Right Wing Blog Evicerates High Speed Rail.

[BenBurch]

And the airliner that can fly on batteries is where, again?

 

[Mitchell314]

Hydrocarbons are molecular batteries, if you think about it.

 

[WildCat]

You're absolutely correct and commercial aircraft can go where there's a commercial airport. Where I live there are tens of railway stations within a 30 minute drive. My nearest airport is nearly an hour away.

If there's tens of HSR stations within a 30 minute drive then it isn't HSR, is it?

Subject to weather, air traffic control capacity and the limitations of that runway.

And HST is subject to weather also (snow covering tracks, switches freezing in cold weather, etc), and every foot of the hundreds of miles of tracks must be maintained and repaired, leading to shutdowns or slowdowns. And if a train breaks down on the way it stops all traffic, whereas an airplane lands at a different airport and has minimal effect on other air traffic.

Neither does high speed rail. For example I think there only one stop between Paris and Lyon.

Then the people between Paris and Lyon don't have "tens of stations within a 30 minute drive of their houses", do they? And in the USA if there aren't stops in every Podunk town the votes to construct it won't be there. Indeed, the plan calls for many such stops.

Well planned and designed routes are likely to be profitable in any case (though TGV in France is taking a beating from low cost airlines at the moment but that may change).

See the video I posted previously, this is not well planned and designed.

If you're doing city centre to city centre travel and you factor in travel to/from the airport and waiting at the airport to board and collect luggage then I reckon that rail is still faster in the 20-500 range (you;re right about the 500+ though)

You're assuming the HSR will be city center to city center, and it certainly is not. In order to keep land acquisition costs down they are well outside the city centers.

For example Paris --> Marseille is 3 1/2 hours by train. with a half hour either end to get to/from the station

A half hour by what?

By plane it could easily be:
1 hour to get to the airport
1 hour wait to board
90 minutes flight
30 minute wait for luggage
1 hour to get into town

The security in the works for HSR (indeed all rail travel aside from commuter rail) is airport-style, with all the delays inherent in that. Bag scans, body scans, etc. Better arrive an hour before departure. And you'll likely be just as far away from downtown as the airport is when you arrive.

 

[The Don]

If there's tens of HSR stations within a 30 minute drive then it isn't HSR, is it?

Your original comment was that:

Railroads cannot go anywhere, they are limited to the tracks.

I was pointing out that in the UK at least, rail infrastructure is much more ubiqitous than flying infrastructure. Trains are limited to tracks but there are far more of them in Europe at least (and in highly populated parts of the US as well if my experience of the North Eastern seaboard and Chicago is typical).

And HST is subject to weather also (snow covering tracks, switches freezing in cold weather, etc), and every foot of the hundreds of miles of tracks must be maintained and repaired, leading to shutdowns or slowdowns. And if a train breaks down on the way it stops all traffic, whereas an airplane lands at a different airport and has minimal effect on other air traffic.

A train breaking down only stops all traffic if you have single track running, sure it may cause some delays until it is cleared but unless it's a rail disaster then it won't stop services.

In the UK at least, rail services are less susceptible to weather than air travel. My local airport is closed regularly but infrequently because of snow, fog or wind. Closure of the railways is rare and exceptional.

Then the people between Paris and Lyon don't have "tens of stations within a 30 minute drive of their houses", do they? And in the USA if there aren't stops in every Podunk town the votes to construct it won't be there. Indeed, the plan calls for many such stops.

HSR isn't about the transport of everyone from everywhere to everywhere, it's about the transport of people between population centres - rather like air travel. The person who wants to use HSR in Europe would likely travel to their HSR station by car or regional train services (which are still HSR by U.S. standards).

As I've said, with one exception we don't have HSR in the UK but even though I live in the middle of nowhere (by UK standards) I'm still less than 20 minutes way from a station which has services which are in the 80 mph average speed range.

See the video I posted previously, this is not well planned and designed.

Then the issue is with the U.S. and not with HSR. I guess this is another example of U.S. exceptionalism where things that work fine all over the wold simply cannot be made to work in the U.S.

You're assuming the HSR will be city center to city center, and it certainly is not. In order to keep land acquisition costs down they are well outside the city centers.

