Zach Dunkin, writing for the Indianapolis Star has an article entitled High-Speed Rail may link Midwest. It envisions a 4-hour trip between Cincinnati and Chicago with stops in Indy, Lafayette, and Gary. Apparently President Bush has proposed $100 million for state rail grants in the federal budget. I don’t know the allotment for Indiana specifically. The article says “millions.” But, the depressing part is that development of rails through Indiana is estimated at $1 million per mile.
I don’t know if high speed rails can be made worth their cost. I know that pretty much every transportation system involves subsidies to one degree or another. (How much has the government spent building and maintaining our roads and highways; in direct subsidies to big auto manufacturers; in indirect costs like keeping our supply of oil safe?) But, not all subsidies are created equally. So, we shouldn’t despair because Amtrak loses money every year. Our highway infrastructure “loses” an incredible amount of money every year in the form of taxes. But, we should figure out what we spend and have spent on such things as highways and hold that up against the proposed costs and benefits of high speed rail to figure out whether it’s worthwhile. I know that Mike Kole has argued persuasively that the cost-benefit analysis doesn’t justify light rail in Indy, at least. The billions spent will only serve a small portion of the population. And that might well be the case for a light rail system through Indiana.
On the other hand, networks have funny economics. The first miles are horribly expensive and nearly worthless on their own. As the network gets bigger, the marginal costs get lower and the benefits increase. How much difference that makes for the long-term future of high speed rail, I couldn’t say.
[tags]transportation, rail[/tags]
ZW says
But, the depressing part is that development of rails through Indiana is estimated at $1 million per mile
Ironically, I’ve seen the same figure quoted for the construction of greenways on old rail lines.
Sam hasler says
I saw the same article in the Muncie Star-Press. I think it is a great idea but I seem to have heard for years about how a high speed train between Indianapolis and Chicago would be a great idea. The Scots are talking of a mag-lev line (very high speed) between Glasgow and Edinburgh. The Scotsman had an article on the subject but I am not sure that I blogged on it, so may be better to check out The Scotsman’s site. I am not sure of the comparable sizes of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Cincinnati, and Chicago, but we need to think about it as more than just the lines of track laid between two cities. I am not so keen on the mention of private company taking the thing over. Is anyone surprised that INDOT has no idea of its costs?
D T Nelson says
What “direct subsidies to big auto manufacturers?” When did that ever happen? Please document.
And, no, Jimmy Carter’s Chrysler loan guarantees were not a subsidy; no money changed hands. (They were a bad idea, but not a subsidy.)
roach says
Fort Wayne STIL has no rail service at Baker Street Station. We are re-inventing the wheel.
The Railroads, and the Religious nut-job Luddites dont want casino trains.
The Freight lines dont want the hassle of passenger service
Sure- it would be nice if Indiana, and America entered the 21st century, as in europe, and Japan- and had high speed bullet trains.
MAGLEV, and other pie in the sky hare-brained schemes are designed to maintian the oil and auto industries choke hold on Americans.
Didnt Indiana have high speed rail- the NYC; Pennsylvania RR, the Nickel Plate Rd?
Steam, and coal. imagine that. 100 MPH- fast enough.
And also a fine interurban RR system- from FTW, to Indy, for example. electric powered_ now by nuclear?
But we have a bus hut in the wilderness in Waterloo, to ride Amtrak when the trains are on time. Its almost racist to force poor blacks, and hispanics to find a way to Waterloo, then make them stand in the blazing heat, or freezing cold, and rain to visit or travel to chicago.or other places that AMTRAK operates.
So whats wrong with bio-diesel- Electromitive RR trains, on normal tracks-
all this high tech- bullet train stuff is put forth to make the taxpayers cringe, and then continue to buy their $3 a gallon gas, and drive their SUV dinosaurs.
Now all our steel, copper, and soon aluminum will be in China, with FTW’s former Falstaff brewery.
Better learn to like chop suey- and speak Mandarin, because the Communists are burying us- just as Khruschev predicted.
