April 19, 2005

LEARNING FROM THE MISTAKES OF OTHERS:

India makes tracks for the train: The fast-growing country upgrades its rail services to meet travel demands, even as other infrastructure lags. (Nachammai Raman, 4/20/05, The Christian Science Monitor)

The country's strong growth rate and sheer size has many grouping it with China as this century's future superpowers. But India has so far not made the same massive infrastructure investments, especially in the area of transportation.

The one exception is the national railroad. The addition of 46 new passenger trains in this fiscal year's Indian Railways budget - including upgraded service to Bangalore - has raised eyebrows. Indian trains, however, are in business because road and air remains so underdeveloped. [...]

"Indian Railways always makes a profit. We have never gone into the red," boasts S. Gagarin, the railroad's senior division commercial manager in Bangalore. According to government estimates, the return on rail investments is nearly three times that of other transportation investments.

With 67,941 miles of tracks, 7,000 passenger trains, and 4,000 freight trains per day, as well as 6,853 stations, the 152-year-old train system is one of the largest in the world. Its workforce of 1.5 million also makes it India's single largest employer.

Uvais Ahmed is a frequent passenger on the increasingly important Madras-Bangalore route of the Shatabdi Express, to which an additional service was announced in the budget. Being a businessman, he finds the train schedule convenient. He boards the train in Madras in the morning, which gives him five working hours in Bangalore before he rides the train back. He's home the same night.

Although Mr. Ahmed owns a car, he doesn't drive to Bangalore unless he anticipates staying over for three or four days. And that's only to help him get around in Bangalore. "Trains are the cheapest and safest," he says. "Highways are not so safe."

"Indian Railways has the lowest accident rate at 0.6 per million kilometers," says Mr. Gagarin. This is a far cry from when the Indian railroad, infamous for head-on collisions and slips, served as a favorite Bollywood subterfuge to turn plots and dispense with characters. Now, it's road accidents that seem to capture Bollywood's imagination. Indian road accidents grievously injure an estimated 1.275 million per year and contribute to 10 percent of road accident fatalities worldwide, according to the Delhi-based Institute of Road Traffic Education.

Many travelers also choose the train for economy. On average, flights on the Madras-Bangalore sector cost four to 10 times as much as rail trips. "If you have less time, then you fly. Otherwise, you take the train to save money. We Indians like to save money," says Ahmed.


A sensible people.

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 19, 2005 11:55 PM
Comments

Smells like train spirit.

Posted by: ghostcat at April 20, 2005 12:27 AM

Of course the trains make money.

What other form of transportation can seat hundreds of people on the roof and have many more hanging out of windows?

Posted by: Randall Voth at April 20, 2005 3:49 AM

To Randall's point does the India railroad have to deal with all the regulations the US railroads do? And is there a railmans union in India that helps push up prices?

Posted by: AWW at April 20, 2005 10:09 AM

In twenty years they'll be driving as much as we do.

Posted by: joe shropshire at April 20, 2005 12:01 PM

They seem smarter than that. Just leave the roads in disrepair and you can avoid that sorry fate.

Posted by: oj at April 20, 2005 12:05 PM

And you can also avoid having a dynamic economy.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at April 20, 2005 1:50 PM

No you can't.

Posted by: oj at April 20, 2005 2:03 PM

Do some network analysis, OJ.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at April 21, 2005 7:13 AM

Read some history.

Posted by: oj at April 21, 2005 7:46 AM

Okay.

Cut the US population by 2/3, move half of the rest to rural areas, eliminate any vestige of life introduced after 1930, concentrate industry in city centers, and put city dwellers in stack-a-prole flats cheek to jowl with the concentrated industry.

Under those circumstances, railway networks would work acceptably well. However, you need never speak again of all the wealth Americans have stored in their homes.

Now, you do network analysis and show how rail travel would work in the contemporary US without crippling the country.

We can ignore, for the moment, the kind of communist wet-dream coercion required to implement your utopia.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at April 21, 2005 12:34 PM

Just tear up the interstates and put in rails.

Posted by: oj at April 21, 2005 3:07 PM

Just as I figured--either you are not serious, and do not deserve a response.

Or you don't deserve a response.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at April 21, 2005 3:32 PM

Jeff:

How do you think the highways got there? The free market?

Posted by: oj at April 21, 2005 3:35 PM

Helloooo...the question was network analysis.

My assertions are:

1. You can't impose railroads on the existing residential and workplace distributions
2. Any network you could impose railroads upon would require such high concentrations of industry and residence as to ossify the economy

And if you were to try, and "succeed," you would destroy the worth of the housing stock you so proudly point to as a reservoir of US wealth.

Can't have it both ways.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at April 21, 2005 6:00 PM

we imposed highways on a perfectly functional existing rail based nation. There'd be some creative destruction and things would settle out at a vastly better level.

Posted by: oj at April 21, 2005 6:03 PM

Except, people hate traveling by rail. They hate it even more than they hate traveling by air, which pretty much everyone detests. (Sorry, Jeff.)

Posted by: David Cohen at April 21, 2005 11:11 PM

No they didn't.

Posted by: oj at April 21, 2005 11:38 PM
« ARLEN SHIVA: | Main | IT'S NOT OUR KITCHENS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT: »