« *Realizing Freedom* | Main | Assorted links »
High-speed rail in Texas?
I have never blogged high-speed rail issues because I don't (yet?) have a point of view on them. I can see the benefits from subsidizing metro systems and buses. I don't know whether most of the planned subsidies to high speed rail will pay off.
Ed Glaeser, in a recent Op-Ed, criticized high speed rail for Texas. On this issue, Ryan Avent gets upset at Glaeser:
Of course, Texas has four of the nation's fastest growing metropolitan areas, all within a few hundred miles of each other -- an ideal distance for high-speed rail. Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio are currently home to some 16 million people, and those metropolitan areas have added 3 million people since 2000 alone. Congestion is an issue within those metropolitan areas and will continue to worsen as they grow.
Not only is it entirely appropriate to build transportation infrastructure with future growth in mind, it's imperative. America's current sprawling growth pattern resulted in no small part from the mass construction of interstates and highways, which drew suburbanites to previously unsettled areas.
Moreover, Texan metropolitan areas are working to accommodate future growth in a denser fashion by building miles of metropolitan transit systems. Transit and rail are complementary technologies, each of which will increase the return on investment of the other.
My question is simple: how could you take rail from Dallas to Houston and cope once you got there? San Antonio I can see, at least provided you will camp out in city center (a mistake, but that's a question for a different day). I am willing to be converted, but what are the odds of such a line attracting significant patronage, with or without ongoing subsidy to the fares and not just to line construction? Or is the vision that everyone takes the train and then rents a car on arrival? According to Matt Yglesias, the plan won't even directly link Houston to Dallas. By the way, here are some of the other planned links from Texas. Will people really take trains from Houston to Meridien, Mississippi?
Inquiring minds wish to know.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 8, 2009 at 07:36 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
I don't know if I'm representative, but my most common usage pattern for long-distance rail (in the UK) is to travel to another city, take a taxi to a meeting, and then make the reverse journey back to London the same day.
For this purpose there's no better mode of transport - I would hate to have to spend 3-4 hours driving each way and be unable to work on the train, and flying would both be more expensive and a major hassle.
The other major use is commuting, and people will often spend an hour each morning and evening on a commuter train followed by a local bus or taxi to their destination. However this relies on high-density living with lots of local stations and has a strong network effect - the metro rail network around most cities in the UK is strong.
The broader network effect is important too - rail coverage in the UK is comprehensive and you can get within 5 miles of nearly anywhere. This helps to acclimatise people to the habit of using trains. If you have to travel 20 miles once you arrive in Houston then perhaps it wouldn't work so well.
Posted by: Leigh Caldwell at Jul 8, 2009 8:15:35 AM
This is a very important point: the demand for intercity rail is closely related to the density and transit opportunities at the destination. Some might call this a "chicken-and-egg" problem, but I think it's fairly clear that density and intracity transit need to come first, and Avent's suggestion that they are "complementary" technologies exaggerates the degree to which influence runs in both directions. (Will Dallas change its mass transit infrastructure out of a desire to accomodate train travellers from Houston? Really? As a general rule, I think that urban transit policy reflects the desire of people living nearby, who will account for the vast majority of usage.)
This is related to another question that interests me -- how many people really need to travel from, say, Chicago to St. Louis? Acela links cities that play a very important role in business and government -- Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington -- where there are lots of elite business travellers ready to pay up for a quick train ride. These passengers are usually heading to destinations near the city center, where a train link is very convenient.
I don't think the population riding between Chicago and St. Louis is similar -- both in numbers and in type -- and that's a generous example. Who's planning to ride from Meriden, Mississippi to Birmingham, Alabama? (And if we say that those are just intermediate destinations, and most of the passengers will be going from, say, New Orleans or Houston to Atlanta -- how big is this customer base, really? Has our experience with Acela been so extraordinarily positive that we're ready to make the same investment in a corridor that might have 1/10th the traffic?)
Posted by: Matt Rognlie at Jul 8, 2009 8:19:31 AM
You are absolutely right, Tyler. There is no public transportation structure in any of the major Texas cities to make intra-state rail viable for a very long time. I would much prefer to use high speed rail when I travel to Houston and Dallas, but as of right now it wouldn't make any sense. You would still have to use the buss system upon arrival, and that is just not acceptable.
In addition, Matt is right, there is no way we are going to pony up the extra taxes to pay for any of this, especially when the State is already trying to cut back spending. We have no desire to be California.
Posted by: stephen at Jul 8, 2009 8:48:38 AM
Can we go back to first principles and recall that a train ride is not a true public good, since it is perfectly excludable?
It may be a natural monopoly -- in which case the solution is to open it up for competitive private bidding with subsequent rate regulation.
