Matthew Yglesias » Ride the SUPERTRAIN

Aug 29th, 2008 at 10:05 am

Ride the SUPERTRAIN

At last the MSM gets hip to Joe Biden’s potential implications for the SUPERTRAIN. Which is probably as good a time as any to recall that the SUPERTRAIN isn’t just a blogger in-joke. There are some pretty awesome trains out there. Here’s the AVE I took from Madrid to Toledo:

This train not only manages to transport people in a much more environmentally sound manner than taking private automobiles would entail, but the trip only takes 30 minutes — less than half the time involved in driving.

Comments
65

Filed under: Biden, Rail, transportation

65 Responses to “Ride the SUPERTRAIN”

Andrew Fly Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 10:21 am
I rode the TGV from Paris to Amsterdam, 3.5 hours, driving it’s almost 5
Emma Zahn Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Did the 30 minutes include the time to travel from your point of orgin to the embark station and then from the debark station to your final destination?
RWB Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 10:31 am
I took the TGV from Paris to Angouleme (I’m such a nerd that I went to France for a comic book convention there), and it was quite amazing. Getting to the station in Paris (from the airport) was quite easy via public transportation, and the train released us in downtown Angouleme literally blocks from the main convention area. Obviously your mileage will vary, but I’d say that getting to a train station and parking there would probably not be any harder than getting to an airport and parking there in the U.S (if we had TGV-style trains as an option to flying). And it might possibly be veasier, since train stations (such as they are) tend to be located near or in downtowns, while many airports are located on the fringes of cities because 1) they are newer than the train stations, and 2) they require a lot of open land that is not easily available inside cities. That might help the “door-to-door” time for TGVs to be somewhat more competitive with airplanes.
fletc3her Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 10:31 am
This is one of the more exciting aspects of Joe Biden’s selection as VP candidate. I would love to see this country embrace rail travel to a much larger extent. I have taken the train from Boston to New York several times and found it very enjoyable.

I take the train from Seattle to Portland several times a year now to visit family. It is not faster than taking a car, but it is not much slower. If we could shave some time off the train it would be even better. The worst parts of the trip are in the freight heavy area between Seattle and Tacoma and then between Vancouver, WA and Portland. Really just getting some cooperation from the freight companies would probably shave a half hour off the trip.

As to the time to get to the stations. Getting to a train station isn’t like getting to an airport. All the one’s I’ve been to are right downtown, accessible to public transportation. If your destination is in the city the train can be a win. The airport is almost never a win. Cars, of course, are more convenient overall. But, then you do have to drive the whole time you’re traveling. Some of us find that a net negative.
MS Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Don’t European rail systems receive significant government subsidies?
Milind Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Don’t American highway systems receive significant government subsidies?

Aren’t American airports actually run by governments?

I can play this game too!
Doh Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 10:57 am
I took that all the way to Seville– 2.5 hours for over 300 miles, and it was as smooth as sitting in your living room. Compare that to Acela, which takes longer to go 2/3 as far between NY and DC, and is a less pleasant ride.

And this isn’t something that’s been around forever the way our rail lines have been. I understand the Spanish gov’t has been investing billions in building new track (while we blow billions on profiteering contractors in Iraq).
El Cruzado Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Knowing the traffic around Madrid, I’d say one hour to go from Madrid to Toledo by car is highly optimistic.
James Robertson Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 11:36 am
The price of the Acela from BWI to NYC is $160, one way. That train is not “super fast” – which means that any proposed super train will likely cost more more to ride than the Acela.

Round trip, the Acela is 360 miles on that journey, and $320. A gas guzzling SUV that gets 15 mpg would run $96 (at $4.00 per gallon). Never mind what a more reasonable vehicle would cost, or how much it would go down with 2-4 people along for the trip.

If we assume $8 per gallon gas, the SUV is still cheaper. So sure – those fast trains are very cool. And outside of people who have someone else paying for it, they aren’t widely ridden, either.

I have colleagues in Europe, who all have access to fast trains. If corporate pays for the ticket, they ride. If it’s their own nickel, they all drive.

You figure it out.
Zach Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
I fully expect Joe Biden’s impassioned support of Amtrak to falter once he takes residence in DC.
Zach Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
@James

Acela to NYC is infinitely faster than driving. The regular Amtrak trains b/w Baltimore and NYC take a comparable amount of time (ca. 3 hrs), carry slightly less risk (delays suck and happen sometimes, but probably not as often as turnpike or tunnel backups), and are comparably priced to the gas cost (and you’re forgetting tolls, wear-and-tear, and the opportunity cost of driving instead of being able to get work done).

