Chris Lawrence, among others, points out that "government" is not what has screwed up American rail; it's the American government. Yes, this is true, which is why I used the definite article. The American government's infrastructure process is pathological for a number of reasons, chief among them the endless public review process and the log-rolling needed to build a coalition for anything in the fractured US legislature.
But these are features of the American political system that are not, in my estimation, going away. As long as they dominate, it will be very hard to make state-owned rail work in this country. Private efforts seem more--if just barely more--likely to bear fruit. Obviously, I also think that things should be private wherever possible, but I am not denying that state-owned rail works well in other countries; I just don't think that it will ever do so here.
Why is it that I can take a bus from DC to NY for no more than $20 (and at least two competing companies offer off-peak fares of $8) but Amtrak wants me to fork out over $100 for essentially the same journey?
If *any* rail route can make money, it's DC to NY. And yet the supposedly more efficient rail network is almost an order of magnitude more expensive. Why?
Rich,
It is my understanding that large vehicles like buses and trucks cause most of the vehicle related wear and tear on the roads. However, they are not taxes in comparison to their usage. So in a sense, they are subsidized because they aren't paying in relation to their costs.
As I understand it, most rail lines are owned by freight companies that maintain the rail lines themselves. So passenger rail must bear the true costs of ridership. Sure, Amtrak is subsidized by the government. But where did the tax money to build a new highway originate? Some of it is from gas taxes, sure. But some of it is from state and local governments paying. That money surely wasn't from gas taxes.
For passenger rail to be efficient several things need to happen. I think the best solution is to have the government run rail lines the same way as highways. They provide the infrastructure, and private companies get into the service game. There should also be a high degree of cooperation between the Federal, State, and local governments much like there is with highways and interstates.
It is my understanding that freight rail is 4x more fuel efficient than trucks, so freight rail is booming. It makes sense that passenger rail has fuel efficiency advantages over some modes of transportation, but not others. This will be important if fuel prices continue to rise.
Um... gas taxes?
Um... gas taxes?
At 5.5 mpg on the highway vs. 30mpg for a sedan we need to figure if trucks produce more than 6x as much wear as a car.
Do have any figures on that?
From the relevant US DOT rules, I see that the US DOT has mandated limits of 80,000 lbs on the weight of tractor trailers. Given that cars usually weigh only about 2,000 lbs and even large pickups usually come in at less than 5,000, I'd say that, yes, it is quite possible for tractor trailers to be causing more than 6x the damage of a car.
"Um... gas taxes?"
Um, no. Gas taxes at the state level often don't cover the state's highway budgets.
http://www.illinois.gov/gov/capitalprogram.cfm
http://www.ioc.state.il.us/FiscalFocus/article.cfm?ID=131
And that is just highways. Don't forget all the feeder roads that are essential to making it all work.
"At 5.5 mpg on the highway vs. 30mpg for a sedan we need to figure if trucks produce more than 6x as much wear as a car."
Why 6x? Trucks and cars pay about the same taxes per gallon. There was a book written about this some time ago.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Fs6Z800g5IAC&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=highway+wear+trucks&source=web&ots=5X_iHiiZzL&sig=cgbaALagtdkSxdrmZkpxXBe5XbI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result
You probably will poo poo this source, but some studies show 19:1 ratio of road wear for trucks vs cars.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Fs6Z800g5IAC&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=highway+wear+trucks&source=web&ots=5X_iHiiZzL&sig=cgbaALagtdkSxdrmZkpxXBe5XbI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result
Megan, the "fractured US legislature" has served this country quite well, albeit imperfectly.
It is the nature of the human mind to have more bad ideas than good. Imagine the mess we'd be in if it were easy to pass everything these guys thought up.
Also note that the inevitable difficulties were foreseen and approved of by the framers of the Constitution as a bulwark against tyranny of the majority. (See the Federalist Papers.)
Yes, but to go 1 mile in a heavy truck you will use 6x as much fuel and therefor pay 6x as much in tax.
However, if the ratio is 19:1 then you are correct.
I doubt that trucks are designed to minimise wear and tear on the road. I know that the landing gear of large commercial aircraft, A380 for example, are designed to minimize runway wear and tear. If trucking firms had to bear more of the cost they might have an incentive to buy trucks engineered to minimize wear.
I doubt that trucks are designed to minimise wear and tear on the road. I know that the landing gear of large commercial aircraft, A380 for example, are designed to minimize runway wear and tear. If trucking firms had to bear more of the cost they might have an incentive to buy trucks engineered to minimize wear.