But of course high-speed rail (not to mention that most infamous of low-speed rails, Amtrak) is not even a natural monopoly. It's an unnatural monopoly created by politicians to achieve political ends. Nothing more.
Posted by: KipEsquire at Jul 8, 2009 8:55:52 AM
I agree with the first two commenters, but the second point is more pertinent to the debate. I am a moderate user of Acela to from New York to Boston. In terms of total time, driving, flying, and the train are all about the same. I can work on the train but cannot work in the car or really while flying, since the "flight" is really just a 3.5 hour amalgam of 30 minute intervals (to airport, to security, to gate, etc.) none of which can be very productive.
I recently traveled in France from Paris to Avignon via high speed rail. An 8.5 hour drive took 2.5 hours by train! If any level of speed near that could be realized, the trip from New York to Boston would be cut down to 1.5 hours. The reason that this is not possible, of course, is that Amtrak shares rails with the local commuter trains in the NY City area. In order to enable true high speed rail, entirely new high speed tracks would need to be built with their own rights of way. Attaining this right of way would be very expensive and could well require the use of eminent domain (although, in theory, it should be possible to leverage the right of way for the interstates and power lines that the government already has). If it were realized, it would put the airline routes between NYC and Boston (and DC) out of business. These are the things that make it unlikely to ever be realized, but it would be a huge savings in manhours and fossil fuels.
By comparison, building a much more useless high speed rail through Texas is much easier, doesn't really threaten any air routes (since most people drive today), and would not entail such complicated right-of-way issues. However, as noted, without the infrastructure to support someone without a car in the destination city, a high speed rail would be severely under-utilized. Perhaps there would be the same-day business travel, but I still imagine culturally many people in Texas would still want their cars.
I think that it's a great example of politicians going after the politically expedient and logistically easier option over the strategically smart option. It allows them to tout a victory in building infrastructure and high speed rail, even if it is under-utilized, as opposed to backing a project that is a guaranteed success but that comes with much greater risk.
Posted by: Erik at Jul 8, 2009 8:59:07 AM
Doesn't the article say these cities are planning "miles of metropolitan transit systems?" Even if approved and built, inter-city rail wouldn't appear tomorrow out of the blue. If they're already planned, wouldn't it make sense to think that these intra-city systems will be ready (or close to ready) by the time the high speed lines are finished?
I'm generally in line with green folks and the liberal lot on developmental policy these days, but my opinions on rail/transportation are generally combined with a strong support for Mankiw's higher gas taxes. It would make the progressive/tree hugger side of me a lot happier since so many more people would be on board with these plans if gas were more expensive.
Posted by: Jeffrey at Jul 8, 2009 9:16:44 AM
For future comments, if you could (just a request, not a requirement), please indicate whether you have actually visited these cities in Texas.
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Jul 8, 2009 9:18:13 AM
As Erik noted, a clear benefit could be had if the Acela could be made to run faster. If this is truly infeasible, why are we wasting time in places like Texas?
Posted by: jj at Jul 8, 2009 9:32:37 AM
I lived in Houston and Austin for 22 years. We actually have public transit in Houston, but its not widely known. And you can get around nicely in the Museum District, Medical District, and places around that area rather well.
Dallas has a rail system in place currently, too. Last I heard the routes were not that great in terms of placement. But they have also seen a decent amount of development in the downtown restaurant district that includes hotels, arena upgrades, etc.
Austin (left off your discussion list) is VERY easy to get around without a car. I could drop you off downtown and you are a decent walk to the UT football stadium, capital building, Sixth Street (bars and restaurants), Lake Austin, and the UT campus. But both of these cities have an existing means of public transit to expand off of and are not as impossible to get around currently as you make them out to be. Something that the authors of several prominent blogs could have bothered to check up on before writing posts dedicated to the subject. But I guess we only hold them to research standards on their academic work?
Posted by: Jerome at Jul 8, 2009 9:39:14 AM
I'm from Chicago. I have been to Dallas and Austin. It seems reasonable to run high speed between them, as both cities are pretty dense at the core and the highways can get ridiculously congested between them.
Cost effective? No idea. But if the link from New York to DC is so valuable, and the CA link is also valuable, then it may be worth it to allocate some of the gains from building those two networks and put up with the "losing proposition" of the other regional rail networks. It may be the only political way to accomplish it.
(@ Tyler: What makes Texas today so much different than California 30 years ago? Isn't waiting and seeing just the way to get yourself into an eminent domain trap? It seems you might want to exercise the option now-- it might not be there in ten years-- and hope for the best. The alternative may be a congested disaster from which we can't extricate ourselves.
Posted by: Reed at Jul 8, 2009 9:41:23 AM
Have any commenters ever lived in Dallas or Fort Worth? I've spent significant portions of my 58 years in the two metro areas.