I wish high-speed rail on the east coast was more subsidized, had cheaper fares, and had more cars as well, but your criticism of the system as it exists is seriously flawed.
Mixner Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Matthew,

At last the MSM gets hip to Joe Biden’s potential implications for the SUPERTRAIN.

The SUPERTRAIN is SUPERNONSENSE.

This train not only manages to transport people in a much more environmentally sound manner than taking private automobiles would entail,

Depends crucially on load factor, fuel and engine type. How does a half-empty train powered by a diesel locomotive or electricity generated by burning coal compare to a Toyota Prius carrying two or more people?

but the trip only takes 30 minutes — less than half the time involved in driving.

Since most people’s journeys do not start and end at train stations, this isn’t terribly relevant. The relevant time comparison is total travel time from origin to destination. For travel by train, that would include the time required to travel to and from the train station at each end of the trip, the time involved in buying tickets, checking bags, waiting for the train to arrive, boarding the train, etc.
tom0063 Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Russia’s already building a supertrain from Moscow to St. Petersburg….
Mixner Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Zach,

Acela to NYC is infinitely faster than driving.

According to Amtrak’s website, the Acela “Express” from BWI to NYC Penn Station takes about 2.5 hours. According to Google Maps, the driving time for the same trip is about 3.5 hours. You have a very strange notion of the meaning of “infinitely faster.” Of course, it is very unlikely that any actual real-world trip would start and end at train stations, so the Acela trip would also involve the time needed to travel between the train stations and the origin/final destination at each end of the trip. Plus the time spent at the train station before the train leaves. So it is highly doubtful that the total travel time even on the “high-speed” Acela would be less than the total travel time by car.

The fare on Acela is about $160. The driving distance is about 180 miles. At 52 cents per mile (AAA’s estimate of average driving costs), driving would therefore cost about $90. So even if it’s just one person travelling, Acela would be almost twice as expensive as driving. If there are two people travelling, Acela would be four times as expensive.
jack lecou Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Load factors on the TGV regularly exceed 70%. Load factors on Amtrak ain’t so great, but then, they’re prohibited by Congress from doing anything sensible about it (like, say, offering discount tickets).

BWI is a slightly strange starting point. Google maps tells me it takes over 5 hours (with traffic) from DC Union Station to NYC Penn Station. (Or 4:20 from BWI.)

On medium length routes, high speed rail generally has door-to-door trip times very competitive with air, and superior to cars. Note that traffic is a really serious problem for cars, because you have to plan for the worst case scenario. Medium distance car travel has absolutely awful on-time performance.
Aaron Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Mixner: $90 plus parking in NYC, unless in my absence that somehow became free. $90 plus increased roadway congestion on the freeway and in Manhattan. Of course it makes more sense to drive for 2-7 people, no one is claiming that it doesn’t. But what percentage of cars on the highway are really full? Hell, how many have more than just one person?
Mixner Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Mixner: $90 plus parking in NYC, unless in my absence that somehow became free. $90 plus increased roadway congestion on the freeway and in Manhattan.

The final destination may not even be in NYC. And both driving and taking the train may involve parking fees. If the Acela rider drives from his point of origin to the station at BWI, he will probably need to pay for parking there. Plus the other costs of that drive, or the costs of public transportation if he uses that instead.

Of course it makes more sense to drive for 2-7 people, no one is claiming that it doesn’t.

Given that Acela tickets are so expensive, driving may make more sense even if it’s only one person travelling. And of course, there is also the option of taking a bus, which is likely to be much cheaper than either driving or taking the train. It’s no wonder that around 80% of Acela riders are business travelers. Acela is simply not competitive with air and highway alternatives for the vast majority of trips, even though it receives massive government subsidies.
Roger Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
1. Acelas are NOT less subsidized than cars. I-95 did not build itself.

2. Picking Acela, the world shittiest high speed train (overweight, on a 80 year old or more infrastructure shared with a fuckton on other trains) as an example is like saying than TGVs are better than Yugos.

3. A bus can not compete on speed to a true TGV on a true HSL. Nor on delays. Or comfort.
hoi polloi Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
I had a memorable AVE experience in the late 90’s while on tour in Europe. Rushing to connect from the Madrid airport to the AVE to Seville, the tour promoter, tour manager and myself, a meek, mild-mannered videographer, got on the AVE at the last minute thinking the 20 other folks on the tour had already boarded.