All else equal, wear and tear will primarily be a function of total load weight, the number of axles it is distributed upon, and the size and number of tires on each axle. Many states have extensive regulations governing exactly these things for truck traffic.
To the extent that trucks aren't taxed more in direct proportion to road damage, it may have to do with the fact that roads are a vital instrument in promoting commerce, with benefits for everyone, and therefore much of the cost is paid for by everyone.
Heavy trucks do far more than 6x or even 19x the road damage that cars do. Models vary, but the usual values are between 40,000x and 80,000x.
(The damage to roads comes from the amount the road surface is deflected, which tends to follow the fourth power of the axle weight. An 80,000 lb five axle truck is 16,000 lb per axle, while a 2,000 lb two axle car is only 1,000 lb per axle. A 16x difference in axle weight gives a roughtly 16^4 = 65,536x difference in road damage.)
Essentially all road damage is due to either heavy trucks, studded tires, or water caused subsidence. Everything else is noise.
Why are me missing the most important factor here. If you exclude Alaska the U.S. population density per square kilometer is about 38. This puts us on par with South Africa, Guinea, Eritrea and Latvia.
This figure can be comparead to Germany 232 people/km^2, Switzerland 176, France 110 and Spain 89.
We haven't run out of room yet that mass transit make senses to the same degree it does in overpopulated Europe where supply and demand forces everyone to live close to everything.
while a 2,000 lb two axle car is only 1,000 lb per axle
...and is also a Geo Metro with four passengers on board, or an exotic. Many modern, small-to-medium sized passenger cars handily exceed a 3500 pound curb weight, with large trucks (e.g. F350 Super Duty) and large SUVs like the Suburban and the Excursion reaching as high as 6000-7500 pounds.
Freight trucks will still be heavier by far, but the typical difference on American roads is not determined by comparison to 2000 pound cars, but rather to 4000 pound cars and 6000 pound trucks.
Irrelevant since large swathes of the US are desert and uninhabitable. I'd be more interested in population density comparison in "habitable" zones. I bet the US is lot closer to Europe then you think. There is no more room.
FreedomLover,
Might I invite you to visit the South (NC, SC, TN, GA, KY, AL, MS and the Florida Panhandle), where they can't build houses fast enough and it is easy to buy and live on 5, 10 or more acres all by your self.
5 Years a go, my dad bought 7 acres and built a house for him and his wife, in a subdivision with no lot less than 3.5 acres. And they were on the outskirts of the suburbs, with even more open land to the south of them.
Montana, Idaho, the Dakota's, Wyoming and the Pacific Northwest are all habitable and all sparsely populated.
There is TONS of room.
Irrelevant since large swathes of the US are desert and uninhabitable.
So...you've invented a way for trains to cross the "uninhabitable desert" in zero time?
Irrelevant since large swathes of the US are desert and uninhabitable.
City slicker says what?
"Freight trucks will still be heavier by far, but the typical difference on American roads is not determined by comparison to 2000 pound cars, but rather to 4000 pound cars and 6000 pound trucks."
I was just using the numbers used in earlier comments for consistency, but if you want it's easy to re-do the math.
A 4,000 lb car weighs 2,000 lb per axle, which is still only 1/8 of the semi. That would mean the semi "only" does 8^4 = 4000x the damage of your cast iron sedan. While that's a lot less that 65000x, I'd volunteer that 1/4000 is still approximately equal to zero.
My point above stands: Essentially all road damage is due to either heavy trucks, studded tires, or water caused subsidence. Everything else is noise. 1/4000 is noise.
Doh H,
You forgot that the semi has more axles. Say about 2.5 times as many. Hence the damage is 8^4 * 2.5 times as much, or 10 000 times the damage of the car.
Certainly the civil engineers I know tell me that they only count heavy vehicles when calculating road wear rates.
Question here: As far as I can tell, Europe has better train service and better bus service. They are on time, clean, safe and comfortable. How do they pay for and account for it?
Question here: As far as I can tell, Europe has better train service and better bus service. They are on time, clean, safe and comfortable. How do they pay for and account for it?
Gasoline taxed all the way up to a pump price of €1.50/L will do the trick. That converts to about €5.70 per US gallon, and if you're going there as an American tourist, plan on converting your dollars at about 2:1 -- you'll take the bus and demand that it be top-notch, too.