Kaj says
Bus hut in the wildnerness? Hardly. :) We’ve got a stoplight! And a grocery store! And a bar where the most exotic beer on the menu is Miller High Life!
Aside from my obvious bias (I grew up in Waterloo), why did Amtrak choose to leave Fort Wayne in the first place?
The high-speed rail would be very useful to me personally, as I spend quite a bit of time in both Chicago and Cincy. But I seriously doubt that any approval will be won for the environmental study needed.
I understand Mike Kole’s viewpoint, but wouldn’t the feasibility be increased by “return trippers” — people coming from Chicago to Indy, or Cincy to Indy? This seems like an ideal way to travel for conventioneers and the like.
Mike Kole says
The Northeast Corridor remains highly used by passengers for the following reasons: it’s commuter travel, their destinations (NYC, Boston) are car liabilities- high risk of damage to the vehicle, high cost to park, difficulty in finding parking, high congestions. These things aren’t true in most American cities, including every one of them in Indiana.
In Indy, I can find a parking meter on any given day, a five-minute walk from my destinations (City-County building). I’ve never had any damage to my car. Parking at the meter is cheap. The drive from Fishers, even along the dreaded I-69, never takes more than 45 minutes. Indy is the most populous, most dense, and most difficult city in Indiana to navigate. That statement makes people from Chicago, LA, or New York laugh their asses off. There is generally no real-life feasibility for light rail in Indiana on a communter basis. Most Hoosiers may well commute across town, but very few commute intra-city. Mainly, light rail is a panacea to those who have their blood pressure elevated by rising gasoline costs or occasional traffic tie-ups. There are many reasons the interurbans failed and pulled up their tracks, and it goes way beyond the conspiracies tied to General Motors.
Then, look at the national rail scene.
Feasibility could be improved by a variety of factors, especially shorter time on the trips, lower fares.
We fly to conventions because it’s a three-hour flight from Indy to Vegas… but a 42-hour rail trip- per Amtrak’s website.
The fares are comparable: $300 to fly, $291 by train. If time is money, and your time is worth something to you, is it really worth it to save $9 over 39 hours? That’s 23 cents an hour! My time’s worth more to me than that, and I’m a railfan who rides trains for the pleasure of it! Seriously- how much money would you have to save in order to make this time differential worthwhile. For me, I would still fly if the train were free. In fact, I would still fly if the fare were $500 to fly, and Amtrak paid me $500 to ride the train. It would be tempting at this point, though. I do prefer to ride the train…
Bringing it back home, the train from Indy to Chicago is 5 hours. I can drive there in 3 hours. That will cost me about $30 in gas. It’s $18 on Amtrak. The two hours, and the access to my own car pretty well rule out the train. Indy-Cincy is $18. Kaj can take that trip now. Reading the post above, it doesn’t sound like Kaj does take Amtrak (speaking tones of “I would”). It’s there now. What holds you back?
Feasibility would also be improved by going where I need to go. I just did contract work in Decatur IL & Danville IL. Amtrak doesn’t go there. Lincoln Il is the nearest station to Decatur, at 30 miles away. Should I walk from Lincoln? But, real life intervenes- I need my car to drive from site to site. Should I rent a car? Decatur is a 2.5-hour drive, so would I really want to rent a car upon arrival when I could have just driven?
These are the kinds of decisions would-be riders make. Americans tend to put a high value on their time. Thus, low ridership in most areas, unless having a car is a complete liability.
Lou says
The Interstate highway system was meant to replace the railroads and it did.The trucking industry campaigned hard for the Interstate system and Eisenhower saw it as a quick and efficient way to move troops in times of war.This was the 50’s. Ironically to me, Interstates didn’t replace freight traffic on railroads,only passenger traffic.It would be interesting to see statistics on rail freight vs. by trucking.
Rail passenger traffic is viable in commuting areas around big cities.Hopefully,Indiana and Chicago area will be better connected someday by commuter type railroads.Perhaps including Ft Wayne-Indianapolis. I think there would be a market.Of all the ways to move in and out of Chicago,going into and out of Indiana remains the toughest commute,in my experience.
