Free Parking Comes at a Price

[CSpec]

Free Parking Comes at a Price

NY Times

IN our society, cars receive considerable attention and study — whether the subject is buying and selling them, the traffic congestion they cause or the dangerous things we do in them, like texting and talking on cellphones while driving. But we haven’t devoted nearly enough thought to how cars are usually deployed — namely, by sitting in parking spaces.

Is this a serious economic issue? In fact, it’s a classic tale of how subsidies, use restrictions, and price controls can steer an economy in wrong directions. Car owners may not want to hear this, but we have way too much free parking.

Higher charges for parking spaces would limit our trips by car. That would cut emissions, alleviate congestion and, as a side effect, improve land use. Donald C. Shoup, professor of urban planning at the University of California, Los Angeles, has made this idea a cause, as presented in his 733-page book, “The High Cost of Free Parking.”

Many suburbanites take free parking for granted, whether it’s in the lot of a big-box store or at home in the driveway. Yet the presence of so many parking spaces is an artifact of regulation and serves as a powerful subsidy to cars and car trips. Legally mandated parking lowers the market price of parking spaces, often to zero. Zoning and development restrictions often require a large number of parking spaces attached to a store or a smaller number of spaces attached to a house or apartment block.

If developers were allowed to face directly the high land costs of providing so much parking, the number of spaces would be a result of a careful economic calculation rather than a matter of satisfying a legal requirement. Parking would be scarcer, and more likely to have a price — or a higher one than it does now — and people would be more careful about when and where they drove.

The subsidies are largely invisible to drivers who park their cars — and thus free or cheap parking spaces feel like natural outcomes of the market, or perhaps even an entitlement. Yet the law is allocating this land rather than letting market prices adjudicate whether we need more parking, and whether that parking should be free. We end up overusing land for cars — and overusing cars too. You don’t have to hate sprawl, or automobiles, to want to stop subsidizing that way of life.

As Professor Shoup wrote, “Minimum parking requirements act like a fertility drug for cars.”

Under a more sensible policy, a parking space that is currently free could cost at least $100 a month — and maybe much more — in many American cities and suburbs. At the bottom end of that estimate, if a commuter drives to work 20 days a month, current parking policy offers a subsidy of $5 a day — which is more than the gas and wear-and-tear costs of many round-trip commutes. In essence, the parking subsidy outweighs many of the other costs of driving, including the gasoline tax.

In densely populated cities like New York, people are accustomed to paying high prices for parking, which has helped to encourage a relatively efficient, high-density use of space. Yet even New York is reluctant to enact the full social cost of the automobile into policy. Proposals to impose congestion fees have failed politically, and on-street parking is priced artificially low.

Manhattan streets are full of cars cruising around, looking for cheaper on-street parking, rather than pulling into a lot. The waste includes drivers’ lost time and the costs of running those engines. By contrast, San Francisco has just instituted a pioneering program to connect parking meter prices to supply and demand, with prices being adjusted, over time, within a general range of 25 cents to $6 an hour.

Another common practice in many cities is to restrict on-street parking to residents or to short-term parkers by imposing a limit of, say, two hours for transients. That makes parking artificially easy for residents and for people who are running quick errands. Higher fees and permit prices would help shore up the ailing budgets of local governments.

Many parking spaces are extremely valuable, even if that’s not reflected in current market prices. In fact, Professor Shoup estimates that many American parking spaces have a higher economic value than the cars sitting in them. For instance, after including construction and land costs, he measures the value of a Los Angeles parking space at over $31,000 — much more than the worth of many cars, especially when considering their rapid depreciation. If we don’t give away cars, why give away parking spaces?

Yet 99 percent of all automobile trips in the United States end in a free parking space, rather than a parking space with a market price. In his book, Professor Shoup estimated that the value of the free-parking subsidy to cars was at least $127 billion in 2002, and possibly much more.

Perhaps most important, if we’re going to wean ourselves away from excess use of fossil fuels, we need to remove current subsidies to energy-unfriendly ways of life. Imposing a cap-and-trade system or a direct carbon tax doesn’t seem politically acceptable right now. But we can start on alternative paths that may take us far.

Imposing higher fees for parking may make further changes more palatable by helping to promote higher residential density and support for mass transit.

As Professor Shoup puts it: “Who pays for free parking? Everyone but the motorist.”

[Blake Noble]

I want to punch whoever wrote that article square in his balls. The same goes Professor Soup-for-brains.

You want to support expensive, paid parking right as our economy teeters on a tightly stretched piece of filament line? You're also choosing to support this knowing it would further add to our already expensive cost of living? Hurr-durr, real smart a-hole.

[Drew Dowdell]

Remember, we're not allowed to have trains. That would be socialism.

.I am predicting this thread will get moved rather soon.

[Intrepidation]

Oh I see, so it's free parking not high unemployment that is causing the economic mess.

[Drew Dowdell]

No. Free Parking causes cars.

[Blake Noble]

No. Free Parking causes more drivers.

Corrected. You forgot to completely adhere to the subliminal logic presented in the article:

1.) Car parks in free parking space

2.) Because the parking space is free and may offer late night privacy, teenage driver and teenage female passenger hop into the back seat

3.) Because the parking space is free, and the driver and passenger in the back seat engage in reproduction

4.) As a result of step three we have one more new eventual driver

5.) New driver = more cars = more free parking = more new drivers = more new cars = endless cycle of madness

It's not only an attempt to cut down on new car sales and new places where we can park, but an attempt at population control as well.

[/asinineridiculousbullshit]

Edited August 15, 2010 by whiteknight

[Z-06]

Freedom of speech causes brain damage.

