Kunstler On Airlines, Trains: "Exactly How Far Does America Have Its Head Up Its Ass?"

[hatrack]

EDIT

In other words, this region of the country has next-to-zero railroad service. Can we pause a moment here to ask: exactly how far does America have its head up its ass? Do you get the picture? Can you connect the dots? The airline industry is dying and absolutely no thought is being given to how people will get around this big country -- except to make the stupid assumption that we can just drive our cars instead. Even during the several days I was around Minneapolis, no news media or politician raised the subject of reviving passenger railroad service.

In point of fact, these are exactly the kind of trips that would be better served by rail, anyway -- the towns that are less than five hundred miles apart. The travel time between trains and planes would be comparable, considering the two hours or so that you have to add to every airplane trip because of all the security crap, not to mention the delays. As a matter of fact, USA today ran a front page story two days after the Delta / Northwest announcement saying "Air Trips Slowest in Past 20 Years." Subhead: "Trend likely to persist as congestion worsens."

One big reason for the airport congestion, of course, is that the runways are cluttered up with planes making trips of only a few hundred miles. This has been a problem for quite a while. Periodically, it gets so bad that the media gets all excited and sometimes (last summer, for instance) the President makes a statement deploring it. Since the current president is a knucklehead, it apparently hasn't occurred to him to get behind a revival of the passenger rail system. But Mr. Bush is apparently not the only elected knucklehead in this country, because absolutely nobody is talking about this.

Now get this: we are sleepwalking into a transportation crisis. As I already said, the airline industry is dying. The price of petroleum-based aviation fuel is killing it. And forget the fantasies about running it on bio-diesel or used french-fry oil. Driving cars will not be an adequate substitute, either. It's imperative that this country gets serious about restoring the passenger rail system. We can't not talk about it for another year. We must demand that the candidates for president speak to this issue. If you who are reading this are active reporters or editors in the news media, you've got to raise your voices behind this issue.

EDIT/END

http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/

[phantom power]

1. I have a question about congestion...

It strikes me that rail is currently free of congestion because (a) not many people use it, and (b) there are not as many security procedures. However, I assume one main reason for (b) is (a). So, if we imagine that rail travel once again becomes widely used, won't our rail stations fairly quickly come to resemble our airports? Congested, and jammed up by security procedures?

[Fovea]

3. Taking Chicago as an example.

Union Station at rush hour is a mad house. But here is the rub, IMO. A lot of folks get off buses, and off other trains.
The madhouse is pedestrian traffic.

What is surprizinly uncongested are the roads around Union Station, considering the rail traffic that moves through there.

Airports are often way out in NIMBYville. And so a lot of gas gets burned getting out there. Generally, where you have airports, you have huge numbers of single occupant vehicles parked long term.

Even when rail congestion is involved, you can idle a train on a siding for a lot less fuel than you can keep an Airbus in a pattern.

In the case of CMAQ concerns, in a worst case, rail traction is fuel agnostic. Air traffic dumps a lot of pollution in the act of landing and taking off.

[phantom power]

7. I was thinking more in terms of passenger travel time.

Part of the argument seems to be "trains may be slower than airplanes, but you spend so much less time at a train station than at an airport." I wonder if that will remain true, if tons of people start riding trains instead of flying. And then the transportation security wonks get involved, and start making customers go through the same security regiment that we now endure at airports, etc...

On some level, it doesn't matter to me, because I think rail is a clear winner in terms of fuel economy per passenger mile. I'm just trying to imagine what it will "really" be like when it happens.

In the bigger economic picture, fewer people are going to be traveling by either plane or train, because they won't be able to afford it. So maybe both the train stations and the airports will be blissfully crowd-free, for those people still well-off enough to use them.

[Fovea]

12. The way the argument is ususally expressed to me is.

that the big wait is in the boarding, rather than the disembarking.
Chicago really moves the commuters.

Trains can be used in terror, certainly London and Madrid prove that. But the train station remains the exposed target. The train is not a weapon of mass destruction in the same way as a plane is, and is not as fragile a target.

Security is nothing like OHare at Union Station, and I think it may serve a similar number of passengers. I use Union Station Chicago because it is a nexus for both the National passenger rail, and several regional passenger lines and local commuter rail. I think it looks a lot like the future.

