High speed rail in the US

[McHrozni]

Right now the fastest speeds achieved are in China and just over 200 mph.

That TX to PA in just under 7 hours.

Not to shabby considering it uses 1/10 of the fuel a plane would.

Rail travel is VERY efficient.

Only if you count out the expenses needed to build and maintain rail tracks. The great advantage of a plane is that it needs comparatively little infrastructure, which is centered in two locations.

Not to mention that once you have the airports in place, you can link any two you want, in any way you want. You're only limited by their capacity in number of take offs and landings and in terms of what sizes of aircraft they can handle.

If fuel costs surge way beyond what they're now, and we're able to generate huge amounts of electricity in some other way, and we don't also become able to synthesize fuel using beforementioned electricity (the last two being rather unlikely) then rail travel will become competitive. Until then ... nope.

McHrozni

 

[BenBurch]

No shovel even hit the ground yet, and the cost estimate has already ballooned to $98 billion.
$114 million per mile of track. That's $2,580 for every California man, woman, and child just to cover the cost of building the trains, never mind operating expenses and maintenance.

And amortized over the expected 40 year life of the roadbed? $65.40 per year.

Less than is spent on CA auto plates.

And the economic benefits? A extra lane added to a freeway is between 3 and 7 million per mile in urban areas and between 2 and 3 million in rural areas, depending on terrain and assuming no major bridges or tunnels.

A lane has the capacity of 1500 to 2000 passenger cars per hour. About 1.5 passengers are in each car, so 2,250 to 3000 passengers per hour.

In Japan, the Shinkansen system can handle ten trains per hour each carrying 1300 passengers for a total of 13,000 passengers per hour.

Assuming the 3000 number, that is 4.33 the capacity of a road lane.

Then the equivalent lanes in urban areas are between 13 and 30.3 million in urban areas and between 8.6 and 13 million in rural areas.

However, the railroad has TWO tracks and can carry almost the same capacity in both directions, but the way commuter operations run there is always a preferred direction of travel during the rush hour, though we see reverse commuting happening more and more and so that bi-directional capacity becomes significant. In places like the Northeast Corridor there is almost no difference in the number of passengers in each direction. In those places, you can double the number of lane-equivalents. 26 to 61 million per mile in the urban case. (These places are nearly all urban.)

So we significantly offset the cost of the road system by simply not building those roads.

And there are;

* pollution reduction benefits (significant in California)
* passengers will save significant money on insurance, fuel, and wear and tear by not using their cars.
* loss of life (and associated economic impacts) due to travel-related accidents will go WAY down.
* Hours of human life lost to commuting will be reduced.
* Train time can be PRODUCTIVE time, but you better not be texting while driving your car.
* With electric HSR, fuel costs can be significantly reduced from road costs as oil becomes more dear. Electric HSR can use regenerative braking that feeds power back into the line to power other trains. Trains going down one side of an incline can pull trains up the other side with their braking energy.

A good deal for everybody.

 

[TjW]

So, four times the capacity, at ten times the price. If we compare full trains to mostly empty automobiles.

 

[BenBurch]

Actually, when you roll in the cost of the automobiles, it almost inverts the equation.

 

[TjW]

Of course, people have a choice of whether or not to buy an automobile.

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually, when you roll in the cost of the automobiles, it almost inverts the equation.

It would be insane to go with trains rather than cars if trains were anywhere NEAR the cost of cars, for the simple reason that trains have intrinsically and vastly inferior capabilities to cars in terms of transporting people.

 

[Ziggurat]

In Japan, the Shinkansen system can handle ten trains per hour each carrying 1300 passengers for a total of 13,000 passengers per hour.

You're smoking crack if you think you can hit Japan-level ridership numbers in California.

And there are;

* pollution reduction benefits (significant in California)

Irony of ironies: the environmentalists are slowing down construction and increasing the cost for HSR in California.

* passengers will save significant money on insurance, fuel, and wear and tear by not using their cars.

I used to make ~1/month trips from SF to LA, and it made zero impact on my insurance rates. And unless ticket prices are heavily subsidized (I mean, beyond initial track construction), then it's not likely to be a money saver overall either.

* loss of life (and associated economic impacts) due to travel-related accidents will go WAY down.

I doubt it would make all that much difference. The last time IO saw figures for this posted, they used aggregate driving statistics which did not reflect the specific sort of driving that HSR would displace. Just like they used total vehicle occupancy stats, rather than inter-city occupancy stats.

* Hours of human life lost to commuting will be reduced.

Probably not so much, given the end-point car rentals that most people will have to use.

* With electric HSR, fuel costs can be significantly reduced from road costs as oil becomes more dear.

Not unless California goes all-in on nuclear. Which... doesn't look likely. It's funny how environmentalism is sabotaging HSR.

Electric HSR can use regenerative braking that feeds power back into the line to power other trains.

The faster you go, the less relevant regenerative braking becomes to your total power budget. That's fiddling at the margins.

 

[BenBurch]

It would be insane to go with trains rather than cars if trains were anywhere NEAR the cost of cars, for the simple reason that trains have intrinsically and vastly inferior capabilities to cars in terms of transporting people.

It's not an either/or thing. The cost of car ownership is proportional to miles traveled more or less. In have had cars I wore out in a couple years with 100 mile commutes and other such nonsense when I was a contractor. And I have a car I bought in 2002 which still has many years on it. You will not use the car in the same proportion as you use transit.

And understand that over the 40 year expected lifetime of the railroad, gasoline will likely be heading for the $20/gallon range.

I have to go have dinner with friends in Chicago now, so I'll address your other responses at some later time, but I will note that Amtrak's commuter operations serve around a million people every day.

 

[WildCat]

And amortized over the expected 40 year life of the roadbed? $65.40 per year.

