To 'bolster' their case, Sykes read an email from Scott Walker, the GOP gubernatorial candidate who gets more free airtime in these parts than the Packers, that questioned who will pay for the train's operating costs.
Questions never asked when it comes to the operating costs of highways - -including repairs, patrolling, plowing - - and then the inevitable replacement or expansion.
I'm guessing that the talkers and Walker sense they are on the wrong side of the issue, as the rail plan projects 4,000 new jobs.
Name me one passenger rail system either foreign or domestic that even remotely profitable and is not highly subsidized by the government... including Amtrak.
ReplyDeleteI would have no problem dipping into the pockets of Wisconsin Taxpayers for a state of the art high speed rail system. But the train will not even be able to go faster than 75mph until at LEAST 2015. And even after that it would be lucky to break 90-100mph. Antiquated before construction even begins.
And lets be clear about the thousands of "jobs"... government does not create "jobs"... it creates work. This high speed rail will only create 55 jobs. The work is nice, but not permanent.
It is pretty obvious that the proposed trains are all about the rich and the upper middle class. Who else would regularly afford $33 each way to madison?
ReplyDeleteA comparison to the expenses of roads is foolish as you frame it. Roads see an infinitely higher per-capida usage as they carry people and goods everywhere throughout the state. If all passenger rail were to shut down tomorrow, few would notice.
If lefties were really interested in helping the poor, they would argue the money should be dumped into busses.
I see some of the commenters are scared that they are going to lose their subsidies.
ReplyDeleteI am curious. How much does it really cost to drive from Madison to Milwaukee? Not just gas costs. Gas can make up as little as 10% of the cost of operating a car.
I like the idea of closer linking our two biggest university towns. I am not worried about the subsidy because I know how much we subsidize highways. Higher speeds would of course be better, though.
ReplyDeleteWhat can you say about Jeff Wagner? Just yesterday, I decided to hear what he was up to and I learned that according to Jeff nothing was wrong with the luge track on which the Olympian lost his life. No more padding was needed on the columns, no improved safety measures were needed. The racer chose to go fast, you see, and knew the risks he was taking.
And this passes for thinking on right wing talk radio. I am sure Jeff thought he was being tough-minded and fair, but his logic sounded pretty fuzzy to me and he sounded rather foolish and unreasonable.
With tongue firmly planted in cheek: do you think rightie talkers would be more supportive of rail if we agreed to pipe their shows into the trains?
ReplyDelete@Helen -
ReplyDeleteGreat comments. You're absolutely correct about adding all car-related costs to an accurate cost-benefit analysis.
Freeway transportation isn't as cost "free" as we think. And rail becomes a viable cost alternative.
Unfortunately, Republicans have divorced themselves from economic reality and are now purely ideologically driven. They just don't care about hard economic facts or data.
It's why there's now a divide between GOP leaders on this issue and CEOs in SE WI.
So let's clarify so readers are unintentionally misinformed:
ReplyDeleteJames wrote...as the rail plan projects 4,000 new jobs
The Journal actually corrected the original claim of 13,000 jobs to 4732 temporary jobs and just 55 long-term jobs. Seems like the feds counted jobs multiple times when employment spanned multiple years. James you short changed your numbers - how atypical.
Using the same counting methods, that means my personal employment has created 25 jobs.
So let's clarify:
ReplyDeleteTod wrote...Name me one passenger rail system either foreign or domestic that even remotely profitable
We have to stop kidding ourselves... passenger rail has not been profitable for decades, and shows no signs of profitability any time soon.
What has to be considered is "how is rail travel an advantage over buses or planes?"
So let's clarify:
ReplyDeletePatrick wrote...It is pretty obvious that the proposed trains are all about the rich and the upper middle class. Who else would regularly afford $33 each way to Madison?
Amen. I'm surprised the ACLU hasn't filed a lawsuit on behalf of the poor. Yet, liberals claim that rail service is for the masses, to provide a means for Joe blue collar worker and John white collar worker the means to get to work. Hmmmmm. When I've taken the Metro into Chicago, I saw mostly white collar workers with a sprinkling of tourists and students.
And, Roads see an infinitely higher per-capita usage as they carry people and goods everywhere throughout the state..."
Yepper! Would you rather spend 800 million on a system that sees 30,000 users per year (Mke-Mad rail service), or on a system that sees well in excess of 30,000 users per day (Zoo exchange)?
And, lastly......
ReplyDeleteHelen wrote and enoughalready supported I am curious. How much does it really cost to drive from Madison to Milwaukee? Not just gas costs. Gas can make up as little as 10% of the cost of operating a car.
Okay, here's a swag at it.
The distance, according to Yahoo maps, between Milwaukee and Madison is just under 79 miles. Using http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm82.htm as the reference, let’s compute the cost for a small car (the cheapest), and an SUV (the most expensive). Please note that the stats for the 2009 table are wrong. On another page, the computations are correctly shown for 2006. My corrected costs actually show the cost per mile is actually higher – a bad thing for the personal vehicle argument.