Mike Kole says
The interurbans died in the 1930s, though. Many hung on until the 1950’s, though not in Indiana.
Rails are the single-most efficient way to move freight- heavy freight. Human beings are the single-most inefficient thing to move on rails, as they do not have the bulk nor weight that creates the efficiencies that commdodities such as coal, corn, corn syrup, wheat, potash, lumber, or even automobiles do. These are the things that remain on the railroad today.
You want irony? Consider that the automakers transport their CARS by rail rather than the interstates. Or, that UPS ships its trailers by rail from point-to-point long-haul rather than on the highway.
It comes down to choices. In business, people look for cost efficiencies. In travel, people look for other gains- time savings, feelings of freedom, etc.
Paul says
Regarding interurbans having died out long ago in Indiana I would point out that the Chicago, South Shore and South Bend RR meets every definition of an interurban, at least from South Bend through Michigan City. In recent years its ridership has returned to levels last seen during World War II.
While I usually appreciate Mike’s comments, he is being rather myopic when he suggests that Indianapolis (and the “dreaded” I-69) has the worst traffic congestion in the state. In terms of traffic congestion the Borman through Lake County swamps I-69. The Borman has daily traffic volumes exceeding 100,000 vehicles a day along much of its length, reaching a maximum at one stretch of 146,000 vehicles per day. I-69, by contrast, maxes out at 95,690 vehicle per day (source Indiana DOT, 2002 figures).
NW Indiana needs commuter rail transportation far more than does Indianapolis, especially since our Indianapolis oriented governor shafted Northern Indiana on the Toll Road to fund road construction downstate.
Mike Kole says
Paul- I’ll concede you both points, on the South Shore, and on I-69.
South Shore certainly is an interurban. It works for the same reasons rail in the Northeast Corridor works: the commute is long, the congestion is high for auto travel, and having a car in the final destination area is a liability. None of these things are so in Indy, or anywhere else in Indiana, or in Cincinnati.
Agreed that I-69 is pale congestion compared to the traffic in Lake County. I drive that area and it is wall-to-wall trucks. I-69 gets the headlines in this state, and I am guilty of going with it.
Even still, NW Indiana-Chicago commuter trains are fairly inefficient overall in that empty trains travel east in the AM, and west in the PM. This sets it apart from NYC rail service, but puts it on par with the NE Corridor.
Paul says
Mike-
One of the oddities of the South Shore compared to most commuter train systems is that it adds trains (at least between South Bend and Chicago) on weekends rather than cutting them. On fall Saturdays, when ND has home football games, it even has heavy two way traffic most of the day.
There is potential here for year round heavy two way traffic to the extent attractions can be developed in Indiana for Chicago. In an economic development context there is value to treating all of the counties from St. Joseph west through Lake County as a unit which can exploit the South Shore as an economic development tool.
As a start I would suggest developing NW Indiana airports as relief for Chicago’s airports (as proposed in the current economic plan for NW Indiana). Chicago’s major airports have essentially reached the limits of their capacity (and Daley forced the closure of downtown Meigs Field), but Chicago has passenger rail access to two additional airports capable of jet service, Gary-Chicago and South Bend Regional, using the South Shore. The South Bend South Shore terminal is actually at the airport terminal. If rail service on the South Shore from Chicago to South Bend could be brought down to the 90 to 100 minute range I could imagine South Bend Regional, with much lower landing fees than Midway or O’Hare and no limits on landing slots, becoming very attractive to a discount carrier or for executive transports.
There is persistent talk of interest on the part of a discount carrier locating to Gary-Chicago. Access to this airport would be more comfortable than access to Chicago’s own airports on the “L” were the South Shore’s tracks realigned to run by the terminal (or the terminal relocated to be nearer the tracks). Presently Gary-Chicago is rather undeveloped though to serve as Chicago’s “third” airport.
Part of my using your comment though was simply to highlight (again) the lack of imagination of the part of the Daniels’ administration on transportation issues. Why again did all of the money raised by sale of the Toll Road have to be limited to being used on highway related projects?