[FAPTurbo]

Urban centers need higher rates of parking fees. I think it was San Francisco that was proposing a system that would adjust the price based upon the demand for stalls. Naturally, this coincides with the time of day, like rush hours, and Friday/Saturday nights. A system like that would be perfect in a city like mine where the transit system is very good, and it's often slower to drive and park than it is to take the bus and train. Free or cheap parking only makes for congestion and more pollution. In the city, driving is a luxury, and you should be 'taxed' accordingly.

[Intrepidation]

Problem is public transit in many cities in the US is not very good.

[FAPTurbo]

Then charge higher parking fees and fines and use them to pay for the better transit. Introduce tolls on roadways that target those who can take transit, but choose to take a car instead. People move to the suburbs hoping for cheaper living, but their choice of travelling long distances in gridlock has health and environmental concerns for many parties. They should pay up, instead of just having city-dwellers subsidizing the roads those suburbanites use.

[loki]

guys, it's the newyork times, the same that gives people like noble lauriet Paul "mcdouchebag" krugman a voice to spill forth his ...brain damage as Z calls it.

lol

but what free parking causes, is possible miss-use of that land, and the money used to make it. nothing is free, it requires time or money to create or use anything. calling it free is just an enticement to do something one might not do otherwise.

[Blake Noble]

Problem is public transit in many cities in the US is not very good.

Or it doesn't exist at all.

I have a good question: Why should I be chastised because I like to drive and choose to drive? Why should anyone be chastised for choosing to drive? In a country the size of America, the only way to get around is with something with four spinning wheels and an internal combustion engine.

Let's touch base with reality a bit: are buses any better? Are they really any cleaner? Will they really cut down on congestion? Not every city in America is going to be willing to trade in a fleet of wheelbarrows full of bucks for a fleet of hybrid buses. Anyone expecting that has their head in the clouds up their ass. It would take a long while for the city government to see a return on their investment if those services are actually taken advantage of.

So if they aren't going to buy those nice, eco-friendly hybrid meat wagons, they'll at least stringently maintain their nasty, polluting buses right? Wrong. I would just about guarantee that a city government funded public transit service would make simple routine maintenance take a back seat in order to keep schedules tight and to squeeze every last drop of money out of the whole thing (keep profits up). When the government is left to regulate itself with no one else around to keep it in check, it typically does a poor job of doing things right unless someone starts complaining and that can sometimes take a while before someone speaks up loud enough. (If I recall correctly, LexTran, Lexington's city owned public transit services had issues similar to what I'm talking about some years back.) Who is around to inspect and demand these buses be serviced? It's not going to happen in states without yearly vehicle inspections, I will guarantee that.

So, in essence, there isn't much to be gained here. Instead of clogged streets and highways full of those nasty infernal cars, you'll have streets and highways clogged with nasty, polluting buses.

I shouldn't need to bring up some of the violence that takes place on American buses. (Epic Beard Man incident anyone? There was also a video released to YouTube before that of two Asian women brawling it out on the bus sometime before that.) Public transit has negative connotations in America for a reason.

You'll also need all of the luck in the world to get smaller cities and rural towns on board with having a fleet of public buses on tap and they're still going to do all of the above if you do.

Preaching public transit, i.e. the city bus, is a waste of time.

However, I could fully see revitalizing the railroad industry to include passenger trips once again. Make the experience like an on-land cruise. Make the tickets reasonable. Make it include small trips and cross country ones. Make it a damn cool way to see the country again. Upgrade the railways to the latest technology. We already have the infrastructure, make it the best it can be. And build some bad ass passenger trains for the 21st century. If you do it right, you might convince some folks to not take the Excursion cross-country to California again. It may not address urban traffic congestion, but it could be a start.

Edited August 16, 2010 by whiteknight

[Z-06]

In US there is no perfect transportation mode. Airlines, Railways, Cars and Buses all can work in equilibrium to provide most efficient infrastructure.

[Blake Noble]

In US there is no perfect transportation mode. Airlines, Railways, Cars and Buses all can work in equilibrium to provide most efficient infrastructure.

This.

[FAPTurbo]

I have a good question: Why should I be chastised because I like to drive and choose to drive? Why should anyone be chastised for choosing to drive? In a country the size of America, the only way to get around is with something with four spinning wheels and an internal combustion engine.

Because only 20% of your country's population lives in a 'rural' area. The other 80% live in urban areas, 72% of that population live in centers above 200K. Your situation may require a car, and that's perfectly fine. However, in a city like mine which is about 1111 square miles with about 2.5 million people, cars and congestion are a big deal; mitigating their use is of primary concern for both health and environmental concerns. This goes for pretty much any large city in North America.

There's a difference between being chastised, and simply paying for a luxury. In a big city, owning a car is increasingly becoming a luxury and ownership should be tariffed accordingly.

Let's touch base with reality a bit: are buses any better? Are they really any cleaner? Will they really cut down on congestion? Not every city in America is going to be willing to trade in a fleet of wheelbarrows full of bucks for a fleet of hybrid buses. Anyone expecting that has their head in the clouds up their ass. It would take a long while for the city government to see a return on their investment if those services are actually taken advantage of.

Yes they are much cleaner, as long as the ridership is above a certain threshold. And plenty of technologies exist or are being developed that make diesel buses far cleaner.

So if they aren't going to buy those nice, eco-friendly hybrid meat wagons, they'll at least stringently maintain their nasty, polluting buses right? Wrong. I would just about guarantee that a city government funded public transit service would make simple routine maintenance take a back seat in order to keep schedules tight and to squeeze every last drop of money out of the whole thing (keep profits up). When the government is left to regulate itself with no one else around to keep it in check, it typically does a poor job of doing things right unless someone starts complaining and that can sometimes take a while before someone speaks up loud enough. (If I recall correctly, LexTran, Lexington's city owned public transit services had issues similar to what I'm talking about some years back.) Who is around to inspect and demand these buses be serviced? It's not going to happen in states without yearly vehicle inspections, I will guarantee that.

