Is Passenger Rail Doomed?

[Jeff Smith]

This alleged railfan thinks so in this article he wrote. Interesting given the seeming revival and new start-ups going on here. Discuss amongst yourselves :

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_20 ... humble-bus

Even railroad fanatics like myself have to admit that the future of passenger transportation by rail, particularly urban commuter rail, is pretty well frozen where it is.

New rail — even light rail, an idealistic indulgence — is doomed by high costs, lack of appropriate track and political squabbling.

New subways, the elegant way to get around a city by going under it, are an almost impossible dream. The costs are too great in times of austerity and the cost of maintenance — as Washington, D.C., has discovered — can be prohibitive as the system ages, particularly as local jurisdictions have a habit of postponing maintenance.

Increasingly, the future appears to be the once humble bus. They have a low capital cost, they are flexible, and they can be adjusted to demand and population changes in a way that trains cannot.

Read more: Ride of the future: the humble bus - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_20 ... z1qEkJO5zO
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

Brief aside on "brief, fair-use quotes"; note that the Denver Post actually addresses this when quoting text. See the link in the quote below and this brief quote of their policy. This is why we have the policy we have:

But fair use of our content restricts those who want to reference it to reproduce no more than a headline and up to a couple of paragraphs or a summary of the story. (We also request users provide a link to the entire work on our website). The fair use rule generally does not entitle users to display the whole story or photograph on their website. To do so is a violation of our copyright and we will use all legal remedies available to address these infringements.

[MattW]

Buses work up to a point, but when they start becoming a high density backbone, rail rapidly becomes more favorable. One of the issues, particularly in this country, is that the planners seem to feel the need to make buses stop every 500-1000 feet whereas the inter-station distance for light, heavy, and commuter rail systems will only have a few stations that close if any. Rail systems aren't meant to serve every block like buses can, they're designed to form the backbones that the local buses feed into. Express buses can be a stopgap measure until rail transit is built, but by the time you construct dedicated lanes on highways, you could have built the rail system. Anything short of dedicated, separate lanes, and the buses get trapped in the same mess as the cars and their value as a rapid, reliable transit system drops rapidly. The writer may have a point about "streetcars" but even those are more efficient, and can move faster once they're off of streets (which is typically light rail as opposed to streetcars like Portland's streetcars [they have both]). Buses are useful to bring people to the stations, but shouldn't be relied on for long distance commutes.

[scottychaos]

"alleged railfan"??
you can be a railfan, and still be against pointless rail development..
Im a railfan, and here in NY state we are always having discussions about high-speed rail across western NY..
its a stupid idea..
No one wants it, no one needs it, and we cant afford it.
in case no one noticed, everyone has a car! and we have these new-fangled inventions called expressways..
No one needs high-speed rail between Albany and Buffalo..its a ridiculous redundant idea..
but yet the politicians insist on debating it, and wasting money on studies..

Is passenger rail doomed?
well yeah, of course it is..
its been doomed since the 1950's..
Only commuter rail around the major cities makes sense..and its the only passenger rail that is wanted, needed, practical and profitable.
Long-distance passenger trains have been dead for decades..they cant survive on their own..
they can only survive with govt subsidies..that right there tells you they are doomed..

You can be a railfan, and also be a realist..
You can be a railfan, and also be logical..
we dont have to support ALL ideas related to trains, just because we are railfans..
if its a dumb idea, there is nothing wrong with saying so..

Scot

[gprimr1]

I agree and disagree.

They do make good points that the cost of rail keeps going up; and projects seem to breed political fighting, (some legit, some not).

If they don't figure out how to control the cost of construction, it isn't looking so good.

But buses aren't really the answer either. Buses are ruled by roads. If I-66 is backed up, the buses can't move very fast. Grade separating the bus ways can help; but at that point it begins to cost as much as a train.

[MattW]

"alleged railfan"??
you can be a railfan, and still be against pointless rail development..
Im a railfan, and here in NY state we are always having discussions about high-speed rail across western NY..
its a stupid idea..
No one wants it, no one needs it, and we cant afford it.

Why are you so sure that no one wants it, and no one needs it? Current rail time is only 1.5 hours slower than driving give or take a few minutes with ridership just between Albany and Toronto of over 400,000. Hardly a drop in the bucket. Think how much higher speed rail could improve upon that.

in case no one noticed, everyone has a car! and we have these new-fangled inventions called expressways..
No one needs high-speed rail between Albany and Buffalo..its a ridiculous redundant idea..
but yet the politicians insist on debating it, and wasting money on studies..

Everyone has a car, but that doesn't mean everyone wants to use it to drive hundreds of miles, best case just crammed into a seat, worst case crammed into a seat while holding the steering wheel in a deathgrip hoping the clown two lanes over steering with his knees while reading the newspaper stays in his lane.
You're right, no one needs HSR between Albany and Buffalo, but that's not what you'd be getting, you'd be getting HSR between Buffalo and New York City which would serve a lot of cities including Albany.
You have a point about the long debates and pointless studies, it's time to build it!

