Dear Joe:
The multi-mode cargo is already a reality, where it makes sense, but nobody is going to build more rail-lines.
Then why are so many lines being extended? Subways are heavy rail and they are adding track. So is light rail and more miles of that are being built. And railroads are converting single track main lines to double track to handle the additional capacity needs. And this is in the US. They even went to the federal government and touted a subsidized plan to reduce long distance trucking, faster passenger (read Amtrak + regional intercity) and save fuel all while lowering shipping rates. Their request was for about 20% of our annual highway construction budget.
Rail is cheaper than truck. The only thing is that trucking gets their infrastructure for free, while rail has to pay for it. Because of the latter, rail has to have traffic be above a critical volume. Once you have that which is the reason for the part about having most long distance trips include a large rail portion. In Europe and Asia where the railways are subsidized, like we do highways here, they are building new rail lines. If you include the costs of the roads into trucking, rail wins in lower overall cost. Look at the cost of putting a 4 lane (2 plus an emergency lane each way) interstate and a double track main line per mile. The rail line costs less. When you add in the costs of fuel used to transport the same amount of goods and maintenance of the roadway, its a no brainer for rail.
This is strictly a fantasy, not unlike what you hear from some so called environmentalist. Something as intrusive, as unflexible, and as inconvenient is never going to happen. Besides, it takes away the freedom the automobile gives you, and I think Americans would give up their guns before giving up freedom to go anywhere, anytime their heart desires.
Currently the IRS states that the average cost per mile for automobiles is $0.52. That includes tax, title, depreciation, tires, fuel, maintenance, etc. How many miles do you drive? The 10K that the auto industry uses? The 12K that the insurance companies use? The 15K that the IRS uses? Or the 20K that is typical for a normal adult who commutes by car to work? Would you switch at $1.00 per mile? $2? $3?
Of that $0.52 assumes 16MPG for gas. Yes the CAFE standard is 22.5MPG but that neglects heavy SUVs and pickups. It also neglects that people drive faster than the EPA does. The EPA assumes an average speed of 40MPH. THe average in the 90's was 45MPH and there are some studies that indicate it is at 50MPH now. Each 10% rise in speeds increases fuel consumption by 20%. 16MPG for $2 gas is $0.125 pewr mile. $3 gas likely increases some of the other parts by some amount, but that adds $0.06 to the above. Going 50MPH average rather than 40MPH adds another $0.07. So we would be at $0.65.
At what point would you stop using your SUV and use a frugal economy car which gets 30-40MPG? Would another such increase push you towards a motorcycle or plug in electric car? At what point would you demand the government supply mass transit near to your home (walk two blocks or 1/8 mile to nearest bus stop)? At what point would you show your transit pass to a bus near your house, transfer to a rail line (subway, light rail, commuter rail), transfer back to a bus and walk two blocks to your job? Major employers would either have a bus stop right at the employee entrance or a direct stop via some kind of rail. Smaller ones would have a van pick people up at the station and take them to work.
It would look more beautiful as those big parking lots and structures go away replaced by green space.
That does not even address the capital expenses necessary to create such a network, and multibillion dollar operating losses to operate such a system.
And the highways aren't subsidized? We spend hundreds of millions annually to maintain and add to the highway system. For 20% of that, we can double the main line rail track. For 5% we could double the number of buses using the most efficient power sources (fuel cells, electric and multiple fuel turbine). For 5% we could double passenger rail cars (subways, light rail and commuter). Another 10% could effectively drop bus and rail fares to zero. Just 10% of the annual highway budget of the states and the federal government and rail and mass transit is free.
Given free bus and rail travel, how many do you think would use it? Enough to reduce long distance highway usage by 10%? Would even more use it, if we doubled the operating equipment and the areas served? Would a normal commuter use it if he had to go 20 miles each way to work? With rush hours both ways, traffic jams and other obstructions, it takes a normal person 40 minutes each way. A mass transit version would have one walk 3 minutes to the stop, wait 5 minutes for the bus, 5 minutes to the station, 5 minutes wait for the train, 10 minutes on the train, 5 minutes wait for the bus, 5 minutes on the bus and 2 minutes to work. The same amount of time as the car. Yet he didn't have to deal with traffic jams, stop lights, could read the paper on the train and bus and not worry about getting into an accident or the car breaking down. Many of the reasons people do use mass transit is because it has spiralled down over the years as the car subsidy went up, the difference got greater.
I do that in my SimCity games. In reality, people can't be forced into high density housing. People would have to be attracted there by making cities safe primarily, livable, with functioning schools, with spending and taxes under control. When a city turns into a third world country, like New Orleans (pre or post Katrina), governed by third world mentality and citizenry, nobody in their right mind is going to go their, no matter how good the intentions of the city planners are.
If cities can take care of that, people will come, and the "high density" housing will not have to be built with subsidies, developers will come, and people will come. Basically, if going to a city is not like going to Baghdad, people will move back to cities. But very few cities have been run competently enough to make it happen.
Isn't that a reason to get rid of the way things work now? Rural areas also have these problems. There are few well run rural areas either. There are many "ghost" towns out there and towns that are almost gone. And cars made towns less dense. In the west where towns are young, things are very spread out. You seem to have a 10 acre parking lot attached to every store. In towns over 100 years old, the average lot was 30 by 60 feet. On a standard 330 by 440 foot block, you had 48 homes. In 20 year old towns, you are lucky to get 6 homes on that same block. To make it appear nearly the same, they built the block a whole lot bigger, 440 by 880.
When you have to walk, density goes up. When land gets expensive, density also goes up. Every 4 blocks had a small grocery store and bus stop. Every 16 blocks had a barber, a 5 and 10 cent store, etc. Every 64 blocks had a school and every 192 blocks had a police station and some government offices. Some 25 thousand people lived in that square mile. Your standard post war suburb has only 2500 people in that same square mile. 1990's burgs dropped that down to 1000 people or less. We are going back up in density because the commute times are getting outrageous, so land becomes more valuable thus forcing the density to increase. This density increase will cause more traffic jams which pushes the cycle all over again. This cycle can be short cut via mass transit. As the density goes up, the frequency of service goes up. As the frequency goes up, it gets more convenient to use transit and so even more people use it. This frees the highways for folk who don't have it as an option.
However since less use it, the maintenance can't be paid for. And local land owners can't afford to maintain it, so opt not to do it. And with using the bad road not a real option, people would clamor for mass transit to be extended to them. thus cycling back around again. Thus highways could suffer the same fate as railroads and mass transit do now. Without that subsidy, fewer people would use roads.
For an example just look at toll road usage. I go out of my way not to use toll roads, especially in Illinois. It is cheaper for me to go around them and lose a little time than to use them with all of their aggravations. Illinois toll roads are especially bad because you have to pay getting on, pay every dozen or so miles and to get off. Lots of hassle factor. Ohio toll roads are better, you get a ticket when you get on and only pay when you get off and you talk to a real person instead of some malfunctioning change reader exits like in Illinois. No stopping for the inevitable traffic jam around each toll station in Illinois either. Would you use a car, if every jurisdiction change had you paying a toll including leaving your driveway?
Pete |
