3 ms·

>How much do our freeways cost us? esp with externalities? Rail also has cost, including externalities. For example, as a wise person on the Internet once said

>How much do our freeways cost us? esp with externalities? Rail also has cost, including externalities. For example, as a wise person on the Internet once said, "Trains take you from a place you don't live to a place you're not going to." The "last-mile problem" is a non-trivial factor to building train networks which by definition is not solvable by more rail. You're considering a cost analysis. A more complete analysis is the benefit-cost analysis (BCA). If the benefits outweigh the costs, the project is a net positive for society. Asking only how much our freeways cost us avoids consideration of the known benefits. Here's a BCA from 2021 which investigates a highway project, so you can see exactly how much freeways benefit and cost us: https://www.mdot.maryland.gov/OPCP/I-81BCA_Report.pdf https://www.mdot.maryland.gov/OPCP/I-81BCA_Report.pdf >It doesn't have to. That's a nice sentiment, but sometimes the energy required to reform is higher than expected losses. The entire Amtrak network is kept afloat because of a handful of lines in New England between DC, New York, and Boston. Amtrak basically runs a loss everywhere else.

babypuncher 4y ago
> Trains take you from a place you don't live to a place you're not going to. Airplanes have the exact same problem, but I don't see people saying we should stop investing in airports. For long distance travel, I don't think it's a huge problem that you might need multiple modes of transit to get all the way from A to B.
- bluGill 4y ago
  Trains are too slow for long distance travel. They are useful for short and medium distance travel, but for such trips travel time to the station becomes more important. If this isn't made convenient people will quickly decide their car is better: it goes when they want to go, and goes directly to where they want to be.
- waterheater 4y ago
  >Airplanes have the exact same problem, but I don't see people saying we should stop investing in airports. Fair point. We should then see if air travel holds a key advantage over rail travel in the USA. As I see it, the answer is in both space and time savings, both of which minimize cost and maximize benefit. The time savings are particularly pronounced, especially over distances greater than, say, a few hundred miles. Happy to elaborate on the savings in more detail, if you desire such. >For long distance travel, I don't think it's a huge problem that you might need multiple modes of transit to get all the way from A to B. That is, of course, your opinion. I'm sure there are tens, if not hundreds, of millions of Americans who will strongly disagree with you because they are, in no particular order: feeble, disabled, terrified of a particular mode of transit, hurried, cost-conscious, traveling with multiple young children, etc.
- TylerE 4y ago
  Different model. Planes have much greater network effects. Consider a trip between New York and Dallas. A plane can fly a direct route, and will if there is much demand. A train system can’t do that… in my example you’ll end up either going South along the coast and then west through New Orleans to San Antonio, and then back north to Dallas, or the same but reach Mew Orleans via Chicago. Trains work well when there is a large central(ish) city that can act as a hub? Like London, Paris, or Berlin. Not so well in the US where the population is heavily biased towards the outer rim, with a relatively a gaunt desert of nothing in the middle.
mschuster91 4y ago
> The "last-mile problem" is a non-trivial factor to building train networks which by definition is not solvable by more rail. The trivial answer is to build out last-mile services: trams, buses, actually usable bike lanes, and something that could perfectly well work in US suburbia hell (wide, but barely frequented streets): automated "people movers".
- waterheater 4y ago
  You say last-mile services are trivial, but they absolutely are not trivial in the slightest, and assuming they are demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how change gets made in a democratic, even republican, manner. Changing the primary transportation mode of a population requires a cultural shift to adopt the new mode. The population must be willing to forgo what they already have in favor of something new. You are saying that automated "people movers" (which is an emotional sketch rather than an defined policy item) will work well in car-ubiquitous US suburbia, but these folks live in suburbia specifically because of low population density and general quality-of-life. They explicitly enjoy being around people they know and not being around people they don't know. Any solution you're proposing must respect their existing values while providing an alternative option. Your examples of last-mile services aren't really last-mile services, save for the final one: >trams Since it seems infeasible to allow anyone to board a tram at any point on its journey, tram stops will be necessary. Perhaps you now face a last-quarter-mile problem, which is better but still may not be good enough for that specific population. Track maintenance may be significantly lessened by using a "trackless tram", but such would have severe challenges in a snowy climate. Trams only work in dense urban environments. >buses Buses have been used in cities for many decades, so our understanding of them is that they work generally well. Buses are common in suburban environments with many low-income residents. The benefit of buses is their limited amount of supporting infrastructure and route adaptability. However, similar to the tram situation, a bus still does not get you directly to your home. >actually usable bike lanes Bike lanes in dense urban environments are almost always a net positive. What constitutes an "actually usable" bike lane depends on an individual's risk tolerance. As a last-mile problem, not all people are physically able to bike from a train station, though ebikes do help. Again, weather can impact people being willing to bike, let alone leave the house. >automated "people movers" This service is more conceptual, but I imagine you're thinking of a Waymo-style service, where you can summon an autonomous vehicle which will pick you up at home and take you to-and-from the station. The main issues here are availability and reliability. If addressed, you'll likely crack the suburban transportation nut, but such individualized transportation in cities isn't sustainable.