I agree that airports will be a lot emptier, both of passengers and planes. I cannot imagine how, if we continued to pretend that air travel was not heavily subsidised, anything but large seating commercial air travel can survive fuel prices over the next 10 years.

So only the high volume routes will survive. Because without the current economy of scale, current fleet sizes won't be possible.
That fact is as true for our military as our civilian airtime.

[izquierdista]

8. I see you haven't been to Europe

Their airports resemble American airports with all the accompanying idiocy, but the train stations are models of efficiency. You can buy tickets at machines throughout the station, or wait to do so in person. There are 3 levels of service, local, regular, and the high speed express. In many places, the InterCity trains zip along at almost 200 kph, getting you right to the center of town without any highway traffic. When a route is heavily used, they can add cars to increase capacity; however, I have never seen a Boeing 757 or 767 towing a glider.

Even in Spain, in the aftermath of the Madrid bombing, security is present, but not ridiculous. Since the passenger rail lines are communally owned (the national government) it is a service available to all and they can't abuse their own citizens. In France, they even give refunds if they are more than half an hour late at the destination.

P.S. I still don't know why I have to "compost" my ticket in France and Italy. I thought that was to be green after I threw the used one in the trash.

[lutefisk]

2. Republicans have been trying to kill passenger service for years

The companies that move freight give big money to politicians and Amtrak doesn't. The want to get the passenger trains off the tracks and out of the way.

And of course there are all those industries that profit from people using lots of gas and driving cars... just think how long GM has been working at destroying public transportation!

[Vogon_Glory]

6. Myths Aside, The Repuds ARE TRYING To Kill Amtrak

Myths aside, the Repuds ARE trying to kill Amtrak. I'd say that their hostility is more ideological because Amtrak is "gummint owned" and there isn't a private corporation to scoop the cherries off the top of the taxpayer-subsidized fudge sundaes that the airlines and bus companies have with publicly-financed and publicly-built rights-of-way. Grover Norquist in particular has been trying to hatchet Amtrak and he came all too close a couple of years ago.

Even assuming that that the legends concerning GM and its National City Lines bus subsidiary are true, National City Lines wasn't nearly as effective at doing in trolley and interurban electric rail service as the local Babbitt-style politicos scared to death of what the neighbors might think if they were still operating "old fashioned" trolley cars instead of modern (And also far less durable and more expensive to repair) city buses. The Babbitts did in far more trolley lines than National City Lines ever did.

[Fovea]

13. The profitablity of any passenger travel service

is low. Air travel has been wildly subsidized after 2001, and was given the equivalent of government provided rails for BNSF before when you count ATC, NOAA, and other enabling government provided infrastructure.

The privatizers ignore that Adam Smith approved of transportation infrastructure as a valid public good. Roads, lighthouses, and bridges were the thoroughfares of Smith's day, had he been born a tiny bit later, railroads would have been in the mix.

The twenty first century would do well to think about what the commons means now. A college degree, or technical certification is to our economy what a lighthouse was to Smith's. Healthcare is to the current global market what sewers were to Mill's. Public transportation would be the most honest way to provide mobility for persons and goods in a world that will be constrained to use energy in per capita amounts that are closer to 1930 than 2000.

Of course, we will continue to subsidize air travel, but we cannot continue at this scale. Increasingly from lightbulbs to spacecraft, the future will be to the efficient, below the troposphere, rail is the clear winner. And as a side benefit, no one has crashed a train into a skyscraper so far.

A couple years back, SCOTUS ruled in an expansive way RE em-domain. This will serve the need for a 10 fold increase in rail miles including a high speed spine.

I am thinking what better use for the 400 ships of Ronnie Raygun's 600 ship Navy? At least the ones that still run on oil.

Too late to be brief, but in short, change the current air travel paradigm to passenger rail with all the emoluments we give to air travel gratis. To do that, a total rebuild of DOT is required.

[Strelnikov_]

4. KunstlerCast's here

http://globalpublicmedia.com/

[Vogon_Glory]

5. Why So Little Rail Passenger Traffic?

There are a number of reasons as to why there is so little intercity rail passenger traffic. To begin with, it never was much of a money-maker for the private railroads that offered it and, quite unlike the so-called "private enterprise" buses and airlines that the private companies used to compete against, the railroads had to pay state and local property taxes on their stations. Add a dropping passenger load, 19th century work rules, and it's no small wonder that they bailed, especially when they lost the contracts to carry the US mail.