That's why there needs to be oversight, and a changing of how the transit company is run. If less money is funneled into 'car-friendly' projects, or tolls and parking spaces/fines are increased, then the transit company would be able to have more flexibility in how their maintenance is conducted and wouldn't feel the need to squeeze each dime.

So, in essence, there isn't much to be gained here. Instead of clogged streets and highways full of those nasty infernal cars, you'll have streets and highways clogged with nasty, polluting buses.

The latter is still more desirable than the former, as long as those buses are efficiently run, and are carrying sizeable amounts of people.

I shouldn't need to bring up some of the violence that takes place on American buses. (Epic Beard Man incident anyone? There was also a video released to YouTube before that of two Asian women brawling it out on the bus sometime before that.) Public transit has negative connotations in America for a reason.

And how many assholes are getting charged with beating the crap out of each other for 'road rage,' and how many d-bags are out there nearly crashing into people because they're on cellphones. Given that I was nearly hit today as a pedestrian once, and saw two near misses when I was in my truck because of cellphone use, I feel safer on the bus already.

You'll also need all of the luck in the world to get smaller cities and rural towns on board with having a fleet of public buses on tap and they're still going to do all of the above if you do.

Preaching public transit, i.e. the city bus, is a waste of time.

Only if the population cannot sustain it. I don't think anyone here is telling small towns to get a bus service because that's asinine But, when 72% of the urban population inhabits cities that are over 200K, it's not a waste of time discussing mass transit.

[Robert Hall]

Because only 20% of your country's population lives in a 'rural' area. The other 80% live in urban areas, 72% of that population live in centers above 200K. Your situation may require a car, and that's perfectly fine. However, in a city like mine which is about 1111 square miles with about 2.5 million people, cars and congestion are a big deal; mitigating their use is of primary concern for both health and environmental concerns. This goes for pretty much any large city in North America.

There's a difference between being chastised, and simply paying for a luxury. In a big city, owning a car is increasingly becoming a luxury and ownership should be tariffed accordingly.

I live in a city of 1.5 million in a sprawling metro area of 3.5 million people. Jobs are decentralized and are all over the valley, from downtown to distant suburban office parks. There are buses and light rail, neither get me where I need to go..so I have a commute of 50 miles a day round trip from the city to a suburban office park. A car is the only practical solution for me.

[Croc]

I want to punch whoever wrote that article square in his balls. The same goes Professor Soup-for-brains.

You want to support expensive, paid parking right as our economy teeters on a tightly stretched piece of filament line? You're also choosing to support this knowing it would further add to our already expensive cost of living? Hurr-durr, real smart a-hole.

You are wrong. Very. very wrong.

I will elaborate on this later when I have time to go super in-depth on this. What I'll say for now is this: look up and read "The High Cost of Free Parking."

[CSpec]

Keep in mind that Shoup (and consequently, Cowen, the author of this piece and a libertarian powerhouse) is not arguing for punitive taxation on the automobile. That is a completely distinct topic and one that I do not favor in the slightest. What they are arguing is that current government mandates and land use policies in many cities force private developers to use a certain amount of their own land for free parking spaces. This is clearly not the ideal use of that land if governments have to coerce people to use their own land that way. This article favors eliminating such regulations and implicit subsidies. This would result in fewer trips by car most likely, but it would free up a lot of capital for more useful projects.

I'll quote the article again for good measure:

"If developers were allowed to face directly the high land costs of providing so much parking, the number of spaces would be a result of a careful economic calculation rather than a matter of satisfying a legal requirement. Parking would be scarcer, and more likely to have a price — or a higher one than it does now — and people would be more careful about when and where they drove."

[Drew Dowdell]

It's rare that I agree with CSpec, but in this case I do.

HOWEVER, I also feel there should be heavy public subsidy (at least initially) to light rail and bus systems. If you don't give people an alternative to driving, you'll just create traffic jams when you cut down on parking spaces.

[FAPTurbo]

LOL at the minus oner who can't deal with the realities of basic urban economics!

[ShadowDog]

It's pretty simple to me, really. All one has to do is look at the current state of personal income thresholds to see the trend. Working in Calgary, Alberta means driving for many, if not most. Parking garages and open regions are almost always full to capacity. By raising parking rates, it forces mostly the lower income drivers to keep their cars at home, which makes more parking available for those who can afford it.

Really, measures that come as a result of cost increases hurt more people than it helps, even when looking at the 'big picture'.

[Croc]

LOL at the minus oner who can't deal with the realities of basic urban economics!

I know, right?

Everyone is already paying for the "free" parking, just not directly. This is an area I'm very familiar with, and right now I'm actually working on an initiative to completely overhaul the way parking is required/managed/priced in the Van Nuys Central Business District in order to facilitate business investment and revitalize the entire district. It's similar, yet different, to what Old Town Pasadena successfully accomplished in the 80s and 90s, but so far the business community is on board. Which is nice, when you think about it, because the business community is actually in favor of messing with parking rates because the regulatory environment is in such a state of chaos that they want something, anything done.

