« Bryan Caplan peers into my heart | Main | Is libertarianism the new "in" thing? »
What is wrong with Amtrak?
Megan McArdle tells us:
...why is America's high-speed rail so dreadful? The Acela delivers you, at enormous added expense, to Boston one hour ahead of the regional. On the DC-to-NY run, the added benefit is 10-15 minutes. The answer is that the Acela uses existing track, which is twisty, the better to serve every congressional district between here and Boston. Real high speed rail needs to be fairly straight, for the same reason you don't take hairpin turns at 120 mph in your car.
I had never heard the Congressional district argument before. I've also heard that freight railways crowd the lines and Amtrak doesn't pay a high enough prices for access; the freight services had, way back when, pledged to the government to give Amtrak trains priority but of course that kind of cheap talk is not enough to get the job done; here is some relevant background, and more here. Here is a good summary of Amtrak critiques. It comes from a whole blog devoted to criticizing Amtrak.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 24, 2007 at 06:36 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
I had never heard the Congressional district argument before.
Maybe that's because the claim on which it's based is not true.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Nov 24, 2007 9:50:54 AM
Amtrak is "bad" because Amtrak found itself on the wrong side of history. It became a political enemy in the United States.
It's a bit much to think that a system with (at least) 30 years of vilification and grudging support would be in any way excellent.
(I'm agnostic on train politics, though I understand that the physics make them, always, the most efficient form of land-transport. I guess I don't commit to the fight because I know that is the case. The Amtrak battle is not at all about the efficiency or technology involved. It is about what ideological group is perceived to 'own' trains, and what group is perceived to 'oppose' trains.)
Posted by: odograph at Nov 24, 2007 10:08:13 AM
Efficiency of what, odograph? Certainly not my time. For very similar reasons, I drive an automobile for distances less than about 300 miles and fly for greater distances. The lost time in travel to and from the collation points of mass transit, early arrival to avoid the costs of missed connection, and submission to security screening are significant. Further, the marginal cost of a second traveller in the automobile is low (and perhaps the third and beyond).
Posted by: rluser at Nov 24, 2007 10:44:04 AM
Passenger-miles per gallon. Though certainly "your time" and other savings will vary with your use-mode, and the availability of a suitable Amtrak route.
Interestingly, a catch-22 argument can be made against Amtrak based on a lack of routes. No one uses it, why build more?
Posted by: odograph at Nov 24, 2007 11:06:01 AM
BTW, I hope it was obvious that for trains to be "efficient" it is not necessary to prove them "universally" so. It is only necessary that there be routes for which they are the best solution.
Posted by: odograph at Nov 24, 2007 11:07:50 AM
Here's a better link on efficiency. It seems that light rail is the real star.
Posted by: odograph at Nov 24, 2007 11:18:54 AM
I second Yomtov. Too many of her statements seem to emanate from the wrong end of her GI tract.
I've often wondered why McArdle and Passey get so much mention here, given the unrelenting shallowness of their commentary.
Posted by: bartman at Nov 24, 2007 11:37:29 AM
Amtrak sucks because it's a protected monopoly. It's the post office on wheels -- unreliable, expensive, and ignorant of customer satisfaction. I know that the europeans are structurally the same (cf, DB strikes), but the europeans compete indirectly (yardstick competition) because customers (and employees) rise on each others' networks...
Posted by: David Zetland at Nov 24, 2007 12:54:32 PM
Where are you going to build a straight-ish track on the Boston to Washington corridor? It's only most the most densely populated area in the country, and probably the most expensive 600 mile stretch of real estate in the world. I guess Megan McArdle doesn't think anybody lives between Boston and NYC. Or between NYC and Philly, or DC? I can't wait until she starts writing David Brooks-type essays about how "liberuls" don't understand anything beyond their provincial towns.
Posted by: Phil at Nov 24, 2007 1:07:24 PM
A railroad is a system, not just a train. It is also tracks, signaling and traffic management. Switzerland shows day to day that running passenger trains between slow fright trains is possible. It has one of the densest network running hundreds of freight and passenger trains daily with punctuality around 95%.
Acela needs also investments in the stations. The facilities are from the fifties and they also operate like this. Did you ever see a train service in Europe, where you are *not* allowed to stay on the platform when the train pull in?
Railroad is a public service. It must be fully supported by the govt to be functional. Privatisation of railroads cost at the end more then subsidies - see Great Britain.
Posted by: PeetTheEngineer at Nov 24, 2007 1:43:55 PM
The work of David Lawyer illustrates the fuel inefficiency of passenger rail. By comparison, my Toyota Corolla easily obtains well in excess of 75 gallons (gasoline) per passenger mile with two passengers on a run from Alliance, OH to D.C. (actual measurement -- multiple times). Lawyer points out that post 1970 fuel efficiency gains in automobiles skew the relationship in favor of autos.
