Comments on: The Timeless Appeal of Triumphalism

By: me

me — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:03:36 +0000

One thing that’s great about train travel: in countries where you can reserve seats (Germany, China come to mind), you get to read/use your laptop etc. all with no hassle and in great comfort. That’s a huge advantage compared to driving by car, or, now that we all get costly front-row admission to airport security theater, flying. Makes me not mind paying the extra cost.

By: Veikko

Veikko — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:38:50 +0000

As an European, i have to comment a little bit. In Finland, the railroad company(the one and only) is highly subsidized. The railroad web is not large, only connecting the biggest cities. I don’t know how much percentage is used in freight and how much in human transportation, but humans, by far, got the advantage. Finland is not the simpliest example in Europe, because the landmass is big compared to a small 5,2 million population.

Rail transportation is used only by students, conscripts and businessmen. Students and conscripts get their ticket half the normal price and businessmen… well if you have money, there are other costly things like time to work.

For everyone they it would be still cheaper to go by a private car, but the ownership of cars has been made costly (forced insurance, taxes) so it turns out to be a little bit easier to go by train for those who get the allowance. For those who don’t get it (working people) the train is not even an opinion.

Still, parliament members love the trains. “It’s environtal” they say and lovely put money on a transportation mode which is not really used, efficient and not even highly positive to the environment. Finland is too coarsely inhabited that going from city to city is not enough for anyone.

In this country where sozialism and welfare state is highly loved, we have long ago lost the fight but I hope you can do something in USA which is not yet sunk into that welfare state bullshit.

By: Glen

Glen — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:56:46 +0000

Most of the differences can be explained by looking at a map: The Europe lands mass is surprisingly small, but has more ports and viable sea routes. So most freight is shipped by sea, then by truck. America is one large continent with oceans on each end so more freight is shipped by rail. Plus America had a huge Federal project to build highly efficient freeways to almost all major cities – Europe does not have such a system, especially Eastern Europe. Both Europe and Japan have developed high speed rail travel as a means of passenger travel. This is more economical from an energy and pollution point of view than using the more prevalent American passenger air travel for the short distances which predominate in Europe.

By: colson

colson — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:48:27 +0000

through a series of missteps, I’ve ended up in the trucking industry. And it has been an eye opener to say the least. One thing that comes to mind when discussing efficiency of one transport mode over another is that the measure is highly subjective. Energy-wise, trains are an excellent means of moving freight. But the non-monetary costs ought be considered. Moving long freight long distances is most efficient depending on the specific freight involved. I’m with a reefer outfit where a good portion of the freight is better served through trucking than rail. Can a train haul my loads? Probably. Can a train drop that load in your warehouse in two and a half days? Probably not.

What I really wanted to say is thanks. Warren, you hit the nail on the head with the freight/passenger problem. I’ve been trying to find a way to illustrate this point to passenger rail fanatics for about a month now. Most passenger rail fans tend to miss the costs when passenger trains are run on freight lines. The cost of building out exclusive lines for passenger rail are insane to say the least. If we figure long distance rail running mixed traffice, the effectiveness, or efficiency will diminish. If anything, it would be a better investment to lay out more intermodal yards and push higher speed freight lines that can shorten the time/cost gap between truck and rail.

ps, sorry for any typos. I’m fat fingering this on my phone

By: david foster

david foster — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:24:20 +0000

The very high weight of passenger rail cars is in part due to safety considerations–ie, avoiding crushing in the event of accident. Also, pax trains on tracks without special signaling systems have a maximum speed limit which is usually far below their technical capabilities, also for safety reasons.

Ironically, these safety regulations may actually *increase* the death and injury rate, to the extent that they drive people away from safer rail and toward more dangerous driving. (A direct link in the case of the speed limits, an indirect economic link in the case of the train weight)

By: Elliot

Elliot — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:04:54 +0000

Yesterday I attempted to post this comment on the Huffington Post article, but so far all the comments approved there are just sycophant babbling:

“
I’ve looked at the math in Warren Meyer’s response http://tinyurl.com/meyertrain and I don’t understand how your impertinent e-mail to him (cited in an update to his article) does anything to address the stark numbers which devastate your argument. Passenger rail is actually worse for the environment than many alternatives and your parents should have taught you that the “everybody else is doing it” argument is invalid.

Besides the factors mentioned by you and Warren, there is the matter of freedom. Just as I don’t think you should be forced to spend one penny to support any wars you oppose (as I do), I don’t think anyone who doesn’t want and doesn’t need any passenger train should have to spend one penny to subsidize it, through any form of taxation (income, sales, property, fuel, automobile registration, etc.).”

By: david foster

david foster — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 04:58:23 +0000

Good post. There are a remarkable number of people who seem to think that rail in the U.S. is an almost defunct industry and totally miss the size and importance of the freight rail network.

Max–part of the problem with European rail may be short distances, but part of it is lack of synchronization among the national rail systems.

Also, of course, the configuration of the land and water in Europe makes coastal shipping more of a factor there than in the U.S.

By: pacific_waters

pacific_waters — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:10:48 +0000

“In fact, only 18,738 miles of railroad line were built as a direct result of these land grants and loans. This figure represents only eight percent of the total railroad mileage built in the United States between 1860 and 1920.”

Encyclopedia.com

By: morganovich

morganovich — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:25:52 +0000

clearly, model train sets cause fascism.

the answer is to ban train sets.

By: Max

Max — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:28:02 +0000

Well, there is no option for freight transport in Europe. The US is a less densely settled country that can easily ship things distances longer than 500 km. Usually, freight trains run at a profit when shipping over long distances at low speed (and huge west to east coast trains are slow some 25-30 km/h). This is no problem, because the alternative (ships) is not faster. Also, trucks aren’t the best option, when you want to ship huge amounts of wares in a convoy like manner. They are however efficient on short distances with a variety of different locations to reach.

So, I think it is mostly a problem of Europe being so small and the US being so big that gives the US a comparative advantage on the mode of transportation.
Of course, Europe could try some more congestion pricing to develop passenger traffic (as the french do with their high way tolls).