For anyone actually interested in learning something:

http://www.yale.edu/transportationoptions/parking/documents/Highpriceoffreeparking.ppt

http://www.uctc.net/papers/351.pdf

[CSpec]

I'll add to Croc's links:

http://www.slate.com/id/2164257

[Robert Hall]

However, I could fully see revitalizing the railroad industry to include passenger trips once again. Make the experience like an on-land cruise. Make the tickets reasonable. Make it include small trips and cross country ones. Make it a damn cool way to see the country again. Upgrade the railways to the latest technology. We already have the infrastructure, make it the best it can be. And build some bad ass passenger trains for the 21st century. If you do it right, you might convince some folks to not take the Excursion cross-country to California again. It may not address urban traffic congestion, but it could be a start.

I like rail, having ridden trains extensively in Europe and in the Chicago area. But beyond a certain distance, rail isn't competitive with air travel within the US in many areas. For example, when I want to go to the West Coast, I can get a flight for $100-200 round trip that takes less than 2 hrs from Phoenix to San Diego, Orange County, or LA. There isn't even rail service from Phoenix to the West Coast (nearest Amtrak station is 50 miles away, can take a bus there from the city). Even if there was a direct line through Phoenix to LA or SD it would still take a lot longer than a flight.

Or when I go to Ohio, I can get there in under 4 hrs by air...it would take days to get there by rail..

Edited August 16, 2010 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Cory Wolfe]

I like the idea of a revised rail service throughout. In my area, we have a relatively high number of old rail roads and most of them are either not being used, or are being removed. Taking advantage of such would certainly add a touch of nostalgia, coherent with the historic nature of local towns. Not only that, it would give us some form of public transit. It's currently sorely lacking, most notably from town to town. We have no choice but to drive. Parking, and the prices thereof, are the least of our worries.

[Drew Dowdell]

I like rail, having ridden trains extensively in Europe and in the Chicago area. But beyond a certain distance, rail isn't competitive with air travel within the US in many areas. For example, when I want to go to the West Coast, I can get a flight for $100-200 round trip that takes less than 2 hrs from Phoenix to San Diego, Orange County, or LA. There isn't even rail service from Phoenix to the West Coast (nearest Amtrak station is 50 miles away, can take a bus there from the city). Even if there was a direct line through Phoenix to LA or SD it would still take a lot longer than a flight.

Or when I go to Ohio, I can get there in under 4 hrs by air...it would take days to get there by rail..

High speed rail can be competitive with air travel (time wise) for up to about an 800 mile radius.

That means NYC to Chicago could be a 5 hour trip via rail. It easily takes that long via air. The fastest flight from LGA to ORD is 2h21m... that's just "wheels up" to "wheels down". Add on check in, baggage claim, boarding, runway taxiing, travel time to LGA, travel time from O'Hare, security check..... you're well over the 5 hour mark.

Pittsburgh to Chicago would be about 3 hours via HS rail. The fastest flight is 1h 30m "wheels up" to "wheels down", but then I have all the overhead time of just getting to the airport and on the plane.

Getting high speed rail would open up a LOT of travel availability to people. Washington DC, Chicago, Columbus, even NYC all become day trips for people in Pittsburgh. The airlines have made that impossible. I wouldn't DREAM of flying to DC anymore... I'd rather drive... I can make it there faster, cheaper, and more comfortably.

I will NEVER understand all the pushback against high speed rail... if you're not a first class passenger, the airlines hate you and wish you'd just go away. Why not give them some competition?

[CSpec]

I will NEVER understand all the pushback against high speed rail... if you're not a first class passenger, the airlines hate you and wish you'd just go away. Why not give them some competition?

Because it's hopelessly expensive and no one will take it. California's project is slowly imploding after taxpayers realized what fares will be. Rail reached what Obama calls "high speed rail" (around 110 mph) in the 1920s, and trains were already dead in the water in the 30s. I will NEVER understand why people screech for massive subsidies for an outdated Victorian relic.

[Robert Hall]

High speed rail can be competitive with air travel (time wise) for up to about an 800 mile radius.

That means NYC to Chicago could be a 5 hour trip via rail. It easily takes that long via air. The fastest flight from LGA to ORD is 2h21m... that's just "wheels up" to "wheels down". Add on check in, baggage claim, boarding, runway taxiing, travel time to LGA, travel time from O'Hare, security check..... you're well over the 5 hour mark.

Pittsburgh to Chicago would be about 3 hours via HS rail. The fastest flight is 1h 30m "wheels up" to "wheels down", but then I have all the overhead time of just getting to the airport and on the plane.

Getting high speed rail would open up a LOT of travel availability to people. Washington DC, Chicago, Columbus, even NYC all become day trips for people in Pittsburgh. The airlines have made that impossible. I wouldn't DREAM of flying to DC anymore... I'd rather drive... I can make it there faster, cheaper, and more comfortably.

I will NEVER understand all the pushback against high speed rail... if you're not a first class passenger, the airlines hate you and wish you'd just go away. Why not give them some competition?

It would be nice having high speed rail between Phoenix and Las Vegas, San Diego, LA, etc. But with AZ's red state nature, I doubt it will ever happen. They hate spending money on anything.

Though I can see increased rail usage being beneficial in the more compact East Coast and Midwest regions. The interior West and Southwest is so spread out, it's hard to see it being more practical than air travel.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Robert Hall]

Because it's hopelessly expensive and no one will take it. California's project is slowly imploding after taxpayers realized what fares will be. Rail reached what Obama calls "high speed rail" (around 110 mph) in the 1920s, and trains were already dead in the water in the 30s. I will NEVER understand why people screech for massive subsidies for an outdated Victorian relic.

110 mph isn't 'high speed rail', though. Modern high speed rail outside the US is 250+ mph in places..

[Drew Dowdell]

Because it's hopelessly expensive and no one will take it. California's project is slowly imploding after taxpayers realized what fares will be. Rail reached what Obama calls "high speed rail" (around 110 mph) in the 1920s, and trains were already dead in the water in the 30s. I will NEVER understand why people screech for massive subsidies for an outdated Victorian relic.

