High speed rail in the US.

[WildCat]

And it's great to see that the federal government has so much money to spend on HSR, while regional light rail in cities across the country is crumbling due to lack of funding. It's like building an addition to your house instead of fixing the roof which is rotting away.

 

[Ladewig]

Speaking from the New England perspective here, it was only about a hundred years ago that local trolleys and railways dotted the region. Where I lived in the 70's and 80's, Western Connecticut, there was once a street railway that ran all the way up half the state edge and into Pittsfield, Massachusetts. There was also an East-West railway running from Hartford across the top of the state until the 1950's, a North-South railway running along the western edge, and another North South railway across the line in New York, running up the eastern edge of that state until the 1970's. All but the North south line are gone, turned either back to pasture or into bikeways, and the North South has been freight only for about 50 years, except for scenic rides on a seasonal schedule. In addition, every town of any size had trolleys that went through the city and out to the suburbs, all done in by the 1950's and paved over.

Depending on your point of view, the time for rail travel ended, or the automotive culture, and (so I read) the clever act by General Motors of buying up old trolley lines and replacing them with buses, spelled a permanent end to mass rail transit here, or the government made a big mistake by subsidizing highways and letting rail travel wither. It will never be remotely practical now to regain the rights of way that railways gave away or allowed to lapse in past years.

On the other hand, subways in Chicago, NYC and Washington still have large riderships. But in any case the thread is more about high speed rail - which does work well within Japan and between some European capitals. However that does not necessarily mean it will be profitable or even near profitable in California.

ETA: I do somewhat acknowledge your point. One of the reasons the Japanese and Europeans are willing to use HSR is that they know that when they reach their destinations there will be extensive, clean, safe, and reliable public transportation that can take them anywhere in the city for a dollar or two.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Here's an actual published study done by academics with lots of letters after their names, not by train aficionados trying to get everyone else to pay for their fetish: http://www.its.berkeley.edu/publications/UCB/2010/RR/UCB-ITS-RR-2010-1.pdf

Huh? Was that supposed to support your claim that California's HSR system will have to have load factors double other HSR systems? I don't see how it does.

But hey, California has billions of dollars they don't know what to do with I suppose...

Have you got a way to address the transportation needs of California that won't cost billions of dollars?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Airports serve an economic need and actually turn a profit while doing so.

It's hard to take comments like this seriously. You're implying that airports are an economic need but rails stations can't be? Seriously?

And I can't substantiate your claim that airports are actually profitable. I just tried to google that claim and didn't find any definitive information. And it's not like cost overruns don't happen for airports, DIA was certainly problematic in that regard.

 

[Kestrel]

Wouldn't it be possible (and advisable) to have siesmic monitoring equipment hooked into the fail-safe mechanisms?

Some railway lines in California have been connected to the USGS seismic warning system for at least 20 years.

 

[Kestrel]

It's hard to take comments like this seriously. You're implying that airports are an economic need but rails stations can't be? Seriously?

And I can't substantiate your claim that airports are actually profitable. I just tried to google that claim and didn't find any definitive information. And it's not like cost overruns don't happen for airports, DIA was certainly problematic in that regard.

The DIA cost overruns were mostly due to two factors. A higher than expected cost for land (speculators were gaming the system) and finance costs due to the delay in opening for business. Press reports of the cost overrun were also greatly exaggerated. Comparing costs estimates that didn't include finance costs with a total bill that did.

Since opening, DIA has been running at a profit.

 

[Aepervius]

A higher than expected cost for land (speculators were gaming the system)

Hum. Don't you do eminnent domain for this, and usually pay what the neighborhood cost was in the last few years or so to squash speculation for such project ? I remember it being so but maybe that's only here and not in the US.

As for all the other : all high speed rail i know of is profitable even when there is an airport conccurence. Also highway is not really a conccurence once you udnerstand that between two such point where there is HSR in parallel, a car will be roughly half slower, and that is not even counting fuel cost (probably much lower in the US) and the cost on tiredness.
I'll admit the example I know of are only Japan, Germany and France so maybe the US culture has an aversion for rail I dunno.

 

[WildCat]

Huh? Was that supposed to support your claim that California's HSR system will have to have load factors double other HSR systems? I don't see how it does.

The summary:

The review was commissioned by California’s Senate Transportation and Housing Committee, chaired by Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), and was funded by the rail authority. The researchers presented their findings to the rail authority and the California State Senate yesterday (Wednesday, June 30).
Some of the key problems highlighted in the report include the model’s use of:

• A sample of long-distance travelers that was not sufficiently representative, and of a statistical method to adjust for that difference that has since been proven unreliable
• Statistical adjustments that were valid for intra-regional ridership models, but not for inter-regional ones, thereby exaggerating the importance of having frequent service
• A structure that predetermines which high-speed rail station travelers will choose rather than allowing travelers to make the choice themselves
• Restrictions that were based on professional judgment instead of on observed data

Here's a video of the testimony of a HSR expert (and HSR proponent) to the California legislature detailing the ridership numbers. Pay attention to the "load factors" and "intensity", or ridership per unit of population:

California's official projections call for ridership more than twice that of any other HSR system on the planet.