Dallas and Houston will not rely on train transit for more than a tiny portion of their transport. The cities are far too dispersed. Given the existing investment in millions of homes and workplaces, that's not going to change.
Texans can be fooled into paying for mass transit, but they're not going to use it. Since the mid-80's Dallas and its surrounding suburbs have paid over $5 billion on train taxes to build a rail system for commuters. Despite light rail lines on the busiest corrider, and commuter rail connecting the four largest cities, less than 40,000 folks use the trains daily. That's in a metro area with a population of over 5 million.
Have you guys even visited Texas in any of the months of May through October? Anyone using mass transit would be forced to spend many minutes exposed to the Texas heat and humidity, either walking to and from transit stops or waiting to connect. Few office workers are going to choose that option and arrive at workplaces drenched.
What guarantees that mass transit will fail in Texas cities? The fact that commutes are not that bad, and that commuting costs represent a very small part of household budgets. So why would Texas commuters give up the convenience of their cars?
If commuters do not give up their cars, the mass transit system will not have the funds to grow - at least, as long as planners insist on building trains. Without intracity transit systems, of course, intercity rail systems will not be economical for trips of 200 or so miles. It's too easy to hop into a car and drive three hours.
Posted by: John Dewey at Jul 8, 2009 9:41:54 AM
There is considerable political opposition to mass transit in Texas, despite regular ongoing efforts to build and fund it. Short-hop airlines (i.e., Southwest) have led the charge, and there has already been significant investment in expanding existing highways (everywhere but Austin). While it is possible to build a rail network that would take advantage of existing traffic/travel patterns, I don't see it happening anytime soon.
[I've lived in Houston and Austin, and have visited San Antonio and Dallas/Ft Worth]
Posted by: Dan Carroll at Jul 8, 2009 9:42:25 AM
I'm mildly on board for high-speed rail, obviously better to construct in recession, when I read the civic planning arguments. It is simply more efficient to construct one's city around a downtown hub. Airports are never near skyscrapers, high speed rail can be in many cities.
Posted by: Phillip Huggan at Jul 8, 2009 9:48:17 AM
These routes are Southwest Airline's bread and butter. It would take significant (subsidized) investment in rail infrastructure and higher fuel prices to make high speed rail the more attractive option.
@Erik, I live in Houston. The city is 600 sq mi. The nearest bus stop to my office is 2 miles away. At 8:30am it was 85 degrees and 83% humidity, expected to get to 95 degrees today. I assure you it's more than cultural reasons that we want our cars.
Posted by: Tim at Jul 8, 2009 9:50:03 AM
It's "Meridian, MS" not "Meridien".
Posted by: Micael at Jul 8, 2009 9:50:35 AM
Jeffrey: "many more people would be on board with these plans if gas were more expensive."
I agree that commuters will seek higher mileage vehicles if gas were more expensive. But people are not going to give up the convenience of cars in dispersed cities such as Dallas and Fort Worth. They may plan trips more intelligently. They may carpool. But they're not about to confine themselves to the schedules and fixed rails of train transit.
Jeffrey, assume a couple is now spending $2,400 on commuting fuel each year. For those living in the far suburbs, this likely represents less than 3% of income. Assume that gasoline prices were quadrupled - highly unlikely for political reasons, of course. That couple would simply acquire vehicles with double the gas mileage. Commuting fuel costs would rise by $2,400 a year, or $200 a month. Do you really think an $80,000 or $100,000 or $150,000 household is going to change lifestyles to save $200 a month?
Posted by: John Dewey at Jul 8, 2009 9:54:36 AM
reed: "I have been to Dallas and Austin. ... both cities are pretty dense at the core"
Dallas is probably the most dispersed major city in the U.S., if not the world. And it's becoming less desne, not more. Major employers such as EDS, Burlington Northern, Frito Lay, Dr Pepper, Sabre Systems, and others have abandoned the central business districts of Dallas and Fort Worth. When JC Penney relocated headquarters from New York, it choose far surburban Frisco, not downtown Dallas.
From what I've seen of Houston lately - from what my two brothers living there have shown me - I'm pretty sure that city is de-urbanizing as well.
Posted by: John Dewey at Jul 8, 2009 10:03:23 AM
Fixed this for you:
My question is simple: how could you take a plane from Dallas to Houston and cope once you got there? Dallas I can see (maybe), at least provided your meetings are a short cab ride from the airport (a mistake, but that's a question for a different day). I am willing to be converted, but what are the odds of such a system attracting significant patronage, with or without ongoing subsidy to the fares and not just to airport construction? Or is the vision that everyone takes the plane and then rents a car on arrival?
Inquiring minds wish to know.