If you build a crap system, it will run like crap. If you build a system that will get people from Philly to NYC in an hour, they'll ride it.

DeutcheBahn posts a profit from it's passenger operations. The last time we were there, Albert and I couldn't even sit next to each other because there were no double seats available. I'm sure the Germans have seen the error of their ways in the past 12 months, so I'll let you know how decrepit the system has gotten when I'm back over there next month. Oh yea, our ticket for the 116 mile trip from Frankfurt to Cologne (which takes 55 minutes to complete) will cost 29 euro each (about $37.50) Autobahn robbery I tell you... Autobahn robbery!

But still even with the poor state of repair Amtrak is in,you can't claim people aren't riding it in the markets where it offers a competitive time/cost equation.

The railroad, which gets operating cash from taxpayers, carried

65 percent of air or rail travelers from New York to Washington

and

52 percent from New York to Boston

, Boardman said. The previous market-share record was 63 percent to Washington and 50 percent to Boston since Acela began service in 2001, according to Amtrak.

Amtrak has better then 50% market share over all the airlines combined! Before you even begin to yelp about subsidies.... the North East Corridor is where Amtrak makes most of it's revenue. It's the lines where service is slow (thus low value cost/time equation) where Amtrak loses money. They wouldn't be running 48 trains per day, one way, between NYC & Philly, if they were losing money on the service.

Edit: I have to come back and fix your revisionist history also.

The trains died in the 1950s because of heavy government regulation AND the ill effects from the war AND that giant federally paid subsidy called the "Eisenhower Interstate System"

[Drew Dowdell]

110 mph isn't 'high speed rail', though. Modern high speed rail outside the US is 250+ mph in places..

Well... 180mph.

Most high speed rail caps out at 300kmh... which is 180kmh.

There is one line in China on traditional rail that runs up to 350kph which is about 217mph.

After that you get the 500kph Chinese MagLev... which is far to costly to be viable.

The French TGV can get to within 5kph (3 mph) of Mag Lev speeds on conventional rail, but there isn't any service scheduled that fast.

<div style="background:#000000;width:440px;height:272px"><embed flashVars="playerVars=showStats=yes|autoPlay=no|videoTitle=World's Fastest Rail Train TGV 574,8 KPH Inside Footage" src="http://www.metacafe.com/fplayer/508521/worlds_fastest_rail_train_tgv_574_8_kph_inside_footage.swf" width="440" height="272" wmode="transparent" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" name="Metacafe_508521" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></div><div style="font-size:12px;"><a href="http://www.metacafe.com/watch/508521/worlds_fastest_rail_train_tgv_574_8_kph_inside_footage/">World's Fastest Rail Train TGV 574,8 KPH Inside Footage</a> - <a href="http://www.metacafe.com/">Click here for more blooper videos</a></div>

[CSpec]

http://ti.org/HSRtoHF.pdf Good stuff starts on page 13.

[CSpec]

I'll throw this in for good measure: http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2967

"High-speed rail is expected to cost 4 to 5 times as much per passenger mile as flying, driving, or bus travel. On average, public transit also costs around 4 times as much as driving, and many new rail transit lines cost far more than that. So, unlike earlier transportation innovations, which reduced the cost of travel, rail transit and high-speed rail promise to increase it.

Subsidies are required, of course, to make these systems attractive to any potential riders. Imagine if a light-rail trip cost $10 a ride, or if a high-speed rail trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco cost twice as much as flying. They wouldn’t get too many takers.

Even with the subsidies, rails are so inconvenient, relative to driving, and so slow, relative to flying, that they won’t ever be a major form of passenger travel again. Of course, it is no surprise that this “innovation” will fail, since high-speed rail and light-rail technology both date to the 1930s."

[CSpec]

I'll also mention that the US has one of the most efficient rail networks in the world--you just don't see it because it's mostly used for freight. Private freight companies after Carter's deregulation have crafted a lean and efficient network without state subsidies, which we can thank for transporting goods across the country cheaply and quickly. European rail networks, used as personal toy train sets by politicians, mostly carry passengers (and not very many at that) and little freight, with very large state subsidies.

[CSpec]

DeutcheBahn posts a profit from it's passenger operations. The last time we were there, Albert and I couldn't even sit next to each other because there were no double seats available.

An Amtrak report:

http://www.amtrakoig.gov/%28S%28fidfyt4540ncfh45r1celpfy%29%29/Reports/E-08-02-042208.PDF

"There have been numerous claims made about the relative financial performance of European Passenger Train Operations and the amount of Public Funding they require to remain operationally viable. This review examines the Public Subsidies that have been provided for European Passenger Train Operations and then compares these funding levels to that of Amtrak.

Overall Conclusions

After examining a representative sample of European Passenger Train Operations over a multi-year period, we found that:

a) When all revenues and expenses for the entire passenger train system are taken into consideration, European Passenger Train Operations operate at a financial loss and consequently require significant Public Subsidies, and

b) The average annual subsidies for European Passenger Train Operations are much higher than those for comparable Amtrak services."

[Drew Dowdell]

K... lets look at that "good stuff"

1. "The French travel by car 20 times as much, and by air 3 times as much" As always, lies, damn lies, and statistics....the parameters of their travel aren't defined. It would be rather stupid to travel by HS rail to the grocery store..just as it would be stupid to land a 737 at the mall. Similarly, define the air travel as "in the EU-25". As I've said earlier, HS rail is best when the distance is around 800 miles or below, but Europe offers other problems as well.... two big ones... the Alpes and the Mediterranean. One would NEVER take the TGV from Paris to Rome...