Long story short, we 3 had a lovely 3 hour, Cava-softened trip arriving in Seville at 11pm. Our tour mates managed to get on the localest of locals and made a gruesome, 14-hour journey overnight. Things went downhill from there.
Dilan Esper Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Since most people’s journeys do not start and end at train stations, this isn’t terribly relevant. The relevant time comparison is total travel time from origin to destination. For travel by train, that would include the time required to travel to and from the train station at each end of the trip, the time involved in buying tickets, checking bags, waiting for the train to arrive, boarding the train, etc.

True enough, but I’d rather arrive in Madrid at the Atocha station by train than to have to try to drive into the city on its narrow streets and find a place to park!
Mixner Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Load factors on the TGV regularly exceed 70%.

The TGV is massively subsidized by the French government. If TGV riders had to pay anything close to the true cost of providing the service, hardly anyone would use it.

Note that traffic is a really serious problem for cars, because you have to plan for the worst case scenario. Medium distance car travel has absolutely awful on-time performance.

No, Amtrak has absolutely awful on-time performance. And it’s getting worse and worse. Its overall on-time performance in 2006 was only 68%, and its long-distance on-time performance was an abysmal 30%.
Mixner Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
1. Acelas are NOT less subsidized than cars.

Right. Acela is more subsidized than cars. The government subsidizes passenger rail travel vastly more than it subsidizes highway travel.

3. A bus can not compete on speed to a true TGV on a true HSL. Nor on delays. Or comfort.

Again, whether rail is meaningfully time-competitive with air and highway alternatives depends on total travel time, not simply station-to-station travel time. Rail certainly cannot compete on cost with air and highway alternatives, which is why it has such a tiny share of the market for intercity travel.
jack lecou Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
The TGV is massively subsidized by the French government. If TGV riders had to pay anything close to the true cost of providing the service, hardly anyone would use it.

My first couple searches haven’t turned up a lot of detail (probably all in French), but I do see that SNCF had almost a 1 billion Euro profit in 2007, and paid the government (the owner) a 150 million Euro dividend. That doesn’t sound too bad.

No, Amtrak has absolutely awful on-time performance. And it’s getting worse and worse. Its overall on-time performance in 2006 was only 68%, and its long-distance on-time performance was an abysmal 30%.

Do I even need to explain to anybody here why Mixner’s full of crap here? (I’m guessing not, but I will just note that French/Japanese/etc. high speed trains have on time performance in the >99% range.)
jack lecou Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Again, whether rail is meaningfully time-competitive with air and highway alternatives depends on total travel time, not simply station-to-station travel time. Rail certainly cannot compete on cost with air and highway alternatives, which is why it has such a tiny share of the market for intercity travel.

Except, you know, in places where they actually invest in the service, like Europe.
jack lecou Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Again, whether rail is meaningfully time-competitive with air and highway alternatives depends on total travel time, not simply station-to-station travel time.

And not to repeat myself or anything but: “On medium length routes, high speed rail generally has door-to-door trip times very competitive with air, and superior to cars.On medium length routes, high speed rail generally has door-to-door trip times very competitive with air, and superior to cars.”

See, for example, the modeling done for California HSR.
novakant Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
The TGV is massively subsidized by the French government.

So f@cking what!

Roads are subsidized, museums are subsidized, the military is subsidized, public parks and buildings are subsidized, the government is subsidized, libraries are subsidized, health care is subsidized, education is subsidized, and when the shit hits the fan even big business and the financial system is subsidized – all these things come with certain benefits that makes subsidizing them worthwhile.

So why should rail travel be any different?
Mixner Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
DMonteith,

My first couple searches haven’t turned up a lot of detail (probably all in French), but I do see that SNCF had almost a 1 billion Euro profit in 2007, and paid the government (the owner) a 150 million Euro dividend. That doesn’t sound too bad.

If you think you have evidence that the TGV makes a “profit” then produce it. The evidence must of course include total costs. In particular, the enormous capital costs of building railtrack and stations and buying locomotives and passenger cars. Not just the costs of operating the service.

Do I even need to explain to anybody here why Mixner’s full of crap here?

No, you’re full of crap, DMonteith. If you think you have evidence that the Bureau of Transportation Statistics data I linked to is false, then produce it.
Mixner Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
DMonteith,

Except, you know, in places where they actually invest in the service, like Europe.

No, not in those places, either. Your bizarre habit of linking to web pages that provide nothing to support the assertion you’re actually trying to defend is reaching new heights of absurdity.

See, for example, the modeling done for California HSR.