Then the issue is with the U.S. and not with HSR. I guess this is another example of U.S. exceptionalism where things that work fine all over the wold simply cannot be made to work in the U.S. In France at least, the terminii are in city centres but the intermediate stations are out of the city centres to make the land cheaper, and to make it easier for the diffuse population to get there.

A half hour by what?

How do you get to the airport ?

In city centers it will most likely be tube/metro/subway or commuter rail. For the intermediate stations it will most likely be commuter rail, bus or car

The security in the works for HSR (indeed all rail travel aside from commuter rail) is airport-style, with all the delays inherent in that. Bag scans, body scans, etc. Better arrive an hour before departure. And you'll likely be just as far away from downtown as the airport is when you arrive.

I can only comment on the current situation, in Europe train based security is quicker and the trail departs on a firm schedule.

 

[WildCat]

Your original comment was that:

Railroads cannot go anywhere, they are limited to the tracks.

I was pointing out that in the UK at least, rail infrastructure is much more ubiqitous than flying infrastructure. Trains are limited to tracks but there are far more of them in Europe at least (and in highly populated parts of the US as well if my experience of the North Eastern seaboard and Chicago is typical).

I have no issues with light/commuter rail in populated areas. It's long haul HSR that makes no sense to me, at least as proposed and implemented in the USA.

A train breaking down only stops all traffic if you have single track running, sure it may cause some delays until it is cleared but unless it's a rail disaster then it won't stop services.

In the UK at least, rail services are less susceptible to weather than air travel. My local airport is closed regularly but infrequently because of snow, fog or wind. Closure of the railways is rare and exceptional.

Rail in most of the USA is subject to wide temperature swings, -20 in the winter and 100+ in the summer. A few weeks ago they were literally lighting fires on the Metra tracks here to keep the switches from freezing in -10 weather. In summer the tracks often warp and buckle, creating slow zones and repair issues.

HSR isn't about the transport of everyone from everywhere to everywhere, it's about the transport of people between population centres - rather like air travel. The person who wants to use HSR in Europe would likely travel to their HSR station by car or regional train services (which are still HSR by U.S. standards).

Europe has population centers 100, 200, 300 miles apart. Ideal for HSR. Much further apart in the USA, it's 350 miles between LA and San Francisco and that's not even half the length of the state. HSR has difficulty competing with air travel at those distances, let alone longer ones. You see people in this thread talking about HSR between Chicago and St. Louis, the latter is hardly what anyone in Europe would consider a "population center", it's a city of 320,000 people. Indianapolis has 850,000 people but no light rail system and a car would be necessary at that end to get anywhere. Beyond that and you may as well fly. The USA just doesn't have the density Europe does.

As I've said, with one exception we don't have HSR in the UK but even though I live in the middle of nowhere (by UK standards) I'm still less than 20 minutes way from a station which has services which are in the 80 mph average speed range.



Then the issue is with the U.S. and not with HSR. I guess this is another example of U.S. exceptionalism where things that work fine all over the wold simply cannot be made to work in the U.S.

Again: population density. The USA is not Europe.

How do you get to the airport ?

In city centers it will most likely be tube/metro/subway or commuter rail. For the intermediate stations it will most likely be commuter rail, bus or car

Then what is there to sell the train over the airplane?

I can only comment on the current situation, in Europe train based security is quicker and the trail departs on a firm schedule.

The USA is finding ways to screw up the trains. We're exceptional.

 

[The Don]

I have no issues with light/commuter rail in populated areas. It's long haul HSR that makes no sense to me, at least as proposed and implemented in the USA.

It's clear that it doesn't make sense to you. It makes sense for long distance travel in other countries. For a country founded on innovation and dynamism, the US is, IMO, curiously conservative in a few ways.

the UK is far more conservative in far more ways but we're the aged grandparent in a cardigan handing out Werthers Originals to the U.S.' young go-getter.

Rail in most of the USA is subject to wide temperature swings, -20 in the winter and 100+ in the summer. A few weeks ago they were literally lighting fires on the Metra tracks here to keep the switches from freezing in -10 weather. In summer the tracks often warp and buckle, creating slow zones and repair issues.

