High speed rail in the US

[WildCat]

Not sure about that one. Air traffic control equipment is necessary and that costs a ton. All of which is maintained by federal agencies if I am not mistaken.

And paid for through airline taxes.

 

[Ziggurat]

Really? But why ignore the costs of takeoff and landing?

Because those are mostly sunk costs. We've already paid for our airports.

(Also the costs of the airplanes themselves are surely "infrastructure".)

Airplanes are capital costs, but they aren't what is commonly considered infrastructure.

So that huge multi-million dollar runway extension at Lambert field wasn't necessary?

Multi-million dollar infrastructure upgrade costs are still a lot less than multi-billion dollar infrastructure development costs.

(Turns out it wasn't, since Lambert is no longer actually an international airport.)

I don't think that's true. You don't actually need to have regularly scheduled international flights in order to qualify as an international airport.

And airplanes themselves aren't any cost?

Sure, and so are locomotives.

Also, if we're looking to stimulate the economy and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, it seems to me building this infrastructure would be a good use of stimulus money that would address both issues.

It could be, in principle. For various reasons, including the ones Wildcat mentioned above, it almost certainly won't be.

 

[jdp]

And paid for through airline taxes.

And there is no reason to say that similar costs to a rail road couldn't be paid by taxes on the tickets or from general taxes the way all the infrastructure to support planes and roads are maintained.

 

[King of the Americas]

The numbers for Amtrak for FY2009:

Total passenger related revenue: $1.857 billion.

Total expenses: $3.434 billion.

Source

Yeah, let's expand that program!

Amtrak sucks because it isn't fast, doesn't cater to enough destinations, and the cars smell weird.

 

[Ziggurat]

And there is no reason to say that similar costs to a rail road couldn't be paid by taxes on the tickets

Small problem: ridership estimates are typically performed on the assumption of ticket prices which do not include all those costs. Include them and ridership plummets. Which will cause a downward spiral, as decreasing ridership intensifies the tax burden on each ticket, pushing prices up and ridership down.

 

[jdp]

The highway was laid out primarily for military uses, so the military could move about the country quickly. Inspired by the German Autobahn, which was created for much the same purpose. That passenger cars and commercial trucks can also use it is a side benefit.

And it's not like we can tear up the Eisenhower Expressway system if we build high-speed rail.


Which are just fine for hauling ginormous amounts of freight. And economical. High-speed rail will likely be nothing but a drain on tax dollars, much like Amtrak is today. Airports pay for themselves eventually, and plane tickets don't need to be subsidized. In fact, they're taxed.

I don't think anyone suggested tearing up the expressway system both are useful for different situations. The military could find the rails useful too.

 

[dtugg]

And there is no reason to say that similar costs to a rail road couldn't be paid by taxes on the tickets

As WildCat pointed out, Amtrak's passenger related revenue is only 50% of it expenses.

or from general taxes the way all the infrastructure to support planes and roads are maintained.

I'm sure that's how it would be done. And for one connecting the US, it would cost trillions of dollars. Trillions we do not have.

 

[WildCat]

And there is no reason to say that similar costs to a rail road couldn't be paid by taxes on the tickets or from general taxes the way all the infrastructure to support planes and roads are maintained.

Actually, there is a reason: people don't want to pay $200 for a train ticket when they could fly for the same price. Or drive for less.

That's why Amtrak fares cover only 54% or so of the expenses.

 

[Ziggurat]

Amtrak sucks because it isn't fast, doesn't cater to enough destinations, and the cars smell weird.

I took Amtrak once, from California to Oregon. The return trip was delayed about 10 hours. I don't remember the cause of the delay, but I doubt "high-speed" rail will be immune to it. And high-speed rail will cater to far fewer destinations than Amtrak currently does, and nothing about being high speed will stop cars from smelling weird.

 

[jdp]

Small problem: ridership estimates are typically performed on the assumption of ticket prices which do not include all those costs. Include them and ridership plummets. Which will cause a downward spiral, as decreasing ridership intensifies the tax burden on each ticket, pushing prices up and ridership down.

I don't disagree that cost could be a problem, a trip from DC to PHL would cost about twice as much on Amtrak now but that doesn't mean there isn't a place for high speed intra-city rail. Driving truly sucks for most purposes primarily because of the traffic and that's just getting worse. Unfortunately, that's the only option in most circumstances.

 

[jdp]

Actually, there is a reason: people don't want to pay $200 for a train ticket when they could fly for the same price. Or drive for less.