Mike Kole says
Paul, I really think it a bad idea to build a rail system and then think of ways to put passengers onto it. Truly, if passenger rail were a good idea, there would be private operators clamoring for the opportunity to have at it. Bottom line: Americans don’t want to ride trains. They figure somebody will, just not them. They figure it’s good for the environment, could possibly work… but I’m going to stick with my car, because I like it.
Building light rail on the hope and promis of it is rather like building a stadium for a football team, and then realizing that there are 365 days in the year, not just 12. There’s that empty stadium… looming.
Daniels’ lease on the toll road was idiocy. There were many things that could have been done with that money: return it to the taxpayers; invest it to pay down the state’s debt; etc.
Careful about suggesting an NW Indiana airport- especially if you argue for rail on environmental grounds. Great thing it would be to build that airport to relieve pressure on O’Hare and Midway, and shift ever more population into Valpo, LaPorte, Michigan City, etc. We call that sprawl, right?
All kinds of unintended consequences. That’s bad enough when at least the “cure” to the problems is working. Remember: MPO says that a light rail from Fishers to Indy (I know, me and my Indy-centric ways) would take AT BEST 4% of cars off I-69. That’s success? What does failure look like?
Paul says
Mike,
We don’t have to build the South Shore, it is already in place. (Proposals to expand the South Shore can be substantially realized on existing railbeds). It is also likely politically untouchable, so why not exploit it to the benefit of NW Indiana?
BTW, I don’t support light rail for Indianapolis. Without citation to authority I suspect that those proposals are more for prestige than practicality.
As for Americans not liking trains I ask it that is a cultivated taste that could be reversed given an interest in so doing? Consider your own comment about sticking to your car because you “like” it. What is it that you like about cars, the payments, the insurance, maintaining it? What I usually hear is that it gives people a sense of “freedom”. I think this reflects decades of Americans being told that cars were their “freedom machine” which made it possible to live and go anywhere. Rather than go into a long discussion of this I refer anyone interested in the issues of sprawl and suburbanization to “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” by Jane Jacobs.
My point is that many “tastes” are cultivated. Sprawl and suburbanization are naturally supported by an alliance of highway contractors, automobile construction, lawn care and recreational interests with a deep reach into Congress and our state legislatures. Coming out of the depression, from which then “mainstream” economists concluded that demand had to be “managed” to avoid economic recession and depression, a policy which cultivated an expansive way of life probably seemed like good policy. Hence highway construction and home mortgage interest deductions came into being. By now our economy is so distorted by these subsidies our politicians hook on to questionable energy saving measures like corn based ethanol and hybrid cars, seeking to preserve an old way of life, rather than seek to increase population densities and move us to mass transit. The “freedom” cars bestows is an illusion for most people, a trap of debt.
While I personally find my car a money eating, pain in the neck machine, I have to admit that Americans are very devoted to their cars. As I frequently bicycle to work I have been a target of some verbal abuse about “obstructing traffic”, some of it fairly nasty, even though I try to stick to back streets, and downtown can actually keep up with traffic. Cars are quite literally extensions, or even emotional releases, for people. I find perfectly pleasant people turn into road warriors when they get behind the wheel of a car, upset by anyone or anything that they find has gotten in their way.
In an another post Doug noted that taking a train to and from Chicago was more expensive than the marginal cost of taking his car. He specifically noted that the cost of his car was already sunk. It is tough to sell people on the train when they realize that part of the ticket price represents a charge for paying for the equipment. How would the ticket price compare if Doug had taken into account all the costs of operating a car?
Lastly, regarding “encouraging” sprawl by fostering development at South Bend Regional and Gary-Chicago I would distinguish between “sprawl” and population dispersion. Sprawl I equate with widespread low density development and a large proportion of land use devoted to highways and parking lots. A Valparaiso or a South Bend can prosper as satellites of Chicago without “sprawl” as dispersed, cluster type development. Commuter rail tends to encourage dispersed, high density clusters, not what I would call sprawl.