First, a couple terms:
Operating Cost includes: gas, maintenance, tires (i.e. consumables)
Total Cost includes operating costs plus insurance, licensing, depreciation, and financing
With that said, the cost of running a small car is $0.1308/mile of which gasoline contributes $0.0821/mile (62.8%). For a 79 mile trip, that comes to $20.65, a far cry from the $66 round trip ticket for rail service.
If the total cost is factored into the cost per mile, then the number of miles driven per year becomes a factor.
If a car is used 12,500 miles/year, the cost per mile is $0.479/mile of which gas contributes 17.2% of the cost. The round trip cost is $75.65, which puts cost in favor of rail service for a vehicle carrying one person, but quickly becomes more expensive as more passengers are added to the equation.
If a car is used 18,000 miles/year, the cost per mile is $0.372/mile of which gas contributes 22.0% of the cost. The round trip cost is $58.85, which puts the vehicle in favor over rail for any number of passengers.
Now, given that I’m not terribly ignorant, more people are using their gas-sucking vehicles like vans and SUVs than a small sedan. So, let’s take a look at the work class vehicle, the SUV.
The cost of running an SUV $0.2028/mile of which gasoline contributes $0.1439/mile (70.96%). For a 79 mile trip, that comes to $32.04, again, a far cry from the $66 round trip ticket for rail service.
Again, with total cost factored into the cost per mile, the number of miles driven per year is a factor.
If an SUV is used 12,500 miles/year, the cost per mile is $0.789/mile of which gas contributes 18.3% of the cost. The round trip cost is $124.63, which puts cost in favor of rail service for a vehicle carrying one person and almost still an advantage for two people. Thereafter, the advantage for travel including three or more passengers falls toward the SUV.
Lastly, If an SUV is used 18,000 miles/year, the cost per mile is $0.609/mile of which gas contributes 28.3% of the cost. The round trip cost is $80.21, which again gives rail service for individual travel. But, again, the SUV is less expensive when one or more passengers joins the driver.
Part II
ReplyDeleteHelen wrote and enoughalready supported I am curious. How much does it really cost to drive from Madison to Milwaukee? Not just gas costs. Gas can make up as little as 10% of the cost of operating a car.
Now, let’s consider a few things.
In many cost analyzes, rail service gains favor over vehicle travel only when variable (operating) AND fixed (insurance, licensing, etc) vehicle costs are included in the per mile cost. But, instead of analyzing the rail vs. vehicle cost advantage as a single event, consider the analysis as a monthly transportation expense. In other words,
Monthly Transportation expense = fixed costs + variable costs.
Unless the vehicle is removed from the household altogether, fixed costs associated with vehicle ownership are added to the monthly transportation expense. In other words, you could take the train, drive, ride a bike, walk, or swim to work, and the fixed costs remain. Admittedly, fixed costs such as insurance can be reduced if alternative forms of transportation are used, but they cannot be eliminated.
Therefore, a fair comparison means that in most cases, you have to look only at the variable costs – i.e. the costs associated with travel. The clear advantage goes to vehicle travel.
Also consider that additional costs for vehicle transportation are not considered. The cost of parking is not included, but Madison is not Chicago; parking, if not free is a marginal expense (even if traveling from Madison to Milwaukee instead).
Similarly, I’ve been to the Madison airport once ….. when I lived in Madison and had to fly to El Paso for business. The airport is not a tourist attraction. And, for most it is not an employment destination. Alternate transportation costs (i.e. taxi, bus, etc) must be factored into the total cost of rail service.
Rail service is more relaxing, but the cost is inconvenience. Instead of setting one’s schedule, travelers are at the mercy of the scheduled timetable, which includes coordination with other forms of transportation.
Theoretically, rail service will be faster given the higher rate of speed. But, stops in Brookfield, Oconomowoc, and Watertown will slow the effective speed. And, consider the additional time required for “home to station” and “station to final destination” movements. You could argue that traffic delays must be considered, and that is a valid argument for the Milwaukee end of the commute. There aren’t too many delays to speak of on the Madison end, unless you consider additional commute time required to go through or around Madison. Then again, a personal vehicle, taxi, or bus would face the same congestion.
So Helen and enoughalready there are numbers provided by AAA via the website I’ve supplied. Rail doesn’t show a favorable light, does it? Similar presentations have been made in James’ blog in the past. Rail advocates have failed to present factual data to support the viability of passenger rail.
The ridership is probably going to be greater than 30,000 a day. The Capitol Corridor carries almost 2 million a year, close to its maximum capacity.
ReplyDeleteRemember this is a Chicago to Minneapolis line, a route that currently sells out. (I know because I have tried to take it.)
@anti liberal:
ReplyDeleteYou can't eliminate fixed costs from a realistic cost-benefit analysis.
Nor can you ignore negative externalities such as public health and pollution impacts, or even how transportation investments affect local/regional economies.
You're picking and choosing... it's not real economics.
As a general format see the transportation section in a book I keep referring to, Sprawl Costs.
Bottom line: freeway investments are more efficient when viable transit alternatives are available.
Dr. Marc Levine's report on light rail, while outdated, is another good example of how to conduct a thorough impact analysis.