Get me the statistics for long distance travel inside France....

2. Ditto for Japan, except bureaucrats got involved and ran up the debt... You don't run HS rail to every little village out there.. It's for major urban centers. Use slower regional rail for the smaller towns.

3. Page 21 of the PDF you posted cites figures of $25m per mile for high speed in Florida and $67m per mile in California. These numbers are supposed to scare people... but it only works as a scare number if they don't know the cost of highway generally starts at $30m per mile and goes up from there. Want interchanges? Add another $30m per interchange. Need a tunnel? There's another $10 million to start. Need a river crossing bridge? Base models start in the $20 million range. Be sure to ask about rust proof under coating.....

4. On page 41, the author compares travel times of HS rail to Air.... but he only compares the "wheels up" to "wheels down" air travel time.... Do I really need to go over that again? I can drive to DC faster than I can fly there.... don't tell me that rail at 180mph would be slower than total air travel time.

5. On page 41, the author complains that rail travel only serves downtown areas and states that only the wealthy 1% would have access to it. However 78% of American live in a metropolitan area with more then 200k people. Those areas already have strong infrastructure in place to get people downtown and onto a train. Conversely, if you don't drive yourself to an airport, you have to take a cab, hire a shuttle, or take public transit that doesn't enjoy the regularity of service that being in downtown provides.

6. Page 46 just makes &#036;h&#33; up... and you know how I feel about that. It makes up the statistic that most intercity car travel has 2.4 passengers... the only published statistics I could find were in the 1.7 range.... It makes up the statistic that Amtrak trains are only 50% full... I assume he is counting all Amtrak, even the lines with poor service. Again, build a crappy system and it will run crappy. In markets where Amtrak offers good service, the trains are usually packed. I'm not sure how he is even measuring airline efficiencies.... but if he is talking about the seats... they feel way more then 3% smaller.

7. Because of #6, pages 48-54 are bunk.

I like this.... you should send me your anti-government Powerpoint presentations more often.

[Drew Dowdell]

I'll also mention that the US has one of the most efficient rail networks in the world--you just don't see it because it's mostly used for freight. Private freight companies after Carter's deregulation have crafted a lean and efficient network without state subsidies, which we can thank for transporting goods across the country cheaply and quickly.

True.

European rail networks, used as personal toy train sets by politicians, mostly carry passengers (and not very many at that) and little freight, with very large state subsidies.

Quite simply.... false.

[Drew Dowdell]

I'll throw this in for good measure: http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2967

Even with the subsidies, rails are so inconvenient, relative to driving, and so slow, relative to flying, that they won't ever be a major form of passenger travel again.

Except like... now? I've already shown where Amtrak has better than 50% market share in the markets it serves with HS rail. How is that not major? Amtrak's service isn't even as good as it could be because some of it's infrastructure is too old to handle 180mph trains. Once those infrastructure improvements are completed, the Acela's top speed will be even higher.

Of course, it is no surprise that this "innovation" will fail, since high-speed rail and light-rail technology both date to the 1930s."

That's like saying "the car will fail because roads have been around since the Roman age"

Watch that video I posted and try telling me that's 1930's technology.......

[Blake Noble]

I'm glad someone else agrees on revamping our railroad networks to make them suitable for competitive passenger travel again.

If we're so goddamned tired of worrying about our "gasoline economy", it's going to take the promotion of both forms of land travel and air travel, even traveling by water, as well as different fuels -- meaning diesel, gasoline, and ethanol -- all being equally offered to consumers at every gas station until those fuels can be, quote, "phased out" by renewable fuel sources in addition to hydrogen if we're going to truly set things right and make things better. It's an extremely simple concept and there is no good excuse as to why we haven't started going about making this change a reality.

I would like to see that change. It would also mostly mean I would no longer have to read New York Times articles from hypocritical car hating banditos.

Edited August 17, 2010 by whiteknight

[Drew Dowdell]

I want to be sure to frame the parameters of the debate:

High Speed Rail is for connecting urban centers, probably over 200k people, and for distances over 100miles and under 800 miles. '

More than 800 miles, and Air travel is more time efficient.

Less than 200k people and regional rail (sub-75mph) is more cost efficient.

[Robert Hall]

I'd say more than 500 miles and air is more time efficient, but that's a small detail.

[Drew Dowdell]

I'd say more than 500 miles and air is more time efficient, but that's a small detail.

I picked 800 miles because that is just over the driving distance from NYC to Chicago (788 miles). A DeutscheBahn I.C.E. train could complete the trip in about 4.3 hours non-stop. The I.C.E could even have 6 stops along the way <they usually only stop for 10 minutes> and still tie the airlines in a race.

The best flight from LaGuardia is 2 hours 21 minutes "wheels up" to "wheels down"

Add:

30 minutes runway taxiing total

1.5 hours at check in, security, and boarding (I'm being charitable here)

30 minutes baggage pickup

45 minutes getting from Mid-town to LGA

45 minutes getting from O Hare to downtown Chicago (again being charitable)

edit:

You could have the following station stops:

New York City, Scranton PA, Binghamton NY, Erie PA, Cleveland OH, Toledo OH, South Bend IN, and Chicago IL. = Total 899 miles, 6 hours

[Robert Hall]

From what I've heard/read is that a lot of the push for rail is coming from companies that want to move more freight via rails than by trucks and by the green lobbies..i.e. rail is cleaner than air travel and trucks for freight..

[Robert Hall]

I picked 800 miles because that is just over the driving distance from NYC to Chicago (788 miles). A DeutscheBahn I.C.E. train could complete the trip in about 4.3 hours non-stop. The I.C.E could even have 6 stops along the way <they usually only stop for 10 minutes> and still tie the airlines in a race.