That's why Amtrak fares cover only 54% or so of the expenses.

And when the airlines started out the cost was also prohibitively expensive for most people.

 

[WildCat]

And when the airlines started out the cost was also prohibitively expensive for most people.

So were trains when they first came out. And still are apparently, because train fares need massive subsidies to entice people to ride them.

Your point?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I took Amtrak once, from California to Oregon. The return trip was delayed about 10 hours.

How long were you sitting on the tarmac not being allowed to go to the bathroom?

 

[ponderingturtle]

So were trains when they first came out. And still are apparently, because train fares need massive subsidies to entice people to ride them.

Your point?

Admittedly the automotive part gets massive subsides to entice people to drive as well.

 

[mortimer]

At present, it takes the better part of a day, 8-12 hours including the layover, to get to PA from here. We'd make the trip more often, if it were 1/10th the cost.

First of all, I seriously doubt your 1/10th the cost figure.

Second, what's the point of stating it'd take 7 hours for a train to get from TX to PA, when with all the stops, transfers, etc, it'd likely take 36 hours or so? Current Amtrak service from central TX to Philly takes upwards of 60 hours.

 

[Ziggurat]

And when the airlines started out the cost was also prohibitively expensive for most people.

Yes, but the costs required for small passenger numbers could be born by those small numbers. Cut the ridership numbers for high-speed rail, and there's no chance in hell anybody could afford ticket prices which would actually pay for the system. Unlike air travel, the costs are HUGE even if you're only driving one person a day. It's only at high ridership numbers that rail has even a chance at competing.

High-speed rail requires a massive up-front investment that air travel never did. If it works as hoped and enough people ride it, then those costs can be recovered. But if it doesn't, or if too few people decide to take rail, then its tens of billions of dollars down the drain. And success, while it may be possible, sure as hell isn't guaranteed. In particular, cost estimates of construction could be far too low, especially in places like California (which has to worry about earth quakes, mudslides, and environmentalists).

 

[King of the Americas]

First of all, I seriously doubt your 1/10th the cost figure.

Second, what's the point of stating it'd take 7 hours for a train to get from TX to PA, when with all the stops, transfers, etc, it'd likely take 36 hours or so? Current Amtrak service from central TX to Philly takes upwards of 60 hours.

That number came from the first link featured, it was talking about comparative fuel costs, trains vs airplanes.

I just checked the cost of a train ride to PA.

We are SO doing it. It'll take almost 2 days, but getting to stretch out on a bed, and getting to 'see' the land...that sounds good to me!

With the room it was right at $700 for 2 adults.

 

[WildCat]

That number came from the first link featured, it was talking about comparative fuel costs, trains vs airplanes.

I just checked the cost of a train ride to PA.

We are SO doing it. It'll take almost 2 days, but getting to stretch out on a bed, and getting to 'see' the land...that sounds good to me!

With the room it was right at $700 for 2 adults.

That's one way, right? It's cheaper to fly, and only takes a few hours, but you don't get to look at 1200 miles of corn fields I guess.

 

[jdp]

Yes, but the costs required for small passenger numbers could be born by those small numbers. Cut the ridership numbers for high-speed rail, and there's no chance in hell anybody could afford ticket prices which would actually pay for the system. Unlike air travel, the costs are HUGE even if you're only driving one person a day. It's only at high ridership numbers that rail has even a chance at competing.

And the cost for small passenger numbers for airlines is prohibitive too. There are many commuter routes which only carry a few passengers a day which stay in service primarily through government subsidy. Without it the airline would close that route.

High-speed rail requires a massive up-front investment that air travel never did. If it works (in terms of ridership) as hoped and enough people ride it, then those costs can be recovered. But if it doesn't, or if too few people decide to take rail, then its tens of billions of dollars down the drain. And success, while it may be possible, sure as hell isn't guaranteed. In particular, cost estimates of construction could be far too low, especially in places like California (which has to worry about earth quakes, mudslides, and environmentalists).

Bull. Air travel was massively subsidized when it started at which time we didn't know if it would work or whether enough people would ever use it. It continues to be subsidized today, the FAA got around 3 billion dollars last year from general funds. Highways got 10 billion it seems.

ETA: Texas to PA is clearly a fly.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's one way, right? It's cheaper to fly, and only takes a few hours, but you don't get to look at 1200 miles of corn fields I guess.

Nope just the terminal for 10 hours because some airport that is not the one you are in or the one you are going to has some issue.