(BTW, that's a sub 5 hour trip door to door via auto and a super 10 hour trip station to station under present conditions)
Potential passenger density is certainly the problem. The huge capital outlay for additional track across the Appalachians (or anywhere) is a cost that is hard to justify in such sparsely populated land. Yet between here and D.C. (or the East Coast generally), given the paucity of crossing points (6) for that obstacle and the ability of trains to carry extremely massive, durable loads, does it not make sense to allocate that resource to that task? Let the fragile, time-sensitive humans use some other resource.
Posted by: rluser at Nov 24, 2007 2:10:48 PM
This is overthinking on steroids.
While it is certainly true that Acela is a frivolous warm-fuzzy-feeling political boondoggle, the Northeast Corridor generally is the only part of Amtrak that actually makes money.
The $1 billion annual taxpayer subsidy Amtrak receives is to underwrite the rest of the network beyond the Northest Corridor, not Acela per se. Lots of people take the train from Boston to Washington -- who takes the train from Boston to Los Angeles?
Amtrak is a distilled, textbook example of the stupidity of central planning: forcing taxpayers to buy something they have clearly expressed no interest in using, because "enlightened" politicians and bureaucrats have decided -- while they bask in hubris -- that "the market is wrong."
Posted by: KipEsquire at Nov 24, 2007 3:59:05 PM
"I've often wondered why McArdle and Passey get so much mention here, given the unrelenting shallowness of their commentary."
seconded
Posted by: BK at Nov 24, 2007 4:43:29 PM
Low population density is the problem with passenger rail in the US. Europe has much higher population density.
I prefer the lower population density.
odograph,
The Wikipedia page needs updating. The Prius efficiency is based on the older EPA measure rather than the tougher newer one that slashes measured Prius mpg by 25%.
Posted by: Randall Parker at Nov 24, 2007 5:16:39 PM
I think we all know the real-world numbers Randall, but for those that don't there are two main sources, 48 mpg at the (119,329,560 mile) Green Hybrid database, and 47.x mpg at the EPA's share mileage database. You can compare to other make and models, and their 'real world' numbers as well.
That's a bit below the British Rail's 841 mpg on "British Rail Class 321" (whatever that is).
Posted by: odograph at Nov 24, 2007 5:43:35 PM
Oh! Maybe my friend Randall was giving me a slow pitch and I missed it!
"You can compare to other make and models, and their 'real world' numbers as well. I believe you'll see that the Prius is still the most energy efficient passenger car offered on the American market."
Posted by: odograph at Nov 24, 2007 5:59:54 PM
Some much more recent data. Your links used 10 year old data. The most recent energy usage figures from ORNL, Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 26, Chapter 2, 2004 data.
Cars: 5,489 BTU/vehicle-mi, 3,496 BTU/passenger-mi
Personal Trucks: 7,447 BTU/V-mi, 4,329/p-mi
Amtrak: 51,948 BTU/V-mi, 2,760 BTU/p-mi
Aviation: 357,750 BTU/V-mi, 3,959 BTU/p-mi
Note that load factor matters immensely. The current figures are slightly lower because everyone is making changes to reduce fuel consumption. Also, these numbers are based on gross consumption, so they include idling, taxiing, etc. Most of the political data cherry pickers look at something like the cruising fuel consumption of a packed A380, or the laughably inaccurate EPA mileage estimates for automobiles.
Also, the actual usages are immensely variable and these gross aggregates can be very misleading for individual situations. ORNL did not break out Acela from the total system numbers. Acela has substantially higher typical load factor per car. Acela is also regenerative electric power (brakes feed back into the grid). Electric power allows lots of fuel alternatives, but is less BTU efficient. The automobile figures include both long distance and commuting, which can be very misleading. Slow steady driving is much more efficient than high speed, but sitting in traffic is much less efficient. Cars are also immensely more sensitive to load factor. One driver versus driver with passenger makes a huge difference. I have no idea what should be the assumed load factor when comparing cars with Amtrak.
Her discussion is more a collection of political talking points than a serious effort to comprehend or analyze the situation.
Posted by: rjh at Nov 24, 2007 7:01:44 PM
Where I started, rjh, was saying that the physics favored trains. In your latest numbers they have lowest 2,760 BTU/p-mi. That is consistent.
So then why did trains also become such a political enemy? I mean, "I hate Amtrak" is a good line for a Republican primary. Is it just the old "If I have a hammer (free markets) the world looks like a nail" problem?
I guess we could also take claims for "best train systems" in the world, and then look at how they are supported (or hated) in their home lands.
Posted by: odograph at Nov 24, 2007 7:11:09 PM
An Acela market indicator: the NYC to DC market share for Amtrak was 45% when Acela was introduced. It is now 54%. All sorts of considerations go into deciding how to travel, but the passengers are switching to Acela, primarily off airplanes. This growth is closing in on some capacity limits. The track, bridges, and tunnels between NYC and DC need major overhauls. Most are 1930's construction. They are shared with local commuter lines. The tunnel under the Hudson is at capacity during the morning and evening rush hours. NY Penn Station is near capacity for tracks and passenger loading. The East River tunnels are also at capacity. Only the East River has construction under way to build another tunnel for LIRR traffic to Grand Central, which will improve both the Penn Station and East River congestion.