The best flight from LaGuardia is 2 hours 21 minutes "wheels up" to "wheels down"

Add:

30 minutes runway taxiing total

1.5 hours at check in, security, and boarding (I'm being charitable here)

30 minutes baggage pickup

45 minutes getting from Mid-town to LGA

45 minutes getting from O Hare to downtown Chicago (again being charitable)

I was thinking 500 ( or 400 for that matter) since Phoenix to LA is about 400 miles...

45 min to 1 hr flight "wheels up" to "wheels down"

Add:

30 minutes runway taxiing total

1.5 hours at check in, security, and boarding (I'm being charitable here)

30 minutes rental car shuttle + pickup

20 minutes getting from home to Sky Harbor

60 minutes getting from LAX to Santa Monica(again being charitable)

Now 800 miles is Phoenix to Oakland/SF area..which I'm flying on Friday..

Edited August 17, 2010 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[daves87rs]

Freedom of speech causes brain damage.

+1

[Drew Dowdell]

From what I've heard/read is that a lot of the push for rail is coming from companies that want to move more freight via rails than by trucks and by the green lobbies..i.e. rail is cleaner than air travel and trucks for freight..

Yes, freight is a LOT more efficient on rail than by truck for long distances. It was so good in fact, that during the run up of fuel costs prior to the market crash, all the major freight railroads were experiencing capacity problems.

You can also do some interesting efficiency tricks if it's electric. If you time the schedule properly, you can have decelerating trains feed power back into the wires to power trains accelerating out of stations.

Back in the 1930s, The Virginian RR was hauling record amounts of coal. It used electric locomotives for their strong torque. They timed the trains so that as one loaded with coal was headed down the mountain, another train with empty cars would head up the mountain on a parallel track. The descending loaded train would literally power the empty train up the mountain.

[Drew Dowdell]

I was thinking 500 ( or 400 for that matter) since Phoenix to LA is about 400 miles...

45 min to 1 hr flight "wheels up" to "wheels down"

Add:

30 minutes runway taxiing total

1.5 hours at check in, security, and boarding (I'm being charitable here)

30 minutes rental car shuttle + pickup

20 minutes getting from home to Sky Harbor

60 minutes getting from LAX to Santa Monica(again being charitable)

4.9 hours?

I.C.E. could do it in 3.5 hours or less. Non-stop to LA would be 2 hours flat. Getting to Santa Monica... well you'd need Regional rail most likely, I doubt HS rail would go there from LA.

[CSpec]

K... lets look at that "good stuff"

1. "The French travel by car 20 times as much, and by air 3 times as much" As always, lies, damn lies, and statistics....the parameters of their travel aren't defined. It would be rather stupid to travel by HS rail to the grocery store..just as it would be stupid to land a 737 at the mall. Similarly, define the air travel as "in the EU-25". As I've said earlier, HS rail is best when the distance is around 800 miles or below, but Europe offers other problems as well.... two big ones... the Alpes and the Mediterranean. One would NEVER take the TGV from Paris to Rome...

Get me the statistics for long distance travel inside France....

This is for inside France, excluding air travel. I believe the TGV has caused a number of intra-France air routes to shut down, but that's not very surprising considering how heavily subsidized the system is.

Regarding your Paris-Rome comment, that's 897 miles by road, not terribly far out from your 800 mile radius. One of the reasons the CA HSR project is so incredibly expensive is because of the significant tunneling required for the terrain.

2. Ditto for Japan, except bureaucrats got involved and ran up the debt... You don't run HS rail to every little village out there.. It's for major urban centers. Use slower regional rail for the smaller towns.

Do you think that would play out any differently here? Why do you think Amtrak runs all those loss-making lines to nowhere? Keep in mind that LaHood recently rescinded cost effectiveness requirements for urban transit construction. Once you put something in the hands of the government, rent seeking unions and developers crawl out of the woodwork to get their fair share of the loot.

3. Page 21 of the PDF you posted cites figures of $25m per mile for high speed in Florida and $67m per mile in California. These numbers are supposed to scare people... but it only works as a scare number if they don't know the cost of highway generally starts at $30m per mile and goes up from there. Want interchanges? Add another $30m per interchange. Need a tunnel? There's another $10 million to start. Need a river crossing bridge? Base models start in the $20 million range. Be sure to ask about rust proof under coating.....

And how many people do those interstates carry? Look at the chart on page 33 of O'Tooles presentation. Ignoring the insane official California ridership projections, interstates dwarf rail lines with just a single lane!. On top of that, interstate construction and maintenance is not subsidized.

4. On page 41, the author compares travel times of HS rail to Air.... but he only compares the "wheels up" to "wheels down" air travel time.... Do I really need to go over that again? I can drive to DC faster than I can fly there.... don't tell me that rail at 180mph would be slower than total air travel time.

I agree with you here. However a 180 mph train here probably won't ever happen and we'll get spot improvements to bring speeds up to where they were in the 30s. I believe the Northeast corridor is basically the only place in the country where Amtrak owns the tracks. Also Acela service is very very expensive--the recent crush of super cheap NYC-DC buses is testament to that, and they in fact cover more passenger-miles from DC to NYC than Amtrak does.

5. On page 41, the author complains that rail travel only serves downtown areas and states that only the wealthy 1% would have access to it. However 78% of American live in a metropolitan area with more then 200k people. Those areas already have strong infrastructure in place to get people downtown and onto a train. Conversely, if you don't drive yourself to an airport, you have to take a cab, hire a shuttle, or take public transit that doesn't enjoy the regularity of service that being in downtown provides.

