure, etc. But I'd like to see the numbers presented with a legitimate source before I assume any further

[Dog Walker]

I rode the train round trip from Rome to Florence about 5 years ago.  It was nice and convenient but isn't the future of inter-city travel over 200 miles going to be by air?  It may not be as pleasant but I'll bet it will be faster and cheaper (for passengers and taxpayers).  Rail requires so much more infrastructure.

In Europe, air travel between destinations less than 500 miles apart has almost stopped.  Paris to London, center of city to center of city is three hours.  Fly the same route.  Thirty-five minutes by taxi to Paris-DeGaulle having to arrive one hour early for security.  Gate to gate time to Heathrow, ninety minutes.  Wait for luggage, thirty minutes.  Wait for bus or train to get to central London -thirty minutes.  Train trip to central London - one hour.  And this is if everything goes perfectly.

Which would you want to do.

Distance from Paris to Lyons is almost exactly the same distance as Miami - Jacksonville.  Trip on the high speed train takes 2 hours fifteen minutes from city center to city center.

Travel over 200 miles by air is not the future, but the past.

[urbanlibertarian]

From USAToday:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-10-02-otoole01_ST_N.htm

We can't afford the luxury of high-speed rail

      
USA TODAY OPINION


By Randal O'Toole
This past Tuesday, Amtrak proposed to spend more than $100 billion increasing the top speeds of trains in its Boston-to-Washington corridor from 150 to 220 miles per hour. In August, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood estimated that President Obama's proposal to extend high-speed rail to other parts of the country will cost at least $500 billion.

No one knows where this money will come from, but President Obama argues that we need to spend it because high-speed rail will have a "transformative effect" on the American economy. In fact, all it will do is drag the economy down.

The history of transportation shows that we adopt new technologies when they are faster, more convenient, and less expensive than the technologies they replace. High-speed rail is slower than flying, less convenient than driving, and far more expensive than either one. As a result, it will never serve more than a few marginal travelers.

New transportation technologies have a truly transformative effect when they not only replace older technologies but also increase total mobility. Intercity passenger trains, electric streetcars, and mass-produced automobiles offered their customers thousands of miles per year of new mobility. This gave people access to jobs, resources, and opportunities that were previously unavailable.

The numbers

At an inflation-adjusted cost of about $450 billion paid out of highway user fees, the Interstate Highway System, to which high-speed rail is sometimes compared, provides more than 4,000 miles of passenger travel for every American, miles that Americans were not traveling before the system was built. By comparison, a $600 billion expenditure on high-speed rail will provide, at best, around 300 miles of travel per person.

More to the point, most of that travel will not be new travel, but merely a substitute for driving, flying, or other existing forms of travel. The California High-Speed Rail Authority predicts that 98% of its customers will shift from driving or flying. Florida predicts that 96% of the people using its high-speed train will switch from driving.

Almost no new travel means almost no transformative effect. Few people will use high-speed rail or urban rail transit to access new markets, resources, or jobs. Merely substituting rail for other modes will be extremely expensive.

Amtrak brags that its high-speed Acela between Boston and Washington covers its operating costs, though not its capital costs. It does so, however, only by collecting fares of about 75 cents per passenger mile. By comparison, airline fares average only 13 cents a passenger mile, and intercity buses (which, Amtrak doesn't want you to know, carry about three times as many passengers between Boston and Washington as the Acela) are even less expensive.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Americans spent about $950 billion on driving in 2008. This allowed us to travel, says the Federal Highway Administration, more than 2.7 trillion vehicle miles, for an average cost of about 35 cents per vehicle mile. Since the California High-Speed Rail Authority estimates cars in intercity travel carry an average of 2.4 people, the average cost is less than 15 cents a passenger mile.

Subsidizing the urban elite

In short, high-speed rail is more than five times more expensive than any of the alternatives. Since most high-speed rail stations will be in downtowns, the main users will be downtown workers such as lawyers, bankers, and government officials. Yet less than 8% of American jobs are in central city downtowns, meaning all Americans will subsidize trains used by only a small urban elite.

High-speed trains in Europe and Asia may be a boon to American tourists, but they haven't proved transformational in those regions either. France and Japan have the world's most extensive high-speed rail networks, yet their average residents ride the high-speed trains less than 400 miles a year.