Fast forward to now. Amtrak has been around since 1971, eventually taking over all of the remaining intercity rail (Excluding commuter rail) in the lower 48. Amtrak's been chronically capital-starved almost since its inception, it DOES need subsidies to operate, and it usually doesn't have control over the track it operates upon or often much control over its scheduling. Almost every year Amtrak has to beg for the subsidies it needs to keep operating and sometimes it gets less than it wants. That's why there isn't a Los Angeles-Las Vegas-Salt Lake City passenger train any more or direct passenger rail service between Dallas and Denver or Chicago and Florida. Is it any wonder that most of the US' intercity passenger rail system is the worst in the industrialized world or that some third world rail systems (Mostly in Asia) have better passenger rail networks than ours?

Occasionally, I run into right-wing denizens of DumbF*ckistan who wonder why the US doesn't have a passenger rail system like Europe's. When I mention that it costs money to build, operate, and maintain such a system, their eyes glaze over and they recede into silent assent to the current transportation status quo.


:argh:

[Finishline42]

10. BushCo spending $$$ on 'Congestion Pricing' - Neocon schemes - Instead of public transport

Here's a link to an article that ran in the Wash. Post about how Tyler Duvall (a lawyer with no experience in anything related to transportation, sounds familiar doesn't it) that is determining how Dept of Transportation $$$ is being spent. The Dems decide on not using earmarks for almost a $1 billion and it gets spent on 5 cities (NY, San Fran, Minn, Miami, and Seattle) in an experiment on 'congestion pricing'. The article is quite detailed but here is two parts that sticks out to me:

1. from the article: "The focus on toll roads alarmed the transit industry, which argues that public transportation is the best way to fight gridlock in cities. Industry leaders say the DOT has made it increasingly difficult for expensive rail projects to qualify for federal dollars. The number of major new rail and bus projects on track for federal funding dropped from 48 in 2001 to 17 in 2007, even as transit ridership hit a 50-year high last year and demand for new service is soaring."

2. An earlier post talks about transit from airports to downtown. Atlanta has MARTA that is very effective in getting downtown from Heartfield. Well the Dept of Trans. has been holding up the Wash Metro plan to build a line from Dulles to downtown DC. I just spent a 5 days in DC in early March and that is one system that seems to work fairly well. So why the hold up - BushCo wants a private contractor to build and have the line.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/16/AR2008031603085.html

In addition, here's an article from the April 2008 issue of Popular Mechanics that is part of 2 stories on oil. The first is about the challenges of drilling/pumping for oil in the Jack field in the Gulf of Mexico. Titled 'Dispatch from the Oil Frontier'it details having to drill from a floating platform in 8,000 ft of water to get to oil 32,000 ft down. So deep on the floor of the Gulf that they have to use robots for the equipment there.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/extreme_machines/4255407.html

The second story is 'How Long Will it Last'. Lots of info, but here is what interesting as it relates to the public transport issue. They list 4 areas to save oil, 1 billion barrels per year could be saved by better fuel mileage in cars. 30 billion could be saved by weatherizing oil-heated homes (!!!) and 45 billion could be saved if one-third more people rode mass transit than today (ridership is up 25% since 1995). Also, 18 billion could be saved by the Airlines going to the NextGen GPS-based air traffic control system.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4254875.html

I think it's clear once again that the Bush admin has little regard for what's good for the country, only what some scheme the neo-cons dream up.

[Finishline42]

11. Actually, inter-city rail traffic is WAY up.

It was a change in the accounting rules in the 1930's that killed the trolly system that was prevalent in many cities. They were mostly run by public utility companies and when the rules changed, they went away.

Probably some auto company exec was thinking all those people riding public transport should have their own car.

Almost every light rail system built in the last 20 years has moved more people than originally projected.