Somehow Europe manages to cope with similar temperature differences. I wonder if it's down to better engineering. Here in the UK we have simliar problems to the U.S. but our rail infrastructure is largely Victorian.

Europe has population centers 100, 200, 300 miles apart. Ideal for HSR. Much further apart in the USA, it's 350 miles between LA and San Francisco and that's not even half the length of the state. HSR has difficulty competing with air travel at those distances, let alone longer ones. You see people in this thread talking about HSR between Chicago and St. Louis, the latter is hardly what anyone in Europe would consider a "population center", it's a city of 320,000 people. Indianapolis has 850,000 people but no light rail system and a car would be necessary at that end to get anywhere. Beyond that and you may as well fly. The USA just doesn't have the density Europe does.

I don't think that's the case. The U.S. has many more large cities. Although St Louis' population is "only" 320,000 (which would put it in the UK top 10), the metro population is over 2 million which would make it 2 or 3 in the UK. Likewise in France, after Paris and Marseilles it tapers off very quickly. St Louis would be top-5 or so in France, Metro it would be second. One of the reasons why TGV was deemed necessary in France was the wide (by European standards) spread of small to medium sized cities.

Again: population density. The USA is not Europe.

The edges are, and large parts of the middle are.

Then what is there to sell the train over the airplane?

For people not starting off and not finishing their journeys in cities served by HSR then there isn't much but then again there's no point me taking a plane if the drive is less than about 6-7 hours if the destination is a long way from the airport. Then again because HSR serves population centres and because people tend to travel en-masse between population centres it would serve many people most of the time.

If I had to drive to an HSR station for my journey to, say, Glasgow (300 miles so maybe 2 1/2 hours by HSR stopping in Birmingham, and Manchester), I'd still have the benefit of city centre arrival, a more comfortable mode of transport (with room to walk around, enjoy the scenery and so on), fewer restrictions on what and how much I can carry and, if my experience of commuting to Glasgow by plane is any guide, not being diverted one the outward or return journey about 1 time in 10 (more often the diversion was on arrival in Bristol but a couple of times a year I'd be diverted to Prestwick from Glasgow).

The USA is finding ways to screw up the trains. We're exceptional.

This may mean that the problem lies with the U.S. and the opposition to HSR rather than the technology or economic viability of the schemes.

It's the same in the UK, the road and airline lobbies wield sufficient influence, and rail has long been the red-haired stepchild.

 

[WildCat]

The Don, western Europe has nowhere near the temperature swings that the USA has. Weather would cause problems, steel expands in the heat and shrinks in the cold. And the density isn't even comparable. You say the St. Louis metro area has 2 million people? How big is that metro area? The entire state of Missouri has just 6 million, even if you add Arkansas you have just 9 million in an area much bigger than the entire UK. Add Illinois (most populous state bordering Missouri) and you're up to just 22 million people in an area twice the size of the UK and that's including the most populous metro area in the entire Midwest.

Can it be done? Sure, but that's a different question than should it be done. I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why it should be done, especially as existing transportation infrastructure is crumbling and service is being cut.

 

[BenBurch]

WC - I know railroad technology intimately. Our weather will be no worse to deal with than that encountered in other places.

 

[The Don]

The Don, western Europe has nowhere near the temperature swings that the USA has. Weather would cause problems, steel expands in the heat and shrinks in the cold. And the density isn't even comparable. You say the St. Louis metro area has 2 million people? How big is that metro area?

Dunno, just going by the Wikipedia figures. It seems to be a big area:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_St._Louis

Between them St Louis City and St Louis County have a population of around 1.4 million. That would be UK 3 or 4.

The entire state of Missouri has just 6 million, even if you add Arkansas you have just 9 million in an area much bigger than the entire UK. Add Illinois (most populous state bordering Missouri) and you're up to just 22 million people in an area twice the size of the UK and that's including the most populous metro area in the entire Midwest.

And large parts of France are mostly empty which is why

• HSR runs between population centres and makes little effort to serve the sparse population between them
• It's realtively cheap to build (as compared to urban routes)

Can it be done? Sure, but that's a different question than should it be done. I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why it should be done, especially as existing transportation infrastructure is crumbling and service is being cut.