babypuncher 4y ago

> Trains take you from a place you don't live to a place you're not going to. Airplanes have the exact same problem, but I don't see people saying we should stop investing in airports. For long distance travel, I don't think it's a huge problem that you might need multiple modes of transit to get all the way from A to B.

bluGill 4y ago
Trains are too slow for long distance travel. They are useful for short and medium distance travel, but for such trips travel time to the station becomes more important. If this isn't made convenient people will quickly decide their car is better: it goes when they want to go, and goes directly to where they want to be.
waterheater 4y ago
>Airplanes have the exact same problem, but I don't see people saying we should stop investing in airports. Fair point. We should then see if air travel holds a key advantage over rail travel in the USA. As I see it, the answer is in both space and time savings, both of which minimize cost and maximize benefit. The time savings are particularly pronounced, especially over distances greater than, say, a few hundred miles. Happy to elaborate on the savings in more detail, if you desire such. >For long distance travel, I don't think it's a huge problem that you might need multiple modes of transit to get all the way from A to B. That is, of course, your opinion. I'm sure there are tens, if not hundreds, of millions of Americans who will strongly disagree with you because they are, in no particular order: feeble, disabled, terrified of a particular mode of transit, hurried, cost-conscious, traveling with multiple young children, etc.
TylerE 4y ago
Different model. Planes have much greater network effects. Consider a trip between New York and Dallas. A plane can fly a direct route, and will if there is much demand. A train system can’t do that… in my example you’ll end up either going South along the coast and then west through New Orleans to San Antonio, and then back north to Dallas, or the same but reach Mew Orleans via Chicago. Trains work well when there is a large central(ish) city that can act as a hub? Like London, Paris, or Berlin. Not so well in the US where the population is heavily biased towards the outer rim, with a relatively a gaunt desert of nothing in the middle.

mschuster91 4y ago

> The "last-mile problem" is a non-trivial factor to building train networks which by definition is not solvable by more rail. The trivial answer is to build out last-mile services: trams, buses, actually usable bike lanes, and something that could perfectly well work in US suburbia hell (wide, but barely frequented streets): automated "people movers".

waterheater 4y ago
You say last-mile services are trivial, but they absolutely are not trivial in the slightest, and assuming they are demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how change gets made in a democratic, even republican, manner. Changing the primary transportation mode of a population requires a cultural shift to adopt the new mode. The population must be willing to forgo what they already have in favor of something new. You are saying that automated "people movers" (which is an emotional sketch rather than an defined policy item) will work well in car-ubiquitous US suburbia, but these folks live in suburbia specifically because of low population density and general quality-of-life. They explicitly enjoy being around people they know and not being around people they don't know. Any solution you're proposing must respect their existing values while providing an alternative option. Your examples of last-mile services aren't really last-mile services, save for the final one: >trams Since it seems infeasible to allow anyone to board a tram at any point on its journey, tram stops will be necessary. Perhaps you now face a last-quarter-mile problem, which is better but still may not be good enough for that specific population. Track maintenance may be significantly lessened by using a "trackless tram", but such would have severe challenges in a snowy climate. Trams only work in dense urban environments. >buses Buses have been used in cities for many decades, so our understanding of them is that they work generally well. Buses are common in suburban environments with many low-income residents. The benefit of buses is their limited amount of supporting infrastructure and route adaptability. However, similar to the tram situation, a bus still does not get you directly to your home. >actually usable bike lanes Bike lanes in dense urban environments are almost always a net positive. What constitutes an "actually usable" bike lane depends on an individual's risk tolerance. As a last-mile problem, not all people are physically able to bike from a train station, though ebikes do help. Again, weather can impact people being willing to bike, let alone leave the house. >automated "people movers" This service is more conceptual, but I imagine you're thinking of a Waymo-style service, where you can summon an autonomous vehicle which will pick you up at home and take you to-and-from the station. The main issues here are availability and reliability. If addressed, you'll likely crack the suburban transportation nut, but such individualized transportation in cities isn't sustainable.