Posted by: rjh at Nov 24, 2007 7:31:36 PM
Read what Peter Schaeffer told Paul Krugman about population densities in the US, Europe, and South Korea. That explains why passenger rail can't become as big in the US as in some other places.
Posted by: Randall Parker at Nov 24, 2007 7:47:47 PM
I don't know why the hatred of trains, but it has been bipartisan and goes back to the 1930's. I'm sure some of it is based on the abusive relationship between the original railroad companies and the farmers. But you find all sorts of hostilities:
1930's - Creation of the ICC, and outlawing of railroad containers. The early containerization of railroad freight was a major threat to the fledgling trucking industry, which had union and bi-partisan sponsorship.
1950's - ICC regulations set aggregate pricing below the re-investment level needed to sustain long term operations.
1970's - railroads were going bankrupt, and there was a real consideration of their complete failure.
1980's - Staggers act deregulates freight. The world changes dramatically. Container traffic becomes legal. Amtrak is created to manage the elimination of passenger rail gradually, and to absorb the massive layoffs of railroad staff as part of deregulation. $300 million per year of the Amtrak subsidy is still to pay the cost of railroad pensions. The US government absorbed most of the layoff/ retirement costs as part of deregulation. (Basically, Congress contemplated a world without railroads and decided that it would be a national disaster. Freight rail was needed. Passenger rail was not.)
Amtrak has gone through all sorts of political colors during its lifespan, but for some reason it is deeply hated by the Republicans, treated with indifference by the Democrats, and kept alive by its local constituencies. I don't know why the hatred.
Posted by: rjh at Nov 24, 2007 7:50:52 PM
Randall, doesn't the population density "of the US" only argue against trains in "general" conditions, and not "specific?"
We certainly know that population in the US is not evenly distributed, and that is one reason trains (esp. commuter trains) are more successful in some place and not others.
Posted by: odograph at Nov 24, 2007 8:30:30 PM
odograph, As Peter explains, even the most densely parts of the United States are pretty low density as compared to places like Paris or Seoul.
rjh, Cars let you go from where you are to where you want to go and when you want to go. Trains don't. People aren't being irrational or mean spirited. They turned to cars because they found cars more convenient.
Posted by: Randall Parker at Nov 24, 2007 8:45:46 PM
Randall, the hatred I spoke of is political, and not related to the personal choice to drive, fly, or take a train. In Europe, it is basically an apolitical decision. You look at the locations, schedule, and cost; then you choose your travel mode. Your choice is not a political statement. Most US travelers are not making a political statement either, although it is much more politicized here than there. In Europe the train system is just another part of the government subsidized infrastructure, like the highways and airports. It is treated as an equal part.
The density argument is somewhat overblown and applies much more in terms of construction cost. A railroad line with the capacity of an 8-lane superhighway consumes the real estate of a local 2-lane road. This does make a difference.
The bigger factor in Europe is the locations of the cities and national borders. With a few important exceptions, European rail traffic is national, not international. The maximum inter-city distance considered competitive for rail is 300-500km. Europe has lots of cities that are that close. The US has half a dozen "corridors" with cities that close. It is not a coincidence that those corridors are where Amtrak is seeing very strong passenger growth.
Politics is still a highly corrosive and destructive aspect of US infrastructure planning, but there has been improvement. On the freight side, trucking and rail have recently stopped political warfare and realized that optimizing the long-haul/ short-haul split will benefit them both. When they start working together, they have then brought in the other transportation planners. There are a few corridor projects underway, and the Alameda Corridor (LA County and Long Beach port improvement) is finished. Most of the rest of the corridor improvements are still mired in politics. As soon as a federal highway gets involved, the immense hostility of both US national parties halts progress. (Note that this joint hostility is towards the freight railroads.)
Cars also need to be parked and are very expensive to rent these days. In my company it is corporate policy to avoid rental if practical. Traveling to locations like Boston, NYC, DC, Chicago, SFO, and various European cities I find it easy to avoid cars. The metro and taxi costs are much less, and they also go where and when I need.
I personally do use Amtrak up and down the NEC for a few reasons:
1) the airport delays have made Amtrak schedule competitive. That's the biggest factor.
2) Amtrak is more reliable than aviation on that corridor.
3) I get a table for my PC, AC power, working Internet access, etc. for the entire duration of my travel. There is none of this security nonsense, no "shut down all electronics", etc.
I don't use Amtrak elsewhere because it doesn't match my schedule needs.
Posted by: rjh at Nov 24, 2007 9:29:49 PM
I personally do use Amtrak up and down the NEC for a few reasons:
Add:
There is actually room for your legs.
You can get up and walk around if you like.
You can get something to eat or drink when you feel like it.
It doesn't take an hour of security hassles and check-in procedures. Show up a few minutes before the train leaves and you're fine.
You start and end in the middle of town.
I travel between Boston and NY fairly often, and flying strikes me as irrational. Driving is OK, if there is more than one traveller, but generally takes longer than the Acela and comes with hassles of its own.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Nov 24, 2007 9:46:04 PM