[Vogon_Glory]

14. Also Misguided Fears of Monopoly

The end of streetcar service was also greatly accelerated by the forced sales of many electric utility-owned street car lines by well-meaning legislators and litigators fighting monopolies. The litigants fought and won, and the utilities were forced to sell off their streetcar operations which either went broke, got snapped up by outfits like National City Lines, or forced to drop street rail service by management or local officials falling over themselves to look "modern." From our vantage point sixty to seventy years later, I can't help but ask was that campaign REALLY worth it? Are we better off that the electric utilities were forced to sell off their streetcar operations or that guys like Samuel Insull was forced to sell off the North Shore and the Chicago, Aurora & Elgin? Or did our great-grandparents set themselves up to get screwed over by even bigger and far more powerful oligopolies like the oil companies, the auto manufacturers, and the highway builders?

Considering what happened when period progressives succeeded in busting up the electric utilities and when other trust-busters forced the Pullman manufacturing company to separate its passenger sleeping car operation from its manufacturing arm (Which eventually did in the Pullman Company's sleeping service and accelerated the end of many passenger trains), I can't help but wonder if progressives should pick their fights with more care for possible consequences.

[happyslug]

19. Remember the Monopoly feared by the Electric Company NOT the Trolley.

The US Government broke up the Electric monopolies do to what the electric companies were doing in regards to their electric customers NOT what was happening to the Trolley lines. The problem was the trolleys were "freed" from their electric parent, and most local government were NOT willing to take them over. Thus they slowly died.

[happyslug]

18. Actually it is quite popular in the Northeast, Boston to DC

But that route follows the main rule behind ANY form of transport, you must have at least FOUR trains (or planes) a day each direction for the transport to work. People do NOT have the same schedule, some need to get someplace at 6, other at 8, some at Noon others later. On the return trip, the same rules apply. Anything less than 4 trips a day and all you are providing is a token rail service (And this had been Amtrak's main problem since 1971). Congress gave Amtrak the right to make the reforms needed to keep passenger rail service alive, but then insisted that Amtrak keep as many city connected to rail service as possible, even if that was only once a day. This Amtrak makes money on its North East rail lines, but loses money every where else.

What Amtrak needs to do is to adopt smaller trains (one to four cars) run these four to five times a day, even if only the engineer is on board the train. These trains so be as light as possible for better fuel economy, but that leads us to the second biggest problem of Amtrak, old and obsolete Railroad laws governing the weight of passenger train cars. Do to various problems involving passenger trains accidents in the 1800s, in 1912 Congress passed a law setting the minimum amount of steel in a passenger train car. Those rules makes passengers trains extremely heavy compared to passenger trains in Europe. In fact when Amtrak adopted its latest high speed train, it was told to use "off the rack" technology from Europe. The problem was Europe solved its problems of passenger train accidents by adopting more advance control over the trains themselves (Which US fright lines also adopted and used by Amtrak). Thus Europe relies on its high tech control system to prevent major accidents, and as such could and have made their passenger trains much lighter than US trains. Do to the existing US Statute, Amtrak could NOT adopt those trains for use in the US, they did NOT have enough steel to meet the minimum legal requirements. Thus Amtrak had to completely re-design the "off the Rack" train system Amtrak adopted for the East Coast. What Amtrak created was a cross between the high speed European train system and the old Amtrak trains. High tech but weighs the same as the old Amtrak cars.

These requirements must be followed by anyone providing passenger service on a track that fright lines operate on (And that is most of the lines used by Amtrak). New Jersey Transit use much lighter cars, but on tracks where such cars operate only during the day, and fright lines only operate at night on those same lines. Most "Light rail" lines ended fright service just before WWII to permit the use of lighter cars on those lines (Trolleys/Streetcars/Light Rail have been getting lighter since the 1920s, except where large dual cars replace single cars). Mt point is the statute on how much steel must be in a Passenger car is the single factor preventing European cars from being used in the US.

The first problem, the need for more frequent service, can be solved by adopting lighter rail cars from Europe, but to do so requires a re-write of the statute governing passenger cars. Together these rules interfere with any rapid adoption of any rail service. To get around the weight of the passenger car rule, you have to design a whole new line, which cost money to do and takes time to do. To re-design European cars to meet US requirements, also takes time and money, for you have to do a complete re-design, not just take one off the shelf. With the other problems of getting rail service, we will NOT see a build up of rail service, till disaster hits. i.e. price of Gasoline gets so high Planes just go out of business and people can no longer drive, then Congress will change the law to bring back rail, but till then Congress will just go through the motions, it will NOT do want is required i.e. Service between most Major US Cities four to five times a day in each direction.