What “modeling” would that be? Produce it.
Mixner Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
So why should rail travel be any different?

The government subsidy per passenger-mile of travel is vastly higher for rail than for air and highways. What is the justification for this hugely disproportionate level of subsidy for rail?
jack lecou Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
If you think you have evidence that the Bureau of Transportation Statistics data I linked to is false, then produce it.

Assuming you’re talking to me, and not the voices in your head (newsflash, if your ego can handle it: more than one person around here thinks you’re kind of slow, and it doesn’t mean we’re all the same person): The BTS statistics are not false, but nevertheless completely fail to address the topic at hand.

You either know this, and are deliberately acting obtuse, or you don’t know this, and you’re just a moron. A lot of people have gone to a lot of effort to explain this stuff to you in the hopes that you are acting in good faith, but it hasn’t really been worth our time.

What “modeling” would that be? Produce it.

Time to go, so no time to dig up the old thread where Mixner repeatedly fails or refuses to follow the link provided to get this, and instead repeatedly asks that it be spoon fed to him. (It was truly hilarious, folks.) But it’s really not at all hidden or secret, so why don’t you try looking for yourself this time?
jack lecou Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
No, not in those places, either. Your bizarre habit of linking to web pages that provide nothing to support the assertion you’re actually trying to defend is reaching new heights of absurdity.

For these maverick entrepreneurs, the awful truth is that the old business model – high costs, high fares and route monopolies – is now resurgent. Within Western Europe, travellers are quitting the airports in favour of the railways.

Since the opening of the new high-speed line from St. Pancras station in London to the Channel Tunnel, Eurostar, the train operator, has been packing them in. A reduction in journey time of just 15 minutes – central London to central Paris is now just 2 ¼ hours – has helped Eurostar raise passenger numbers by 18 per cent since the beginning of the year and revenues are up 25 per cent over that period.

…
For the airlines, the writing is on the rails; for journeys of 600 miles or less, a plane cannot compete with high-speed trains.
jack lecou Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
If you think you have evidence that the TGV makes a “profit” then produce it. The evidence must of course include total costs. In particular, the enormous capital costs of building railtrack and stations and buying locomotives and passenger cars. Not just the costs of operating the service.

I have no doubt the French government has invested a great deal in the rail infrastructure. The French people also get a great deal back out of it. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that French taxpayers are being ripped off somehow?
Mixner Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
DMonteith,

The BTS statistics are not false, but nevertheless completely fail to address the topic at hand.

Well, don’t keep us in suspense, D. Why do you think the BTS statistics “completely fail to address the topic at hand?”

You either know this, and are deliberately acting obtuse, or you don’t know this, and you’re just a moron.

You’re either lying, or a moron, or both. I think both.

Time to go, so no time to dig up the old thread where Mixner repeatedly fails or refuses to follow the link provided to get this

Funny how it’s always “time to go” whenever you are asked to substantiate your claims. If you think you have the alleged “modeling” you referred to above, produce it. If you cannot produce it, I will assume it’s because it’s a figment of your imagination.
jack lecou Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
jack lecou Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Ate my comment? Weird:

Well, don’t keep us in suspense, D. Why do you think the BTS statistics “completely fail to address the topic at hand?”

Maybe first you’d like to point out where Matt or anyone else suggested building new slow-speed track to share with freight train operators?

Funny how it’s always “time to go” whenever you are asked to substantiate your claims. If you think you have the alleged “modeling” you referred to above, produce it. If you cannot produce it, I will assume it’s because it’s a figment of your imagination.

You’re an idiot.
James Robertson Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I note that people have conveniently not noticed one of the key things I said above:

– when corporate pays, my colleagues take the trains here in Europe

– when corporate doesn’t pay, they drive

Gas is way, way more expensive than it is in the US. So why do you suppose they would take the slower transit? Could it possibly have something to do with whose money is involved?

I understand why Matt thinks trains are cool – they are. They just aren’t really practical for the US, given the built infrastructure. Even in Europe, see what I said above.
jack lecou Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
James Robertson:

Accepting your anecdotal data for the sake of argument, why is it that you think that business travelers shouldn’t count?
James Robertson Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
It’s not that business travelers don’t count – it’s just that non-business traveling (a much larger segment) isn’t going to be reduced by Matt’s beloved train, and business travelers alone aren’t going to support it. Fast trains like the ones Matt wants are simply not going to happen in the US anytime soon – it costs too much to build the rail, and too few people would use it.