I understand that you haven't seen a compelling argument and as an HSR skeptic, you'll set the bar considerably higher than an HSR enthusiast (which may be no bad thing).

One of the ways in which HSR investment is justified in Europe is that providing good inter-city rail passenger services provides a considerable economic stimulus whilst being more environmentally considerate than air or road.

Building HSR allows passenger traffic to be moved from the crumbling infrastructure allowing that to be used more intensively for freight (which again is environmentally better). it is argued that new build HSR is a more cost effective way to add capacity than upgrading existing routes, especially if these are unsuitable.

 

[Ziggurat]

it is argued that new build HSR is a more cost effective way to add capacity than upgrading existing routes, especially if these are unsuitable.

But do we even need the additional capacity?

http://www.ssti.us/2013/12/new-trav...from-u-s-dot-will-they-be-accurate-this-time/

"Enough time has passed by now that 61 yearly projections [for national vehicle-miles traveled (VMT)] can be compared to the reported VMT. And in 61 cases out of 61, the C&P estimates [from the Department of Transportation] were too high."

I don't think I can hotlink the graph, but you've really got to check it out, it's stunning the disconnect between the projections and the actual measurements, and the consistency with which those projections have failed.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

I don't think I can hotlink the graph, but you've really got to check it out, it's stunning the disconnect between the projections and the actual measurements, and the consistency with which those projections have failed.

I've no idea of the reliability of the site you linked to, but the graphs are pretty implausible. In the first place there is only one projection, they just move the start point one year to the right on the X axis, in the second place who would make any kind of serious forecast of a perfectly linear increase in traffic over a 10 year period?

 

[The Don]

I've no idea of the reliability of the site you linked to, but the graphs are pretty implausible. In the first place there is only one projection, they just move the start point one year to the right on the X axis, in the second place who would make any kind of serious forecast of a perfectly linear increase in traffic over a 10 year period?

Regardless of the reasonableness of the projections, it looks like the "actual" figures for Vehicle Annual Miles traveled are accurate (or are at least supported by another source).

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M12MTVUSM227NFWA

So a steady rise (interspersed with small corrections in recessions) until 2007 where it drops and levels off (although very recent figures show a slight uptick).

It will be interesting to see whether we've entered a new paradigm where home working (and for the last few years - until recently - the price of fuel) suppresses transport by road. I may also reflect a shift onto air and/or rail a as a transport mode.

This person has attempted to come up with some conclusions:

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/DOT-Miles-Traveled.php

The Driving Boom — a six decade-long period of steady increases in per-capita driving in the United States — is over.

Americans drive fewer total miles today than we did nine years ago, and fewer per person than we did at the end of Bill Clinton's first term. The unique combination of conditions that fueled the Driving Boom — from cheap gas prices to the rapid expansion of the workforce during the Baby Boom generation — no longer exists. Meanwhile, a new generation — the Millennials — sees a new American Dream that is less dependent on driving.

I cannot comment on those conclusions.

edited to add....

...but if it really does reflect a change in modes rather than a reduction in travel then it enhances the case for investment in non-road transport.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've no idea of the reliability of the site you linked to, but the graphs are pretty implausible. In the first place there is only one projection, they just move the start point one year to the right on the X axis

First, you're wrong. Click on the graph, you'll see two of the projection lines actually cross, so they're clearly not identical. Second, yes, they're VERY similar to each. But that's the whole point: they kept making almost the same prediction for growth rates, year after year. The actual history doesn't seem to make any real difference.

in the second place who would make any kind of serious forecast of a perfectly linear increase in traffic over a 10 year period?

The government would, that's who. You can see the most recent of those projections here. See page 385 of the PDF. Note that they don't just project out 10 years, they project out almost 20 years.

 

[Dinwar]

One of the ways in which HSR investment is justified in Europe is that providing good inter-city rail passenger services provides a considerable economic stimulus whilst being more environmentally considerate than air or road.

That won't be the case in the USA, I can asssure you. The greenhouse gas emissions may be lower, but the rest of the environmental impacts will be MUCH higher.