Same with airports, no? Doesn't this hurt your wheel-up wheel-down complaint?

6. Page 46 just makes &#036;h&#33; up... and you know how I feel about that. It makes up the statistic that most intercity car travel has 2.4 passengers... the only published statistics I could find were in the 1.7 range.... It makes up the statistic that Amtrak trains are only 50% full... I assume he is counting all Amtrak, even the lines with poor service. Again, build a crappy system and it will run crappy. In markets where Amtrak offers good service, the trains are usually packed. I'm not sure how he is even measuring airline efficiencies.... but if he is talking about the seats... they feel way more then 3% smaller.

7. Because of #6, pages 48-54 are bunk.

California themselves assume 2.4 people/car:

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20080130155550_app_2f.pdf

Airline efficiency is in regards to fuel economy.

I'm not sure where he got his 51% number.

[Robert Hall]

4.9 hours?

I.C.E. could do it in 3.5 hours or less. Non-stop to LA would be 2 hours flat. Getting to Santa Monica... well you'd need Regional rail most likely, I doubt HS rail would go there from LA.

Makes sense... my last similar trip should have taken 4 to 4.9 hrs door to door (Phoenix to OC Airport (John Wayne)) but with the chaos at the rental car counter (took an hour from the time the plane landed until I left the rental garage) plus getting lost, and ultimately taking a very long and slow(but beautiful) route to Dana Point/Capistrano Beach it took almost 6 hrs all in..I could driven from Phoenix to there probably in 8 hrs, but that would involved driving across some hideous, hot desert

Alas, I doubt if a high speed rail line will be built from Phoenix to So Cal anytime soon.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Drew Dowdell]

This is for inside France, excluding air travel. I believe the TGV has caused a number of intra-France air routes to shut down, but that's not very surprising considering how heavily subsidized the system is.

Regarding your Paris-Rome comment, that's 897 miles by road, not terribly far out from your 800 mile radius. One of the reasons the CA HSR project is so incredibly expensive is because of the significant tunneling required for the terrain.

Terrain does indeed play a factor, which is why HS rail isn't suited for all routes. I'm not familiar enough with the proposed route in CA, but I do assume a large part of the extra high cost is tunnel and bridge associated.

Do you think that would play out any differently here? Why do you think Amtrak runs all those loss-making lines to nowhere? Keep in mind that LaHood recently rescinded cost effectiveness requirements for urban transit construction. Once you put something in the hands of the government, rent seeking unions and developers crawl out of the woodwork to get their fair share of the loot.

A big thing would be the need for moderate speed rail (90mph-110mph) in lieu of HS rail (150mph-180mph) to connect those smaller places. Keep in mind that moderate speed rail is still pretty good. A trip from Pittsburgh to DC (my typical benchmark if you've noticed) would be about 3 hours.... it would still beat air time and cost, but would be much cheaper to build.

And how many people do those interstates carry? Look at the chart on page 33 of O'Tooles presentation. Ignoring the insane official California ridership projections, interstates dwarf rail lines with just a single lane!. On top of that, interstate construction and maintenance is not subsidized.

Seriously? Try again. Highways are most certainly subsidized. Just because the tax is paid at the pump instead of out of your IRS withholding doesn't mean it's not subsidized. It's subsidized by every purchase you make that was shipped over the highways. Anything you buy at Amazon.com subsidizes the Interstate. But still, I'm not saying I want to eliminate highways... I want to supplement them. It's adding a choice for travelers. It's allowing more mobility. Aren't choice and population mobility two of your pet causes?

I agree with you here. However a 180 mph train here probably won't ever happen and we'll get spot improvements to bring speeds up to where they were in the 30s. I believe the Northeast corridor is basically the only place in the country where Amtrak owns the tracks. Also Acela service is very very expensive--the recent crush of super cheap NYC-DC buses is testament to that, and they in fact cover more passenger-miles from DC to NYC than Amtrak does.

Even 150mph is doable and would be competative.

It's easy to run super cheap NYC-DC buses when you're doing it illegally. More then one of those buses has been impounded in NYC already. I"m still trying to figure out the economics of them. I don't see how they pay for fuel much less driver, maintenance, and equipment costs.

Same with airports, no? Doesn't this hurt your wheel-up wheel-down complaint?

No, not really. Population density around airports is typically a lot lower than downtown areas. Think about getting out to Reagen National... unless you happen to live within a few miles of it, getting to the airport is going to be a chore. You're either going to have to drive yourself (and pay through the ass to park), take a cab, take a car service, or take a Blue line train. If you're limited to public transit in the DC area, you most likely have an easier time getting to Union Station that Reagan National. Same is true here in Pittsburgh. I can be at Pennsylvania Station in 15 minutes by bus... a vast majority of the city can do it in under 30 minutes even with our craptastic transit system. Unless you're in the southwestern part of Pittsburgh, getting to the airport will take you at least 45 minutes by car and over an hour by bus. For me personally, it's a 2 hour trek because I have to change buses in downtown and there is a wait between them.

California themselves assume 2.4 people/car:

http://www.cahighspe...5550_app_2f.pdf

Airline efficiency is in regards to fuel economy.

I'm not sure where he got his 51% number.

I think CA might be a bit different from the rest of the nation in that regard. The number of roadtrips to Las Vegas alone is enough to distort that number.

The increase in Airline fuel economy is only because they are being forced to retire older planes. Most of the "commuter" lines run jets that are at least 15 years old. You could still see 30+ year old 737s coming in and out of LGA (they have a distinctive engine shape and note) as recently as 2008. The 737 is one of the most popular jet liners in service... but it'd been around forever. As they get phased out there will be a large jump in efficiency.