Re: [carfree_cities] Re: Amtrak
- Robert Madison replied:
>Rail (be it long-distance or short) canTrue, but just how much of your billion-dollar subsidy are you
>carry a lot more people or cargo using much less land than roads can.
>Rail is the most efficient form of powered transportation over land
>currently in existence (ships may be more efficient, but for the most
>part, that's a moot point). Even buses wouldn't be more efficient at
>serving the Empire Builder ridership, unless you propose spending
>billions building an interstate highway across northern Montana.
willing to spend to on transportation for a small number of people?
>I really don't see why some people, especially those that want toI don't feel threatened by it at all; it's just not a wise
>promote more efficient transportation options, feel threatened by a
>train a day that stops in rural America.
expenditure of resources.
>Make drivers and fliers payProbably so, yes. In that case, the freight railroads will be
>the full cost of their trip, and passenger rail would probably turn a
falling all over themselves to offer for-profit passenger
transport, once again.
-- ### --
J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
- OK, one more time -- then I'm finished with this one.
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, emccaughrin wrote:
> > Yes, but we were talking about rail service in vast, unpopulated
> > rural places.
> Um, no. The discussion is about rail service to cities in the west,
> not to some cattle ranch way out in the plains somewhere. There are
> large metropolitan areas in the west -- Denver, Salt Lake City, to
> name a few -- with populations large enough to justify rail service,
> and not so far apart that rail cannot be competitive.
Well, that's two ;^)
I have no problem with competitive rail service in the west. Indeed, I'm a fan and have ridden many of the long-haul trains in the region. I'd simply rather spend the subsidy money in more productive ways (I have a list).
Of course, if passenger service between those city pairs really is competitive, the railroads will be eager to provide it.
> Norway has 300k km^2 and a population of 4.5 million. If one were to
> go by a naive interpretation of its 15 persons/km^2 density, Norway
> has no business running passenger rail because at it isn't "dense"
> enough -- and yet it runs comprehensive, 140mph rail service that is
> far better than anything you will find in even the most heavily
> populated US metropolitan area.
Come on, now. Norway's rail system is heavily concentrated in the more-populated southern part of the country. To the extent that it does serve the northern portions (does it extend beyond Bodo?), let's remember that we're talking about a long, very narrow corridor.
To put things in perspective (again), the Norwegian national rail network totals about 2,500 miles of track -- just a little more than the route of our oft-cited, lonely American long-haul, the Empire Builder.
Not to let this end without further (perhaps naive) reference to population density, the state of Montana, alone, is larger than Norway and, at 2.39 persons per square kilometer, is about *one-sixth* as densely populated.
I just don't think the arguments for subsidizing rural passenger rail service in the US are persuasive, definitely not in a resource-constrained world. Certainly, there are many other subsidies on which I'd merrily pull the plug, also (autos, airlines, ranchers and loggers, warmongers and arms merchants...), but, if given the chance to divert the handout from Amtrak to a really useful urban project, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
I suppose I should close by confessing that it would be fine with me if *all* long-distance travel was relatively difficult and (at least) moderately expensive. In a world of six-plus billion humans with an emerging permanent energy crunch, it is dangerous folly to encourage casual gallivanting around the globe.
P.O. Box 307
Corte Madera, CA