Free Parking Comes at a Price

[Robert Hall]

Population density around airports is typically a lot lower than downtown areas. Think about getting out to Reagan 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.

Ouch.. I can get from my Mom's house in Ohio to Pittsburgh airport in about an hour and a half (75 miles approx).

One thing I really like about Phoenix is the location of the airport, very central to the metro areaand surrounded by freeways..from home I can be at Sky Harbor in 20 minutes, and w/o traffic in the evening about 15 min. In Denver it took me 30-45 min minimum to get out to DIA which is way out east of the city on the prairie...

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.

Phoenix is similar in that respect for road trips to Las Vegas, LA or San Diego...weekend trips to So Cal are very common, though I prefer to fly over than drive..(I worry about reliability across the void when driving cars w/ over 100k miles)

[Drew Dowdell]

Ouch.. I can get from my Mom's house in Ohio to Pittsburgh airport in about an hour and a half (75 miles approx).

One thing I really like about Phoenix is the location of the airport, very central to the metro areaand surrounded by freeways..from home I can be at Sky Harbor in 20 minutes, and w/o traffic in the evening about 15 min. In Denver it took me 30-45 min minimum to get out to DIA which is way out east of the city on the prairie...

Phoenix is similar in that respect for road trips to Las Vegas, LA or San Diego...weekend trips to So Cal are very common, though I prefer to fly over than drive..(I worry about reliability across the void when driving cars w/ over 100k miles)

Yeah, you're essentially coming in the back way. Come from just about anywhere "metro" and you have to cross a river, go through a tunnel, or both. These structure Blow. Pittsburgh. Drivers'. Tiny. Little. Minds.

[Robert Hall]

Yeah, you're essentially coming in the back way. Come from just about anywhere "metro" and you have to cross a river, go through a tunnel, or both. These structure Blow. Pittsburgh. Drivers'. Tiny. Little. Minds.

I'm sure..coming from Ohio via Rt 22, it's very easy to get the airport. I usually use the Pittsburgh airport over Columbus or Cleveland, about 25 miles closer and easier.

[CSpec]

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.

Cheaper from whose perspective? Taxpayers all paying for the few who ride the rails? Or the few who take advantage of this largesse?

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?

Explain how interstates are subsidized. All the capital and operating expenditures are funded directly out of user fees (taxes on gas, etc). That is, people who drive pay to use the roads. How is that a subsidy? A subsidy is politicians taking a general pot of income tax revenue and directing it to pet projects. Users paying for the goods they use is how rail used to be, and the formerly gigantic private rail companies failed spectacularly decades ago.

Your impassioned pleas for choice don't stack up--it's very analogous to the public option debate of last year. Setting up a government entity with massive taxpayer subsidies to "compete" against very efficient private options doesn't make sense. I would have no problem at all with a private company competing with existing modes of transportation on the merits, not suckling at the teat of the taxpayer.

Also, rail advocates contend that very little of the (inflated) projected ridership of rail projects will be the result of increased mobility--around 4% is their estimate. The rest are projected to switch from another mode of transportation directly. I am all for increased mobility, not statist central planners commanding that people conform to their preferred mode of mobility.

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.

What? The questionable Chinatown buses of a few years ago have given way to a sleek network of posh coach buses ferrying people from affluent neighborhoods in the DC area. The fact that you don't understand how they do it for the money (I don't either) does not automatically imply that they should be shut down to stop being such annoying cheap, efficient competition to Amtrak.

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.

I think you're confused--Reagan is probably the most convenient airport in the country, a few stops away from downtown on the subway. Dulles is the onerous one to get to from downtown, and there's no rail connection. However Dulles is much more convenient for the folks in the sprawling Virginia suburbs. I think that gets to another point here, that often rail advocates detest the fact that people can afford to have their own land and live in the suburbs. I agree with O'Toole that the "city center to city center" argument isn't that significant, where even in the New York City area a very small percentage of people/jobs are downtown.