----
Not being sarcastic (well, sort of, but my point is valid). The solution is the same for rail as for airports. And if your meetings are in the central business district, it's even easier than flying as your final destination is there as you could just walk over or take a short cab ride. Even if it's not, you're not in any worse shape than taking a plane.
Posted by: Michael at Jul 8, 2009 10:07:17 AM
We moved to Austin in 92. I've attended several conventions in Houston, SA, Dallas and Ft Worth over the years.
While Austin is by far the smallest of these cities, the "downtown" area is just not that important if you are in tech. This was driven home last year when I was looking for work as a web developer. I had one downtown phone screen & one interview out of about twenty. In fact, there is almost a tech ring, with Intel being the only major employer that I know that is within a mile or so of downtown. And bus transport is abysmal. It can take hours to get from north to south. Neither the recently added (after being voted down four times) commuter rail, nor the (locally opposed) toll roads will or even can address the needs of a business out-of-towner for tech.
I grew up on the farm, which makes me a skinflint for things like taxis. You haven't lived until you've walked a mile in a suit in June in Houston, San Antonio, Dallas or Fort Worth.
Posted by: Right Wing-nut at Jul 8, 2009 10:09:21 AM
I live in Plano, Texas (Dallas suburb) and commute to downtown Dallas via rail. It's not any faster than driving, but it saves wear-and-tear on the car and avoids the occasional traffic jam, plus I can work on the train for the 30 minutes it takes to get to the office.
I also travel to San Antonio and Austin now and then. For a business trip, Southwest Airlines is more than adequate. I can rent a car or take a taxi at the airport and scoot around town. For a pleasure trip, I drive. The highways are a mess but it's not that bad, and it's cheaper than a plane ticket and car rental.
If high speed rail were available, that might be an option for business travel but not for visiting family or a short vacation. However, it doesn't offer any additional value over a short hop flight. From a public good perspective, it has negative value since it requires buying right-of-ways, incurring construction costs, and it competes with an already low cost incumbent that will limit profitability.
As others have already stated, our Texas cities are too spread out and the climate is too inhospitable to take a train and walk around. That works in San Francisco and New York but not here.
Posted by: Tom D at Jul 8, 2009 10:16:46 AM
i'm a new york city resident and rely on public transportation here; i've visited but not lived in these cities in texas. the points about the dispersion of the cities in texas and the smallish amount of money that people spend on their commutes in texas are good ones.
imho the only way that physical investment in public transportation makes clear sense is if it makes it possible for people give up their cars entirely; this isn't going to happen in most cities in the US any time soon.
i would try some kind of luxury bus / car-sharing or car-pooling arrangement -- perhaps with the help of the internet to make it more point to point -- long before committing billions of dollars to parallel physical infrastructure.
Posted by: babar at Jul 8, 2009 10:19:51 AM
And Tyler, my blog comment was not directed at yours. This discussion here is generating some great comments from those who are familiar with the cities.
But I just found it odd that most of the articles/blog posts never bothered to reach out to economists in any of these cities. Surely, between UT, A&M, UH, and SMU, they could find some decent urban/transportation economists who would be pretty familiar with the barriers/praftfalls surrounding the issue of a rail system in Texas.
Posted by: Jerome at Jul 8, 2009 10:31:12 AM
Michael,
Well-played, but the difference is you can put an airport anywhere b/c it just needs to have lots of space, including for rental lots. Meanwhile, train stations need to be in land-expensive central locations to be useful. But other than that, your point stands.
Posted by: MonkeyMan at Jul 8, 2009 10:51:56 AM
I'm planning a trip to Austin soon and planned on taking a day trip to San Antonio. The comment about its city center has me worried. Should I avoid the city altogether?
Posted by: sean at Jul 8, 2009 10:56:47 AM
Developing a high-speed transportation infrastructure will take at least a decade and probably two (not just construction, but eminent domain disputes, environmental impact lawsuits, budget constraints, etc). It's worth pausing to consider how the Internet and AI might develop during that time, obviating the need for high-speed transportation.
In a Kindle/iPhone/cloud computing world, you will be able to work equally productively no matter where you are, having full access to all necessary documents and information and coworkers and apps even while in transit. Under those circumstances, low-speed automated transportation might be perfectly suitable (individual computer-controlled solar-powered rickshaws with machine vision for navigating obstacles, traveling 10 miles per hour, that you can lie down and take a nap in).
In any case, telepresence will make most business travel unnecessary. This market segment will probably shrink considerably in the next decade or two, and it's one of the most profitable for transportation companies. Tourism and family visits probably won't even offset operating costs, let alone pay back the initial investment.
Perhaps a far better investment in high-speed infrastructure would involve building out ubiquitous wireless broadband rather than point-to-point transportation.
Posted by: anonymous at Jul 8, 2009 11:05:05 AM