Less than is spent on CA auto plates.

The during-construction cost overruns aren't even calculated yet. And you're ignoring the ongoing maintenance and operating expenses.

And the economic benefits? A extra lane added to a freeway is between 3 and 7 million per mile in urban areas and between 2 and 3 million in rural areas, depending on terrain and assuming no major bridges or tunnels.

A lane has the capacity of 1500 to 2000 passenger cars per hour. About 1.5 passengers are in each car, so 2,250 to 3000 passengers per hour.

So for every mile of HSR track you can build over 20 miles of urban highway lanes, good to know!

In Japan, the Shinkansen system can handle ten trains per hour each carrying 1300 passengers for a total of 13,000 passengers per hour.

That's great, any evidence that 13,000 Californians an hour will ride the HSR?

Assuming the 3000 number, that is 4.33 the capacity of a road lane.

At over 20 times the cost!

However, the railroad has TWO tracks and can carry almost the same capacity in both directions, but the way commuter operations run there is always a preferred direction of travel during the rush hour, though we see reverse commuting happening more and more and so that bi-directional capacity becomes significant. In places like the Northeast Corridor there is almost no difference in the number of passengers in each direction. In those places, you can double the number of lane-equivalents. 26 to 61 million per mile in the urban case. (These places are nearly all urban.)

You ever try to leave Chicago during rush hour? Not much difference congestion-wise.

So we significantly offset the cost of the road system by simply not building those roads.

No, you still have to build roads. You can't move freight to its destination on passenger rail.

And there are;

* pollution reduction benefits (significant in California)
* passengers will save significant money on insurance, fuel, and wear and tear by not using their cars.
* loss of life (and associated economic impacts) due to travel-related accidents will go WAY down.
* Hours of human life lost to commuting will be reduced.
* Train time can be PRODUCTIVE time, but you better not be texting while driving your car.
* With electric HSR, fuel costs can be significantly reduced from road costs as oil becomes more dear. Electric HSR can use regenerative braking that feeds power back into the line to power other trains. Trains going down one side of an incline can pull trains up the other side with their braking energy.

I'm not seeing $100 billion, plus unknown billions in annual subsidies in perpetuity, of benefits there. And I certainly don't think many people will be using HSR for their daily commute.

A good deal for everybody the 1% of the population that will use it regularly.

ftfy

 

[WildCat]

Of course, people have a choice of whether or not to buy an automobile.

And an automobile can go places trains can't. In fact, most people will need an auttomobile to get to the HSR station.

 

[WildCat]

I have to go have dinner with friends in Chicago now, so I'll address your other responses at some later time, but I will note that Amtrak's commuter operations serve around a million people every day.

And those passengers pay only 1/3 of the cost of those trains. Taxpayers pick up the rest.

 

[mortimer]

And amortized over the expected 40 year life of the roadbed? $65.40 per year.

Less than is spent on CA auto plates.

CA license plates cost over $65/year per capita? If that's so, I understand why CA is in such financial straits!

 

[WildCat]

And amortized over the expected 40 year life of the roadbed? $65.40 per year.

Actually by my calculations it would be $125.34 per person per year assuming a 4% interest rate.

eta: Ben lied when he said he was going out to dinner in Chicago. I live in Chicago, and I haven't seen him!

 

[esquel]

I've ridden on Amtrak a couple of times, and despite many detractors, I prefer it for any non time sensitive travel. The seats are more comfortable, it is easier to get up and move about (which is nice on longer trips), and if you travel overnight, you often have the option of getting a sleeper compartment. The main drawbacks are the fact that it is more expensive than air travel, especially for sleepers, and it doesn't service my area directly. Taking a train cross country is much more relaxing than cramming myself into a flying aluminum tube, with about the same level of comfort as an astronaut.

 

[L.Y.S.]

I've ridden on Amtrak a couple of times, and despite many detractors, I prefer it for any non time sensitive travel. The seats are more comfortable, it is easier to get up and move about (which is nice on longer trips), and if you travel overnight, you often have the option of getting a sleeper compartment. The main drawbacks are the fact that it is more expensive than air travel, especially for sleepers, and it doesn't service my area directly. Taking a train cross country is much more relaxing than cramming myself into a flying aluminum tube, with about the same level of comfort as an astronaut.

Yeah cost, timing, and location are serious draw backs for a transit system. I'm imagining cost are more related to the amount of traffic, timing of course "speed of rail”, and location having to do with servicing high traffic areas. It would be great if they could build a few cheap rail stations for out in the more secluded areas, or if they could connect them using some other means. I myself am not opposed to high speed rail passenger trains; it's just that I've yet to hear a rational proposal for such a project. Such a proposal would have to be economically efficient (would have to see financial return within 10-15 years), robust and enduring (lasts for at least 50+ if not 100 years with low cost maintenance), and capable of being expanded as needed (to assist the growing population).

 

[Ziggurat]

I have to go have dinner with friends in Chicago now, so I'll address your other responses at some later time, but I will note that Amtrak's commuter operations serve around a million people every day.

Mostly on the east coast, not California. And hardly any of it "high speed" either.

 

[Muldur]

The one time I took Amtrak was from Boston to NYC, and it was not a pleasant trip. Took forever, and stopped at every podunk town along the way.

God forbid that people outside the urban centers should be able to take advantage of reliable public transportation...

 

[applecorped]

They can't?

 

[WildCat]

God forbid that people outside the urban centers should be able to take advantage of reliable public transportation...

Yep, let's stop that bullet train every 15 miles or so!

 

[mortimer]

Yep, let's stop that bullet train every 15 miles or so!

Every 15 miles? How are folks who live 10 miles from the nearest station supposed to get there?