[Finishline42]

20. Thanks for the background. Rules that hinder Amtrak being better.

Something also to consider in the realm of Light Rail, is something that a city in Brazil pioneered. It's a combination of bus service and light rail. They use buses and if I remember correctly, they had priority on roads, but the stops were like a stop on a light rail station or subway. Fares would be collected prior to boarding the bus and there would be platforms at the same height as the aisle of the bus. Speeds up the loading and unloading plus with the stations you get the property improvements as businesses locate to serve the passenger traffic. Much less capital intensive and could be implemented rather quickly in most cities without having to get a lot of federal help. Other than not as efficient as trains (still much better than cars) the one disadvantage I can think of over light rail is a train can just add cars during regular heavy use.

[happyslug]

21. You must mean Curitiba Brazil

http://www.solutions-site.org/artman/publish/article_62.shtml
http://www.urbanhabitat.org/node/344
http://controlling-carbon.blogspot.com/2007/09/alternatives-curitibas-bus-rapid-system.html

A detail report on Curitiba mass transit system:
http://www.publictransit.us/ptlibrary/specialreports/sr1.curitibaBRT.pdf

Other site where the problems of Curitiba is shown:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_00013.htm
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_cur01.htm

The biggest problem with Curitiba is the inherent problems with buses. The successes of Curitiba is the product of dedicated right of ways, which benefits rail transit as while as bus transit. The basic inherent problems are as follows (ignoring the issue of using oil):

1. Buses MUST be driven and the driver MUST be careful on how close their are to passenger platforms. Problems that do NOT exist with light rail (The rail forces where the trolley MUST go, and that can be a fraction of an inch from any passenger platform).

2. Buses can only be so long, before the back of the bus starts to go independent of the front. Rail, being on a FIXED rail, must follow the head. Thus Light Rail cars can be much longer than even the largest buses.

3. Light rail can use railroad right of ways, which tend to be less congested than local highways, which buses can take (But NOT the super buses of Curitiba, which unlike light rail MUST be on their own right of way). Light rail only need rails on the road to use the road, the huge buses of Curitiba can only be used on the exclusive right of ways in that city.

These problem is even getting Curitiba to look at light rail for its main routes (i.e. Convert the main bus lines to light rail). The reason is light rail drivers can drive more cars with more riders AND can make the route wheelchair accessible (and quicker to load and unload) do to exit and passenger areas meet each other at the same height.

[Finishline42]

22. Thats the one

Thanks for the info, I agree with your points. My main point is the reduced initial cost and my thinking that current bus systems could be expanded easier and faster than building new light rail systems.

[happyslug]

24. The problem is Curitiba bus system was built like a light rail system

Thus there is little or no savings in term of time or money compared to light rail. The big cost is the exclusive right of ways, the key to a successful light rail system AND THE KEY TO THE CURITIBA BUS SYSTEM.

I like mentioning the last two trolley lines in Pittsburgh, the county seat of Allegheny County Pennsylvania. When the local transit authority took over the old trolley service, it proceeded to close down ALL the old trolley lines except the one to Beechview section of Pittsburgh and the other line that went to Upper St.Clair Township AND Bethel Park Township (The route actually split halfway to either township).

The plan to replace the Bethel Park Streetcar had a huge hurdle to over come. The Highway the streetcar ran by (on its own right of way) could barely handle the automobile traffic, throwing buses on it would make it even more of a traffic mess (And the Streetcar, since it was on its own right of way was FASTER then going by car from Bethel Park to Downtown Pittsburgh even with the high number of stops the streetcar made). Plans to widen the highway faces three problems, first the highway went through a heavy populated urban area, thus the cost to take over the land to expand the highway was high, Second, the highway went through a valley with steep walls and other narrow areas throughout its length, another huge costs, third, the highway went through the heart of the old Pittsburgh Coal Seam, which meant the whole area has been undermined, often in the 1800s. The mines are a problem when it comes to support for the highway AND no accurate maps exist of most of the mines around or under the highway. The cost to make sure the new highway has adequate support UNDERNEATH would make acquisition of nearby lands for the highway look cheap. Thus expansion of the Highway is talked about, but not seriously.

