A $260.91 Drive From Miami
Posted by The Interloafer on May 24, 2006 - 8:50am in The Oil Drum: Local
With a few days notice, Amtrak tickets for two from Miami cost $212 or $274 aboard the Silver Star or the Silver Meteor. You still need to factor in meals aboard Amtrak, which will raise that ticket price a bit. But the two prices seem roughly comparable for a party of two. But are they really?
Of course, the increasing cost of energy is affecting rail travel as well as commercial aviation and private automobile use, but it is affecting rail a lot less than the other two. So as the price continues to increase, as we Peak Oilers expect it will, there will come a point where rail travel is unequivocally less expensive than driving. When that happens, I think we can expect "the markets" to start directing some money to the long-underinvested rail system.
Ignoring the fixed costs and overhead of owning a car, even on a per-trip basis for an individual, the economics are beginning to favor rail. A single adult ticket one way from Miami to New York costs $106 or $137 on Amtrak, half the price of two riders. Would one person driving along cost exactly half the price of two people? No. The cost of gasoline would be exactly the same. That is why it always makes sense to pack the car up with people and split the cost. We New Yorkers grapple with this question every time we're in a group trying to decide whether it makes sense to take a cab or the subway: The more people you have to fill up a cab, the cheaper the cost is per rider.
So what do you think will happen in the future as energy costs increase. Will we restore our national rail system, or will we increase the occupancy of automobiles, Cuba-style?
During college a few of my high school friends who went to school on the West Coast were driving cross country and tried to do the all night thing. They had so much stuff to bring home, they pulled a trailer behind them. When inevitably the driver fell asleep after everyone else in the car around 3am in the middle of nowhere, the car started to drift over to the righthand side of the road, the driver awoke, corrected by pulling sharply to the left, pinching the trailer to the back of the truck and flipping into a ditch. The two wearing seltbelts survived but watched the other two die long before police arrived on the scene.
Just another cost of driving.
And assuming you manage to overcome that hurdle and actually get a train going, you still have the issue of trains here being very heavy and inefficient, due to outdated and frankly arbitrary regulations about collision strength and so on. Remember all the problems with Acela? Parts started failing because they were designed for a much lighter train, and Acela is about twice as heavy as the TGV on which it is based. There's a nice explanation of these things at http://zierke.com/shasta_route/ in the context of an analysis of a specific route for feasibility of better passenger service.
That all changed like the railroads, it was ripped apart by Sloan of the General Motors Corp. when they bought up many existing trolley lines and replaced them with diesel powered buses that needed to be replaced more often, that required fossil fuels and tires. So Big Oil, Big Rubber changed the urban landscape very quickly with their company Natioanl City Lines NCL.
Bradford Snell exposed this with his paper "American Ground Transport"
http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm
I also imagine the discount airlines are competitive with the cost of that road trip, given no cost of accomodation and lodging.
Public transport doesn't work without big subsidies. If the US economy is facing the kind of oil prices TOD readers are thinking about, the local and national governments won't have the tax bases to commit to those kinds of subsidies.
Denver is trying to redevelop and enhance commuting by rail. They are changing the zoning at the proposed new stops to increase the density. It will be interesting to see if it works out.
It's all in priorties we subsidize roads and until recently we subsidized cheap oil products now we must change or become extinct in our current economic form?
It seems to me Europe with all it's faults has a pretty good rail system and most folks who own cars have small autos? They have learned to minimize their use of fossil fuels.
Yes, the capital cost would be huge. But consider how much money will go into highways over the next decade, if the current funding policies stay as they are. And consider the Interstate system, that wasn't cheap either. And it was paid for primarily by the federal government, with states kicking in 10% of the money.
As for competition with airlines, cost will be a factor, but so would many other things. If they're smart, they'll make a simple fare structure, thus providing a major benefit. And of course not having to stand in line to get your person and luggage searched is a benefit too. And on short distance trips, getting to the airport and going through the motions tkae a significant fraction of the time.
As for local transport, yes, density is a problem, but not as much as you think. There are plenty of dense enough cities, and I think if they were allowed to densify further, they would. Look at LA. And look closely, because it's been getting more densely built lately, and it's not the suburb that everyone thinks it is. The real problem is that there has been very little investment in public transportation, to the point where the only people who use it are the ones who have no choice. Put in enough money to make a nice system, and people are more than willing to take it. And hey, it just might be cheaper than that proposed freeway expansion.