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.

No.. airlines have every incentive to increase fuel efficiency. Remember the great lengths they took in Summer 2008 to eek every last mile out of the fuel? New planes are indeed more fuel efficient and the fleet getting newer reflects that. Trains haven't and aren't expected to become any more efficient in the past few decades.

[Drew Dowdell]

Cheaper from whose perspective? Taxpayers all paying for the few who ride the rails? Or the few who take advantage of this largesse?

Mobility is freedom and stimulates the economy... but to your exact point, cheaper for everyone. Cheaper for riders, cheaper for Amtrak, and yes cheaper for the tax payers. In fact, it's even cheaper for drivers as well. As less traffic, there is less wear and tear on the roads. New roads don't have to be sized as large and thus can cost less to develop.

Explain how interstates are subsidized. All the capital and operating expenditures are funded directly out of user fees (taxes on gas, etc). That is, people who drive pay to use the roads. How is that a subsidy? A subsidy is politicians taking a general pot of income tax revenue and directing it to pet projects. Users paying for the goods they use is how rail used to be, and the formerly gigantic private rail companies failed spectacularly decades ago.

You absolutely don't understand why rail failed. It has much more to do with legacy costs and is vaguely similar to GM's march towards bankruptcy than towards any "stuck in the victorian era" fantasy you might have.

It's a subsidy because EVERYTHING you buy feeds into that fund in some way. Bought a cell phone? It was shipped by truck, the cell towers are maintained by guys in trucks, the CEO drives to his office on a highway and his fuel costs are expended. If the tax is so vastly ubiquitous that there is no escaping it, it ceases to be a user fee and is just a plain old tax.

Your impassioned pleas for choice don't stack up--it's very analogous to the public option debate of last year. Setting up a government entity with massive taxpayer subsidies to "compete" against very efficient private options doesn't make sense. I would have no problem at all with a private company competing with existing modes of transportation on the merits, not suckling at the teat of the taxpayer.

Fine. Then yank ALL of the taxpayer funded benefits the Airlines get.

Your assertions that highways are paid for via user fees is uninformed also:

In 2001, 41% of the $133 billion spent on highways came from payments other than the gas tax, tolls, and vehicle taxes and fees, as follows: 15.3% general fund appropriations; 9.5% bond issue proceeds; 5.8% investment income and other receipts; 5.6% other taxes and fees; 4.8% property taxes.

So you'll have to yank $54b, at least, from the highway budget to comply with your "user fees only" policy. How do you think that's going to work out?

Also, rail advocates contend that very little of the (inflated) projected ridership of rail projects will be the result of increased mobility--around 4% is their estimate. The rest are projected to switch from another mode of transportation directly. I am all for increased mobility, not statist central planners commanding that people conform to their preferred mode of mobility.

No one is commanding anyone. HS Rail will still have to compete for customers just like any other method of travel. The transporation situation we're in today is because of "statist central planners" heavily favoring air and automobile traffic. You favor a "user fees only" method of funding. That's a perfectly valid point of view.... but are you prepared to have a massive gas tax and/or tolls on major roads to replace the 41% of highway funding that would evaportate?

Are you prepared to pay drastically more for your airline ticket to fund the airports, air traffic control, customs, and security?

.... just so you can win your little jihad against rail?

What? The questionable Chinatown buses of a few years ago have given way to a sleek network of posh coach buses ferrying people from affluent neighborhoods in the DC area. The fact that you don't understand how they do it for the money (I don't either) does not automatically imply that they should be shut down to stop being such annoying cheap, efficient competition to Amtrak.

I think they should be shut down if they're doing things illegally. My suspicion is they are skipping a required maintenance check or driver exam here and there to make ends meet. I'm not against competition.

