Comments on: Trains scale-up better than planes

By: ted

ted — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:03:58 +0000

By the way, in case I’m sounding like a know-nothing ideologue, I’m fairly certain that no-one did an analysis of fuel efficiency and maintenance costs, etc before killing the streetcars in favor of buses, or before pouring millions of public dollars into road and airport infrastructure, to the detriment of rail, which just seems to make so much more sense, on so many different levels.

So, assuming you agree with me that it “makes sense,” I’d be more interested in hearing, and dealing with reasonable objections than I am in having to affirmatively prove a whole bunch of points that don’t seem central. Do we have any evidence that any of the questions you bring up would be barriers to a vastly expanded passenger rail network?

By: ted

ted — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:57:35 +0000

I’m not sure what you mean, John. There are infrastructural costs with airports as well. And since train stations can serve way more people per vehicle, in much smaller spaces, that’s the scaleability. As far as space for rails, the rails are already there, to a large extent, and because of their nature, we hardly notice them. We go under a viaduct and usually fail to notice that it’s a railroad right-of-way. Not so airports, with their traffic and huge footprint. I’m surprised to hear your skepticism since I know you’re a huge fan of transportation that “makes sense.” On it’s face, putting the equivalent of Midway Airport right downtown, where Union Station already sits, mostly unused, just seems to make a ton of economic sense, and that’s not counting the social benefits of trains over planes.

By: Matt Hampel | matth.org » Blog Archive » links for 2007-06-15

Matt Hampel | matth.org » Blog Archive » links for 2007-06-15 — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:23:16 +0000

[...] Ted Ernst | Trains scale-up better than planes (tags: trains versus planes density coordination adjacency via:bkerr) [...]

By: John Stoner

John Stoner — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:17:31 +0000

Well, this doesn’t take into account infrastructural costs. Rail lines need space for their rails, and to maintain them.

Of course planes also require lots of space–I couldn’t compare an airfield’s requirements to a rail line’s, off the top of my head.

Also, the benefit of train stations downtown doesn’t come for free: the stations and lines take up more valuable space.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying you need more comprehensive and detailed economic analysis to support this point.

I’d be curious to see a comparison of maintenance costs, fuel efficiency, and so forth, on a per-passenger basis and a systemic basis.

By: ted

ted — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 05:30:35 +0000

Local transit funding is in a real structural crisis. No one thinks shutting down the yellow and purple lines is a good idea. They’re actually building a new yellow line station right now, and planning is underway for another one, and to extend the line to Old Orchard Mall. The problem is money. The system needs money. It’s the same old problem of “public” transportation needing public funding. We fund police and fire departments. Isn’t public transportation just as vital?

By: Michael Maranda

Michael Maranda — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:55:37 +0000

Well put. Meanwhile on the local transit front there is discussion of shutting down 2 train lines.

By: Brian Kerr | links for 2007-06-14

Brian Kerr | links for 2007-06-14 — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:29:33 +0000

[...] Ted Ernst | Trains scale-up better than planes (tags: trains versus planes coordination density adjacency round-one fight) [...]