Personally, I love trains and it would be nice to think we were rich enough to build a high-speed rail network that few people will ever use. But we are not. The Obama administration would do better by making our existing transportation systems safer and more effective.

Randal O'Toole (rot@cato.org) is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and author of Gridlock: Why We're Stuck in Traffic and What to Do About It.

[Dog Walker]

Funny how every country in Europe and Asia is able to do what O'Toole says can't be done.

And how far does the average American fly every year?  The trains in Europe are packed all the time and wildly popular.  Spain has just completed its high speed system and already there are complaints that they are not running enough trains.

He is also conflating commuter rail with long distance, high speed rail.

Very weak article.  Cato usually does much better.

[tufsu1]

high speed rail is fairly expensive....but upgrading existing rail service to run 90-100mph isn't...for trips under 200 miles, the extra time for rail is offset by the need top be at the airport 1 hour before flight...and then there are the likely delays.

[thelakelander]

He is also conflating commuter rail with long distance, high speed rail.

Very weak article.  Cato usually does much better.

It's Randal O'Toole.  He's a long time critic of any kind of rail so this article written by him is not suprising.

[Dog Walker]

high speed rail is fairly expensive....but upgrading existing rail service to run 90-100mph isn't...for trips under 200 miles, the extra time for rail is offset by the need top be at the airport 1 hour before flight...and then there are the likely delays.

We should absolutely be upgrading our existing rail system now and I think 200 miles is probably on the low side.

Has anyone flown to Miami from Jax recently?  How long did it take overall?

[urbanlibertarian]

What about the comparison of cost per passenger mile (15 cents for auto, 13 cents for air and 75+ cents for rail) that he quotes?  Even if his figures are way off does anyone think that rail is cheaper?  If not, why should taxpayer support be used to make it happen?

[tufsu1]

those aren't costs per mile....that is per passenger revenue (or fares) per mile

[Lunican]

http://www.dot.gov/budget/2010/bib2010.htm

[ChriswUfGator]

high speed rail is fairly expensive....but upgrading existing rail service to run 90-100mph isn't...for trips under 200 miles, the extra time for rail is offset by the need top be at the airport 1 hour before flight...and then there are the likely delays.

+1

Last time I flew to Virginia the check in and security lines at MCO were ridiculous (2+ hours) and then the plane was delayed 3 or 4 times for at least an hour each time. Then when I finally got to IAD, there was some issue with the baggage and it took me an hour to get out of the airport. Another 30 or 40 minutes involved in riding a shuttle to Hertz and getting the rental car, and then I still had an hourlong drive to Warrenton. No kidding, by the time I finally arrived I could have just driven the entire trip, saved myself at least $600 in the process, and would have actually arrived earlier than I did going by air.

Air travel isn't what it used to be, speed and convenience wise.

[Coolyfett]

I rode the train round trip from Rome to Florence about 5 years ago.  It was nice and convenient but isn't the future of inter-city travel over 200 miles going to be by air?  It may not be as pleasant but I'll bet it will be faster and cheaper (for passengers and taxpayers).  Rail requires so much more infrastructure.

not sure I agree...how much do airports cost these days?  I mean, Atlanta just spent over $1 billion building their 5th runway!

huh?? When?

[Coolyfett]

high speed rail is fairly expensive....but upgrading existing rail service to run 90-100mph isn't...for trips under 200 miles, the extra time for rail is offset by the need top be at the airport 1 hour before flight...and then there are the likely delays.

We should absolutely be upgrading our existing rail system now and I think 200 miles is probably on the low side.

Has anyone flown to Miami from Jax recently?  How long did it take overall?

I did in June. 1 hr 40 MIN from take off to touch down

[tufsu1]

I rode the train round trip from Rome to Florence about 5 years ago.  It was nice and convenient but isn't the future of inter-city travel over 200 miles going to be by air?  It may not be as pleasant but I'll bet it will be faster and cheaper (for passengers and taxpayers).  Rail requires so much more infrastructure.

not sure I agree...how much do airports cost these days?  I mean, Atlanta just spent over $1 billion building their 5th runway!

huh?? When?

about 2 years ago...it is the runway that spans I-285