Have you got a way to address the transportation needs of California that won't cost billions of dollars?

Cost vs. benefit is the proper metric to use, you can't just look at one without the other. I already stated in other HSR threads that developing electric car infrastructure would be a far better use of this money.

It's hard to take comments like this seriously. You're implying that airports are an economic need but rails stations can't be? Seriously?

I'm saying that airports both fulfill an economic need and they do so profitably. They pay for themselves over time. Medium to long distance passenger trains, not so much. Whatever economic benefit they bring is dwarfed by the costs they incur.

Do you think HSR is the best use for this money?

And I can't substantiate your claim that airports are actually profitable. I just tried to google that claim and didn't find any definitive information. And it's not like cost overruns don't happen for airports, DIA was certainly problematic in that regard.

Okay:

In recent years, however, the portion of revenue coming from non-aeronautical sources has risen to 50%, and at larger airports as high as 60%. An International Civil Aviation Authority study released in September of 53 North American airports found that in 2005, a year in which the airlines lost $10 billion, the airports earned $2 billion. Only five airports failed to turn a profit.
The top 50 North American airports had $4.6 billion in sales, according to the 2007 edition of Airport Revenue News' annual Fact Book. The largest airports by sales volume, Atlanta and Chicago, each do nearly $300 million a year.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/06/02/av...iz-logistics-cx_af_0603aviation08_delays.html

 

[ThunderChunky]

Huh? Was that supposed to support your claim that California's HSR system will have to have load factors double other HSR systems? I don't see how it does.

Have you got a way to address the transportation needs of California that won't cost billions of dollars?

High speed rail doesn't address our transportation needs. Sure it's cool, but all it will replace some people flying on airplanes...that's it. A much cheaper way to improve the traffic situation is to bring self driving cars online. This reduces traffic, saves money on fuel, and saves lives ...all for a fraction of the cost of high speed rail.

Some people will get rich off the rail project but transportation wont be improved at all. Thankfully, self driving cars are coming with or without investment by the state...it's just a shame to waste all this money.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

The summary:

From your summary:

As such, it is not possible to predict whether the proposed high-speed rail system in California will experience healthy profits or severe revenue shortfalls.”

That's hardly what you claimed.

Here's a video of the testimony of a HSR expert (and HSR proponent) to the California legislature detailing the ridership numbers. Pay attention to the "load factors" and "intensity", or ridership per unit of population:[..snipped video...]
California's official projections call for ridership more than twice that of any other HSR system on the planet.

Thanks for that one experts opinion. Perhaps you could make your point yourself? He appeared to contradict you and also appeared to be working with old information (which was probably current at the time, since it's an old video).

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

High speed rail doesn't address our transportation needs. Sure it's cool, but all it will replace some people flying on airplanes...that's it.

Did you see the numbers and costs cited for California's needs for additional airports, runways and gates? It's not a small deal.

Autonomous cars sound like a great idea to me too, but I don't see how they address the same need as HSR. It's not like there is one magic form of transportation that will address all needs.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

http://www.forbes.com/2008/06/02/av...iz-logistics-cx_af_0603aviation08_delays.html

That article seems to be saying that airports profit by not transporting you. It's an article about airports profiting from non travel related commerce aided by delays in travel.

But still it seems to be missing the point. You (and more so Beerina) seemed to be saying the model of public financing can't work for HSR but then point at airlines as a success story, but airports are publicly funded.

 

[Agammamon]

California seems perfect for this. Wonder why it took so long. Car culture in the US?

California is far from perfect for this - its why it has to be funded by taken money fromother states and forcing bonds locally.


1. Its not "high speed", not in the way that you tend to think of when you hear those words. Its maybe 25ish% faster than a regular train.

2. It won't be able to compete with aircraft on cost without HUUUUUGE subsidies.

3. It won't be able to compete with aircraft on time if it makes stops between LA and SF and it won't have a lot of riders if it doesn't.

4. The business case presented by the HSR organization is basically lies - excuse me, I mean extremely optimistic forcasts for ridership that no fixed-rail public transportation system built in the last 30 years has ever come close to meeting.

The real purpose of the HSR, which passed despite public opinion being against the expense, is to curry favor with the federal government and the current administration so that when the inevitable comes Brown can go hat-in-hand to Congress and ask for a bailout for his state's failing government.