On the other hand, it’s refreshing to see Matt favoring something that would mostly benefit the most well off members of society – it demonstrates clearly that he’s not so much left as he is elitist, and being seen as “left” is cool with people in his demographic.
GP Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
I live in France, and while we don’t know the details of the trains budget, let’s just say that the CW is that the TGV actually pays/paid for the short-distance trains (as they try not to run these short distances anymore).

TGV / SNCF are not “subsidized” by government, they are owned and run by it (yet work perfectly). TGVs usually go the minute they’re supposed to, arrive at the minute they’re supposed to, and run just short of 200 mph between that. It’s MUCH faster than car for distances over 200 miles, and is nicer too.

For James Robertson (though it applies only to France):
For “long” distances (more than, say, 200 miles), people take the TGV except if
1- they need their car at the arrival or for the trip, like for holidays (I usually take the train and rent a car)
2- they are more than 3 or 4 and want to share the price of the car
3- they can’t find a seat, or it’s horribly expensive (like for holiday week-ends, e.g. last saturday of july, but then the road is godawful)
All the people I know take the TGV when going anywhere on week-ends or vacations (if a line exists, obviously)

The standard price is quite expensive, but many people don’t pay it, by buying their tickets early enough or by moving a bit the date of the trip. You might find discount, like when you go somewhere for a week-end, the difference being paid by the region where you go for your holiday. Not-sold seats can be cheap. You can sometimes find 1st class seats for Paris to Marseilles for 25 euros (more than 400 miles, 3 to 3.5 hours)

All in all, it’s a great way to travel, fast, easy and reasonably expensive, and french people don’t quite understand why the USA don’t have a similar system. It’s really lacking. I mean, Greyhound… One thing to remember: people accept the price because almost no one actually uses it for morning-and-evening standard trips. It’s more for week-ends, holidays or business-related trips.
jack lecou Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Fast trains like the ones Matt wants are simply not going to happen in the US anytime soon – it costs too much to build the rail, and too few people would use it.

Well, that’s a different thesis. One that simply isn’t supported by the data from Europe. The infrastructure costs just as much there (and much of it has been built fairly recently), and, business travelers or otherwise, it gets plenty of use.

The only real difference is politics. Which is sort of the point.
Mixner Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
DMonteith,

Maybe first you’d like to point out …

No, I wouldn’t like to do that. Have you figured out yet why you think the BTS statistics “completely fail to address the topic at hand?” Or do you just have no idea at all why you think it?

You’re an idiot.

You’re a moron. I’m still waiting for you to provide a link to this alleged “modelling” supporting your claims about HSR travel times. A link to a page of links that may say nothing whatsoever about the issue is a complete waste of time. It’s not my job to wade through web pages looking for evidence to support your claims. That’s your job. Do you have a link to this alleged “modelling” or don’t you?
Zach Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Mixner: I’d overestimated the speed of the Acela line. For some crazy reason, I assumed a train with a top speed over twice that of the regular Amtrak line would see more than a 15-20-minute speed improvement over the course of 2.5 hours. I don’t know what the fuck is wrong with those guys.

I do still hold that the regular Amtrak line will get me from Baltimore to NYC in 2.5 hr for $90, which is comparable to driving that distance between $20 or so in tolls and a tank of gas. It’d usually take an hour longer to drive that at the risk of getting a ticket, too.

The best option from Baltimore-NYC is the Chinatown bus, anyway. $20, runs all day and all night, and more reliable than Amtrak if you don’t mind the occasional run without air conditioning.
Mixner Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
GP,

TGV / SNCF are not “subsidized” by government, they are owned and run by it (yet work perfectly).

They are most definitely subsidized by the government. The government funds the cost of building the tracks and stations and locomotives and passenger cars. Ticket sales and other revenues collected from TGV passengers fund only a small fraction of the total costs of providing the service. The rest comes from taxpayers. And since, as you say, TGV tickets tend to be expensive despite the massive subsidies, its passengers tend to be wealthier French citizens and business travellers. So not only are TGV subsidies a massive wealth transfer from the many to the few and a massive form of corporate welfare, but they are a massive wealth transfer from lower-income people to higher-income people.

All in all, it’s a great way to travel, fast, easy and reasonably expensive, and french people don’t quite understand why the USA don’t have a similar system.

No other country in the world has a similar system, because the costs are so large and the benefits so small. France has pursued high-speed rail more aggressively than any other country in the world. This has nothing to do with rational transportation policy. It’s another manifestation of France’s well-known insecurity about its place and standing in the world. The country periodically indulges in various hugely expensive boondoogle grand projets to try and convince itself and other countries of its relevance. The TGV is more about French national prestige than anything else.

