Now, that train will require feeder lines – the current capacity problem as I see it for the GG Transit SR->SF lines is not going to be the number of seats on the bus. The problem is the available parking at the 3 stops (Piner, SR P&R, RP P&R) that have all day parking. The adjustment being made right now is “No parking, I guess I’ll just drive”. At $5, $6 per gallon those drivers will adjust further.

Additionally, I think CATO unintentionally lays the ground work for a stronger argument for electric-powered transit than they explicitly state. CATO argues that locking in current levels of energy and carbon intensity in long-lived trains sacrifices the opportunity to embrace more efficient technology in the future. I wouldn’t be shocked if, over the next few decades, the energy and carbon intensity of electric energy drops at a faster rate than energy and carbon intensity drops for autos. If one accepts this, it means electric trains are preferable to fuel-efficient cars (and even if it is not true, the opportunity for advances in electric generation, even if at a slower rate than autos, argues for electric transit rather than diesel.

1. It considers, for comparative purposes, one of the more efficient cars as compared to extant rail projects–but the auto fleet composition is hardly all-Prius, nor should we suppose that significant efficiency improvements would not be achievable for transit;

2. Similarly, the energy consuption numbers used appear to be average numbers–yet they are affected by various factors, including rail line congestion/highway traffic jams and similar issues. Passenger vehicles may look much worse during peak use “rush hour” times, simply because the cars are idling in traffic for long periods. Yet it’s not clear that the paper attempted to consider these impacts. (they are considered qualitatively in the paper’s discussions about benefits by improving traffic signal timing–but such benefits hardly preclude obtaining additional benefits from transit).

3. It doesn’t consider the effects of post-WWII land use patterns, and similarly doesn’t consider how changes in land-use policy might affect transportation patterns and reshape energy use. Why not take a look at Western European models that almost require greater reliance on rail travel within certain regions? Similarly, the article accepts as gospel the claim that fixing congestion will not result in growth-inducing impacts. That might be true if there was a strong connection between land use planning and regional transportation planning, but not in this country, sister!

4. Similarly, the article looks at a declining trend over time in transit trips as a percentage of overall trips, but appears to do this within the context of growing metropolitan areas that increasingly require single-vehicle trips (which are, of course, heavily subsidized). The point the article is making is to say “transit is ineffective, people don’t use it, why are we doing it” but the actual point might be more “transit is losing ground to single-vehicle trips.” It would be interesting to consider this question within a given fixed area, rather than within a changing landscape that on balance is becoming more car-centric.

5. Infrastructure costs for passenger auto use don’t appear to be cited, although rail infrastructure costs are described as “huge,” whatever that means. Not cited are not only the standard police/pothole/lighting/repaving/bridge/earthquake retrofit/street sweeping/storm drain inlet cleaning O&M numbers for surface streets and highways, but also new freeway costs that exceeded $1 billion/mile in urban areas in the 1990s. The article’s citation of “huge” transit infrastructure costs thus lacks the comparative numbers for passenger auto use (Forget $7 billion to replace half of the Bay Bridge–$600+ million for minor improvements to Rte. 101 along the Sonoma Narrows, anyone?);

6. The article states that lifetime of rail transit projects is 30-40 years, yet, for example, the Chicago el Green Line went 100 years until its first significant reconstruction.

Here and there I’ve had the chance to work with some Bay Area freight-by-rail shippers that are among the largest of the rail companies’ customers. Staff have complained of poor treatment by the rail companies–inexact pickup and delivery dates, long delivery times, etc. Given those kinds of comments, while there might be a theoretical case to be made for pax rail displacing freight rail, in the practical sense, I’d think that could be noise compared to inefficient operation of the rail companies.

That is, if the rail companies are operating far below their optimal logistical efficiency for routing freight shipments, then it may be somewhat beside the point to consider the effects of pax rail.

1. Passenger miles for ferry boats is not a very good comparison. Ferry boats can travel less miles to get between two locations (though I guess Oakland to SF may be an exception, but the perfect example is Staten Island to Manhattan).

2. CATO seems to imply that you can apply averages to make decisions on future expansions. This is a mistake- expansions/new construction should consider marginal effects, not existing averages.

3. CATO seems to suggest that the primary problem with transit is low ridership, and otherwise it can have substantial gains. Sounds like a case for Congestion pricing funding transit as a push-pull mechanism.

4. CATO barely touches on promoting dense development. CATO suggests that development near transit ends up subsidized, but doesn’t say anything about whether that development is fulfilling demand (given the substantially higher prices to live near transit, it appears there is a shortage of supply). Additionally, density reduces total vehicle miles traveled, which would in turn reduce emissions and costs.

That’s not quite as bad as commuter rail, however, because we’re talking about longer distances for freight. Commuter rail does require feeder bus routes in areas where ridership is low.

On the other hand, a lot of commuter rail passengers drive to the station, which doesn’t help the Cato study. The bottom line there is that those cars are driving a much shorter distance because of commuter rail, they’re not sitting in traffic, and those things make a big difference.

The argument I hear is that less freight can run when there are more commuter trains on a line. It makes intuitive sense.

Since posting, I took a bit more of a look at the CATO piece and reviewed a couple sources for statements that seem intuitively false. The sources are not all that great, and some citations are deceptive. For example, the statement that BART is the only system that creates a net benefit to social welfare, well, the source excludes New York from it’s figures, but CATO doesn’t mention that in the paper or the footnote.

Given this, I am a little surprised that they didn’t find some source that says the thing about freight rail. The reason the freight rail issue matters is because freight rail has a giant advantage compared with trucking as far as GHG emissions are concerned. So displacing freight from rail to road substantially increases emissions.

Can you elaborate? UP generally doesn’t let ACE and CapCor run more trains until they pay for capacity improvements.