I think you're confused--Reagan is probably the most convenient airport in the country, a few stops away from downtown on the subway. Dulles is the onerous one to get to from downtown, and there's no rail connection. However Dulles is much more convenient for the folks in the sprawling Virginia suburbs. I think that gets to another point here, that often rail advocates detest the fact that people can afford to have their own land and live in the suburbs. I agree with O'Toole that the "city center to city center" argument isn't that significant, where even in the New York City area a very small percentage of people/jobs are downtown.

Where the hell did that come from?

The city center to city center argument comes from the fact that most metro areas, the center of population gravity is downtown. For the most cities, it is more convenient to get downtown than it is to get to some outskirts airport.

My experience with Reagen was that it took me a 45 minute subway ride to get to Union Station... and my hotel was two blocks from there. It is more convenient than most other airports out there.... but it's not like getting to Union Station in DC.

No.. airlines have every incentive to increase fuel efficiency. Remember the great lengths they took in Summer 2008 to eek every last mile out of the fuel? New planes are indeed more fuel efficient and the fleet getting newer reflects that. Trains haven't and aren't expected to become any more efficient in the past few decades.

The airlines have only recently had an incentive to absolutely maximize fuel efficiency. On top of that, until very recently, there haven't been any major jumps in fuel efficiency since the early 80s.

Hybrid locomotives are already being released... and rail has the ability to add energy per passenger efficiency simply by adding cars. (there are often infrastructure limitations to this but there are work arounds). Either way, you're wrong that locomotives aren't getting any more energy efficient. I have a meeting in 10 minutes, so I'll have to provide links when I come back.

[Drew Dowdell]

The ways trains get more efficient:

1. Add cars - simplest and most effective way to increase fuel economy per passenger. There are of course limits. You can't simply continue to add cars without also adding locomotive power. Still, almost all electric locomotives are far more powerful than generally needed, the high speed ones especially so. A typical electric locomotive can yank around a 15 car train as if it were paper. The second problem with adding cars is station platform length. This is a relatively easy work around since certain cars can be designated for passengers headed to certain destinations. At those destinations, only the designated cars will have platform access.

2. Train splitting and grouping - trains can be scheduled to combine and split at certain stops. For example, a train from Cleveland and a train from Columbus both heading to Washington DC can meet in Pittsburgh. The cars are combined and a single locomotive and crew takes the train the rest of the way to D.C. The process would be reversed for the return trip.

3. Motor Coaches - In electric trains, most of the dirty bits are actually under the locomotive. After space is taken for the engineer, 75% of the locomotive is available for passenger seating.

4. Double Decker and wide body cars - currently few <any?> of the HS rail lines use double decker cars

5. Train "sets" - This concept has been around since the 1930 but never widely adopted in the US until the Acela went into service. Passenger trains sets are actually a set of 3 - 5 permanently coupled cars. Having this arrangement reduces the number of wheels on the rail by 30%. Doing so reduces rolling friction and wear on the tracks. Train sets don't preclude train splitting mentioned in point 2 because independent sets can be controlled from a single cab. Extra locomotives can be left in "neutral" when not needed, engaged if encountering an increasing grade, or engage regenerative braking during a descending grade... which bring us to

6. Regenerative braking - Diesel locomotives have used something called dynamic braking since the 1940s... but all they did was exhaust the excess heat into the air. The Virginian railway experimented, and was successful, with using a descending train to power an ascending train. Most of the modern HS rail trainsets use regenerative braking, but only in their locomotive units. Increasing the regenerative braking to all axles of a train set would greatly increase it's regenerative capacity when used as the primary braking source. Additionally, railroad regenerative braking with electric locomotives suffers no weight penalty from batteries like hybrid automobiles do. The electricity goes back up into the wire and directly feeds another train.

[the_yellow_dart]

Trust me, it's pretty bad in Toronto too.

I was going on a vacation with my parents a couple of years ago. I was living downtown, and my parents were living approximately 100km or 60mi from Toronto. We talked on the phone as we were getting ready to head to the airport. We left at the same time. I took transit to the airport, and they drove the highways. They beat me there by about 15 minutes.