And even after throwing hundreds of billions of Euros at its rail system for decade after decade, rail provides only a small share of France’s total passenger transportation. Only slightly higher than the share in other European countries. The growth in travel by car has greatly exceeded the growth in travel by rail, despite the high cost of running a car in France and the relatively poor condition of France’s highway system.
Mixner Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Zach,

I do still hold that the regular Amtrak line will get me from Baltimore to NYC in 2.5 hr for $90, which is comparable to driving that distance between $20 or so in tolls and a tank of gas. It’d usually take an hour longer to drive that at the risk of getting a ticket, too.

According to Amtrak’s website, regular service takes between 2 hours 45 minutes and 2 hours 56 minutes. Only about 30-45 minutes faster than Google Maps’ estimate of the driving time.

I priced tickets for travel next Friday. Unless you’re willing to depart before 5:30am, the lowest-priced ticket is $92. For all departures after 7:03am, the lowest-priced ticket is $110. Given Amtrak’s horrendous on-time performance record (See the BTS data I linked to earlier), there’s a good chance your train will be delayed.

The cost of making the same trip by car will almost certainly be lower even if you’re travelling alone. The AAA driving costs I quoted earlier are misleading because they include both the fixed and variable costs of running a car. But if you own a car, you’ll still incur the fixed costs (loan repayment, depreciation, insurance, registration fees, etc.) even if you leave the car at home and use Amtrak instead. So the actual costs of choosing to drive are just the marginal costs for the trip, which basically means gas and “wear and tear.” Assuming the average fuel economy of 20 mpg, and gas at $4/gallon (it’s actually lower than that now), the cost of gas would be about $36.

And of course, that’s just if you’re travelling alone. If there’s two of you, the per-person cost of driving would be cut in half.

Plus, you can leave when you want, rather than being a slave to Amtrak’s timetable.
Sherlock Says:
August 30th, 2008 at 12:47 am
Matt, I caught you lying!

You can’t take a train from Madrid to Toledo! You’d have to go on or under the whole Atlantic! Show me a train that can do that.
jack lecou Says:
August 30th, 2008 at 1:14 am
No, I wouldn’t like to do that. Have you figured out yet why you think the BTS statistics “completely fail to address the topic at hand?” Or do you just have no idea at all why you think it?

I told you. Right there. Did you miss it?

I’m still waiting for you to provide a link to this alleged “modelling” supporting your claims about HSR travel times. A link to a page of links that may say nothing whatsoever about the issue is a complete waste of time. It’s not my job to wade through web pages looking for evidence to support your claims. That’s your job. Do you have a link to this alleged “modelling” or don’t you?

It’s not my job, actually. You’re debating people on the internet about a subject you’re fairly ignorant of. It’s your job to do some research.

Since you need to be spoon fed: they hide it cleverly there under “ridership and revenue forecasting”. (I’m sure that was a bit much for you.) All of the documents on that page discuss the model you find so hard to find. One place with a table of door-to-door travel times is page 6-8 in the top document, you lazy idiot.
joe from Lowell Says:
August 30th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
This is where Mixner fudges his data:

total costs. In particular, the enormous capital costs of building railtrack and stations and buying locomotives and passenger cars. Not just the costs of operating the service.

Then, when discussing modern spending on highways vs. rail, he ignores the fact that the initial capital spending on the highways has already been completed, while much of the modern spending on rail involves new construction projects.

A guy who bought his car two years ago and a guy who bought one this year compare transportation spending, and it turns out that the guy who bought his car this year spent more per mile this year. Obviously, this proves that a 2005 Escalade is more efficient than a 2007 Prius, by Mixner’s logic.
Walt Says:
August 31st, 2008 at 12:56 am
Okay, Mixner is clearly a paid agent provacateur. No one trolls this obsessively and this narrowly on his own dime.
battery Says:
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:41 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
viagra Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 5:44 am
viagra
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
viagra Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 4:41 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
zyban Says:
March 12th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Great site. Good info
xanax Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 5:23 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
xanax
tramadol Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:14 am
tramadol
I want to say – thank you for this!
brand viagra Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:20 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra
viagra brand Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:13 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap brand pfizer viagra
cheap viagra Says:
April 9th, 2009 at 6:05 am
I bookmarked this site, Thank you for good job! viagra

Matt Yglesias

Ride the SUPERTRAIN

65 Responses to “Ride the SUPERTRAIN”

Blogroll