Brown, and I had some good hopes for the guy initially, doesn't have the power/courage to face down CA's entrenched public sector. Without doing that he's never going to get the state's finances in order. You can only raise taxes so much before the people paying run out of money - he's got to cut spending and huge pensions, salaries, and benefits - heck even the number of people on the government payroll - have got to be slashed.

 

[WildCat]

From your summary:

That's hardly what you claimed.

Joe Vranich's testimony (which you curiously ignored ) confirms that the ridership levels projected were twice (actually ore than that) what any other HSR project has achieved.

Thanks for that one experts opinion. Perhaps you could make your point yourself? He appeared to contradict you and also appeared to be working with old information (which was probably current at the time, since it's an old video).

The Berkeley study was confirmed last year. this wasn't a study commisioned by critics, it was commissioned by the State of California. Joe Vranich likewise wasn't called to testify as a critic, he is a lifelong proponent of HSR. But he couldn't endorse this white elephant.

What have you offered besides pleadings from rail buffs?

 

[Agammamon]

I have heard of electric cars, but not that they will drive as fast as high speed rail. I don´t see how electric cars are an answer superior to HSR for any intercity travel needs. Not to talk of intercontinental travel needs, for which purpose China and Russia are planning a HSR from Beijing to Paris. Needs to be helluva electric car to serve that distance in a way superior to HSR.

Why would you take a train from Beijing to Paris of you can fly for the same or less money and take a fraction of the time to do it? HRS is useless for inter-continental travel - if you've got time and no money, you take a bus, if you've got money and no time you take a plane. A train is only useful to those who have time *and* money - why do you think most "Coastliner" passengers are retirees who really love trains?

 

[WildCat]

That article seems to be saying that airports profit by not transporting you. It's an article about airports profiting from non travel related commerce aided by delays in travel.

But still it seems to be missing the point. You (and more so Beerina) seemed to be saying the model of public financing can't work for HSR but then point at airlines as a success story, but airports are publicly funded.

What on earth are you blathering about? Airports turn a profit, as I've proven.

Unless you really don't see the difference between government-funded projects that add to the economy as opposed to government-funded projects that suck money out of the economy?

 

[Agammamon]

And we would need to adress the eminent domain issues. To make the HSR work we'll have to take a lot of property from people and transfer it over to a private company. While the supreme court may be cool with **** like this (see Kelo vs New London) most of the rest of the country views that as theft.

 

[Agammamon]

And finally, name a HSR project in the entire world that doens't require an operational subsidy to cover costs - ie the users of the service do not bear thefull costs of the service.

Drivers - no subsidy - fuel taxes cover expenses related to raod maintainance.
Airlines - $5 per thousand miles traveled
Mass transit - $118 per thousand
Passenger rail - $186.

And the final reason rail sucks is that if people decide they no longer want to travel between SF and LA then the planes, buses, and cars move to where the people want to go - the rails and trains can't.

 

[Agammamon]

On the other hand, subways in Chicago, NYC and Washington still have large riderships. But in any case the thread is more about high speed rail - which does work well within Japan and between some European capitals. However that does not necessarily mean it will be profitable or even near profitable in California.

ETA: I do somewhat acknowledge your point. One of the reasons the Japanese and Europeans are willing to use HSR is that they know that when they reach their destinations there will be extensive, clean, safe, and reliable public transportation that can take them anywhere in the city for a dollar or two.

Even the Japanese and Euro trains require huge operational subsidies to keep running. And there is an extremely good mass trainsit system in both SF and LA - its called buses and cabs, same as in europe and Japan.

 

[Kestrel]

Hum. Don't you do eminnent domain for this, and usually pay what the neighborhood cost was in the last few years or so to squash speculation for such project ? I remember it being so but maybe that's only here and not in the US.

Yes, we do have eminent domain. The speculators gamed the system by trading land between themselves and filing court challenges. To keep the project on track, the project managers paid a higher price rather than wait for courts to move at their usual glacial pace.

As for all the other : all high speed rail i know of is profitable even when there is an airport conccurence. Also highway is not really a conccurence once you udnerstand that between two such point where there is HSR in parallel, a car will be roughly half slower, and that is not even counting fuel cost (probably much lower in the US) and the cost on tiredness.
I'll admit the example I know of are only Japan, Germany and France so maybe the US culture has an aversion for rail I dunno.

The US passenger rail system in the Northeast runs a profit. But that is about the only area that has anything approaching high speed rail. Rail is highly competitive with air travel when it connects two urban areas with populations over 1 million and the trip by rail takes two hours or less. Even for somewhat longer trip times, it can do quite well. The trip from Boston to New York City on Amtrak is over 4 hours, but rail still gets half of the traffic between these two cities.

Passenger rail in the rest of the country is rather slow. Sharing tracks with freight and limited by safety regulations to 78 mph in most places.