According to these trip planners, I should have (barely) beaten them there, but you get the idea...

Driving from out of town

Transit from downtown

[CSpec]

The Economist examines passenger rail travel in Britain:

But that improvement has been bought with great gobs of public money (see chart). At £5.2 billion last year, government spending on rail travel cost around £87 for every person in the country.

Yet rail travel is a niche interest. It accounts for just 7% of all journeys (cars and vans, in contrast, make up 84%). Those trips are made mainly by the relatively well-off: households with income of £35,000 or more (the top three-sevenths) account for 46% of all rail users, and households with income of up to £17,500 (the bottom three-sevenths) for just 24% ... Only a fifth of the population use trains more than once or twice a week. Almost half use them once a year at most.

Aware of the peculiarities of having taxpayers subsidise a form of transport favoured by the well-off, and worried by the ballooning subsidies, the previous Labour government tried in its second and third terms to shift more of the burden of paying for the railways from taxpayers to farepayers. Green ambitions blunted the shift: trains full of passengers pump out less carbon dioxide than cars, and if they cost much more they risk being less used.

[Drew Dowdell]

OMG, you're always going to be able to find an example of it not working.

Air travel has a very high fixed cost that is subsidized by the government! On top of that, it's less energy efficient per passenger.

I'm sure you'll return with some obscure statistic about a diesel powered rail line in upstate New Hampshire or something that is somehow less efficient per passenger... but it's not relevant because it isn't indicative of a modern normalized system.

If you want to fight against public subsidies, fine, but you can't single out rail while ignoring 41% of the Interstate's yearly budget that DOES NOT COME FROM THE GAS TAX. You can't ignore the massive subsidies given to air travel.

[CSpec]

The shortfall in highway funding is mainly because Congress in its wisdom started siphoning off gas tax revenue to fund urban transit construction projects. Even if it's not being used as it should be to improve roads, the gas tax is still collected. The rest of the shortfall comes from local and state governments. I agree that the subsidies are bad, but highway subsidies are trivial when you take into account how many people use them (less than a penny per passenger-mile).

Regarding air travel, yes there are some subsidies (unfortunately), but again given the popularity of planes and the distances they travel, the subsidies are very very small compared to trains:

The project in CA is starting to collapse, which thankfully could spare the rest of us:

http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_15746975?nclick_check=1

[Drew Dowdell]

Isn't part of the problem with rail subsides then just with lack of use... and that lack of use is caused by poor service due to poor funding? On lines where Amtrak was able to make the investment into high speed rail, they are bursting at the seams with ridership. They have over 50% market share in DC and NYC. People aren't unwilling to use rail, they're just unwilling to pay for crap service. Taking the Capitol Limited from Pittsburgh to DC is plenty cheap enough, but the only departure

Denver has great air service because it has a great airport. Pittsburgh has mediocre air service despite having a great airport (regularly considered in the top 10) because no one wants the hassle of driving out that far.

Right now, Amtrak has just enough subsidy to keep them alive and barely functioning but until early last year, nothing to make any substantial hardware upgrades with.

Imagine if an infrastructure service, fairly vital to the country's needs (as all major modes of transportation are) were last overhauled in 1991. The whole system was operating on Windows 3.1 computers, which were state of the art at the time. But while other infrastructure services got eventual upgrades to Win 95, Win XP (new airports or substantially upgraded ones), this infrastructure services was told it'd have to learn to fend for itself and it would have to do it's own upgrades while it's competition got them for free.

Listen, I can completely sympathize with your "no subsidies" position.... but don't pick on rail just because they're currently the underdog and they've been kicked and neglected since birth.

[OhioTom76]

I saw a special on these people who go around and play good Samaritan and drop some change in expired parking meters, along with a note on their window encouraging them to do the same. They are basically all ganging together to help everyone avoid getting parking tickets. While it's a noble thing to do, it is rather rude how they are video taping and antagonizing the meter reader in the videos, when he is just doing his job.