As to the Beechview line, It had its own tunnel (Which it shared with the Bethel Park Line) into downtown Pittsburgh. In Pittsburgh itself these lines were on public streets, but once outside downtown Pittsburgh into the trolley tunnel they went, bypassing a huge level of traffic. The Bethel Park line (Called the Library line) diverged from the Beechview line once on the other end of the trolley tunnel (Now called a "Transit Tunnel", for it was paved for bus use in the 1970s). The Beechview line went on its own right of way, across PA 51 (The main road in that part of Allegheny County) and along US 19 (The main highway by the Beechview line). It then entered Beechview where it went on its own right of way till the 1940s, when it was paved and merged with the parallel streets to become "Broadway Avenue" in the Beechview section of Pittsburgh. Broadway is unique, it is a wide road, with the streetcar tracks in the middle, but it starts where the streetcars get off its own right of way, and ends where the Streetcar goes back on its own right of way. Fir its width, Broadway is a low traffic road (More do to the fact very narrow roads are the only way from it to the local highway.

Attempts to replace both lines kept coming across the problem that buses, do to the fact they had to go on over used local highways, would take 2-3 times as long as the existing Streetcar lines (and I will NOT mentioned the cost to upgrade those highways just to handle the buses needed). The time saving was do to the fact both lines were on their own right of way for most of their length (The Library and St Clair Lines completely on their own right of ways, only the Beechview line went on public roads).

Thus these two Trolley line survived the close down of all of the other Streetcar lines, do to the fact they were on their own right of way which permitted them to be as fast as automobiles. In the 1980s these two lines were upgraded to light rail status, do to the fact all other options provided less service (Including using an automated system, called "Skybus", which was to use the people movers found at many large airports today as a replacement for the streetcars).

Curitiba's bus system follows the same rule as the above Pittsburgh Streetcar system, exclusive right of ways on which only one type of vehicle operates, a vehicle incapable of operating anyplace else (The Streetcars can only go where streetcar tracks are, the huge buses in Curitiba can only be used on the exclusive right of ways set up for their use).

Thus the key to Curitiba's success with buses, it to put them on their own right of way, something that can be done better with electric Light rail, given that such Electric Light Rail can be operated with minimum ventilation do to the fact Electric light rail do NOT produce excessive fumes, like buses.

Side Note: the 270 number given for the buses in Curitiba, is for "Crush Loads" i.e. people standing as close together as possible to get the most people on the Bus. Light rail have even higher "Crush Load" capability, but most people prefer to have a seat, and thus we should compare Seat to seat numbers NOT Crush numbers for Curitiba's buses with the seat numbers for Light Rail.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. Nicely said, but everyone forgets it was the airlines...

who killed train traffic faster than the car. And the trains themselves, who would rather move uncomplaining freight than people who have to be ticketed, fed, and otherwise dealt with. And then, the Post Office and delivery services moved everything off the trains on to planes, making passenger rail guaranteed to lose even more money. Anyone fondly (or otherwise) remember Railway Express?

Thousands of miles of rail right-of-ways are being turned into bike and hiking trails, so where would we put any new rail lines? AMTRAK is currently going nuts because they have to rent track from freight railroads, and doesn't always have priority. Even when they have priority, it doesn't work that way.

About 15 years ago a high-speed rail line was planned to get from Austin to Houston. Maybe it was Dallas-Houston, but the route is not the point. Southwest back then was profitably flying you that same route for 25 bucks snd the planners saw no way to get the investment back. Or even get people to take the train.

One other small point is once you're at the station, you have to get around, and airports have vast space for car rentals and quick ways to get into the city if you don't want to drive. Ain't many rental cars around Grand Central in NYC if you're not staying in the city.

Like anything else, we could build more rail if we wanted to, but it will cost a fortune and take a long time.

[losthills]

15. Am I missing something here?

Trains don't run on fossil fuels and spew co2 into the atmosphere?
They're better than planes, why???

[lectrobyte]

16. Trains use a lot less energy per ton of cargo (people, freight, etc.)

moved than a plane. Also, there are electric trains which could be powered by electricity generated from renewable sources such as hydro, solar or wind power.

[losthills]

17. I guess you're right.

According to this article, taking the train is better than driving or flying.

http://earth911.org/blog/2007/08/20/eco-travel-planes-trains-automobiles/

[phantom power]

23. possibly so far that we've become a Klein bottle.