Is passenger rail doomed?
well yeah, of course it is..
its been doomed since the 1950's..
Only commuter rail around the major cities makes sense..and its the only passenger rail that is wanted, needed, practical and profitable.
Long-distance passenger trains have been dead for decades..they cant survive on their own..
they can only survive with govt subsidies..that right there tells you they are doomed..

So the highways, airports, and seaports are also doomed? They receive substantial subsidies from the government.

You can be a railfan, and also be a realist..
You can be a railfan, and also be logical..
we dont have to support ALL ideas related to trains, just because we are railfans..
if its a dumb idea, there is nothing wrong with saying so..

Scot

Being a realist and being logical means recognizing the best solution for the problem, which in the case of the subject of the article, could include rail transportation. Ditching rails for road doesn't automatically make it better.

[Jeff Smith]

Scotty you're absolutely right. I think I fall in that "alleged" category. I'm all for rail, where it makes sense. I think the allusion to buses got me.

[scottychaos]

Why are you so sure that no one wants it, and no one needs it?

because I live here.
because I have lived here my whole life.
because I have been a railfan for 30 years, and I pay attention to these kinds of things..
that's why im so sure..

Scot

[lpetrich]

I think that one can be a good railfan and believe that rail systems are not for everything, that other transport options like (flat-road) cars and buses and airplanes and ferries are worthwhile. I remember once having a very vehement argument with someone who opposed park-and-ride lots as being too much of a concession to cars. I favored them in low-density areas, and I still do, since those are the sorts of areas most suited to cars.

Back to the article.

Buses certainly have an advantage over rail vehicles when street running: they can much more easily dodge obstructions. I was once riding the San Francisco Muni Metro, when the LRV got blocked by a truck making a local delivery. We had to wait until that truck was out of the way before we could move, while a bus would not have had that problem.

Urban buses are certainly good as a complement to urban rail, but if one wants buses to compete with rail systems, one will need similar sorts of infrastructure, like bus lanes and busways. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, it seems.

[amtrakowitz]

Only commuter rail around the major cities makes sense..and its the only passenger rail that is wanted, needed, practical and profitable.
Long-distance passenger trains have been dead for decades..they cant survive on their own..
they can only survive with govt subsidies..that right there tells you they are doomed

Hmm. I'm going to take all of that as satire. Commuter rail is infamous for needing subsidies every year, and equally infamous for being the first that experienced government takeover, even before long distance rail.

The interstate highway system is also another project that has never, ever been without subsidy. If they had all been built by private companies and been funded purely out of tolls, I might have had a kinder eye towards them.

Interestingly enough, buses last only fifteen years on average; trolleys last far longer. Buses keep having to change to more complex engines (they've been bumped from gasoline motors to two-stroke diesel and then to four-stroke diesel, then to "hybrid" and CNG motors); trolleys run in relatively the same manner they have for decades. Buses have been the "future" ever since they grew up alongside steel-wheeled streetcars (both were horse-drawn at one time, and the trolleybus developed around the same time as the electrified streetcar)...

I think that one can be a good railfan and believe that rail systems are not for everything

Rail systems never have served for everything. That was never the intent.

[mtuandrew]

Buses keep having to change to more complex engines (they've been bumped from gasoline motors to two-stroke diesel and then to four-stroke diesel, then to "hybrid" and CNG motors); trolleys run in relatively the same manner they have for decades.

Slight clarification: streetcars have had few major improvements, but thyristor "chopper" control and brushless motors made a dramatic improvement over brushed DC motors and rheostatic control. Otherwise I agree.

[george matthews]

There is a world outside the US where passenger rail is flourishing. Indeed, in Britain the main problem is the year on year rise in usage and the overcrowding this leads to.

The real question you should be asking is why the US isn't experiencing this rise in demand (or perhaps it is, but in the absence of supply it isn't visible?)

[amtrakowitz]

There is a world outside the US where passenger rail is flourishing. Indeed, in Britain the main problem is the year on year rise in usage and the overcrowding this leads to

Funny how the government doesn't refocus on the rails instead of worrying about pandering to some of the lowest elements of society. What other country has people that attempt (and quite often succeed) to break into prison?

The real question you should be asking is why the US isn't experiencing this rise in demand (or perhaps it is, but in the absence of supply it isn't visible?)

Same reason as in Britain; too much spending on the welfare state.

[Jeff Smith]

There is a world outside the US where passenger rail is flourishing. Indeed, in Britain the main problem is the year on year rise in usage and the overcrowding this leads to.

The real question you should be asking is why the US isn't experiencing this rise in demand (or perhaps it is, but in the absence of supply it isn't visible?)

George,

I get email news alerts on HSR. I often don't get to that area of the news regarding HSR too often, but the sense I get from the headlines I scan is that some of the proposals are quite controversial. You could probably elaborate on that better than I due to your geo location. It seems to me Britain/the UK is facing quite a financial crisis; I'm somewhat surprised that the conservative government there has not axed this entirely. We won't even talk about the NHS .

[amtrakowitz]

Many of the Tories are quite liberal, the current PM especially so.

[David Benton]

I'm not sure what liberal has to do with hsr . In Britain , i think the only difference between tory and the labour party when it comes to hsr would be the structure , not the amount spent . tory wanting private company ownership , competivie bidding etc , labour probably moving towards govt ownership/ control . But the difference is very slight .