Remember, we already have air and road networks in place; those impacts have already occurred. Whereas the HSR is going to create entirely new impacts. And it's not just the footprint of the rail (which is far wider than most realize); there are a bunch of pork-barrel additions that increase the footprint tremendously. They're in the California HSR EIR/EIS, which I believe is now publically available. I can't get more specific.

And we'll need to upgrade our roads anyway. Our bridges, too. An HSR will not alter shipping routes, and a huge number of our bridges in the USA are past their use-by date. The issue doesn't get a huge amount of press, but get any two civil engineers together and the topic comes up really quick. It's terrifying to think about how many bridges badly need maintanence, just to bring food into cities (most of which have what, a three day supply on-hand? Or less?).

 

[Travis]

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/Programs/Environmental_Planning/final_merced_fresno.html
http://www.hsr.ca.gov/Programs/Environmental_Planning/final_fresno_bakersfield.html

And pork barrel additions happen to all things infrastructure. Look at how the Bay Bridge went from a $1.5 billion project to $6 billion. At least rail can minimize this by having a much smaller footprint than roads. Think of all the land required to widen Interstate 5 to twelve lanes through the grapevine. Or how much land a new airport will require.

 

[Ziggurat]

And pork barrel additions happen to all things infrastructure. Look at how the Bay Bridge went from a $1.5 billion project to $6 billion.

Wait... this is supposed to be an argument in favor of high-speed rail?

 

[Dinwar]

And pork barrel additions happen to all things infrastructure. Look at how the Bay Bridge went from a $1.5 billion project to $6 billion. At least rail can minimize this by having a much smaller footprint than roads.

Except it doesn't. Again, don't just look at the footprint of the rail line (though that's much larger than people think)--look at the footprint of the PROJECT. That's a significantly larger footprint.

And again, the footprint of highways is already impacted. I've done analyses of highway repair projects--unless they expand the highways, the footprint doesn't change.

All of which means the HSR is going to add tremendously to environmental impacts, not go at the advertised speeds, cost multiple times what the projected costs were, and in general be an enormous money pit with no real advantages when implimented.

 

[Travis]

Wait... this is supposed to be an argument in favor of high-speed rail?

Well, it is an argument that in this regard it is no worse than any other infrastructure.

Except it doesn't. Again, don't just look at the footprint of the rail line (though that's much larger than people think)--look at the footprint of the PROJECT. That's a significantly larger footprint.

And again, the footprint of highways is already impacted. I've done analyses of highway repair projects--unless they expand the highways, the footprint doesn't change.

And expanding the highways is what they will have to do if HSR isn't built. According to Caltrans it will be around $150 billion in expansions. CA99 will be eight lanes from Sacramento to Bakersfield. The grapevine will be 12 lanes.

California is going to have 50 million people soon but with transportation infrastructure designed for less than a third of that. Check out how much expanding I-5 is costing in LA right now. Nearly $300 million a mile. We could just keep doing that but I don't think that is the right path.

All of which means the HSR is going to add tremendously to environmental impacts, not go at the advertised speeds, cost multiple times what the projected costs were, and in general be an enormous money pit with no real advantages when implimented.

No advantage? When it is built I'll be able to live near a station that will whisk me LA in two hours. San Diego in three. Right now I'd have to drive three hours just to get to an airport where I'd wait another two hours to get on a plane. Add in that the planes run on carbon intensive fuel and I see many advantages.

 

[Brainster]

No advantage? When it is built I'll be able to live near a station that will whisk me LA in two hours. San Diego in three. Right now I'd have to drive three hours just to get to an airport where I'd wait another two hours to get on a plane. Add in that the planes run on carbon intensive fuel and I see many advantages.

You're comparing apples and oranges when you talk about where you live now versus where you'll be able to live at some point in the future; I'm guessing where you'll be able to live is a lot closer than three hours from an airport. And you're crazy if you show up at the airport two hours before you get on the plane; I typically arrive about an hour early, max, and usually have about 30-40 minutes of sitting by the gate.

 

[Ziggurat]

When it is built I'll be able to live near a station that will whisk me LA in two hours.

And then what? What do you think you'll be doing once you get there?