High Speed Trains a Waste of Money

[Hanno]

According to this article building a network of HSR is a waste of effort and money. Not the kind of article I want to see but perhaps it has some validity especially relative to the cost. Any thoughts?

 

[MattW]

Interesting points, but I call BS. The NEC itself handles "14 percent of all intercity trips (including those by automobile) between Washington, D.C., and New York City and about 47 percent of trips between those cities by rail or air carrier.9" (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/45xx/doc4571/09-26-PassengerRail.pdf page 19)

Yes the NEC is kind of unique, but the numbers are WAAAY more significant than the number in the article. Plus, it says it won't reduce greenhouse emissions. Even if you believe in the global warming myth, reducing pollution is good and is exactly what these trains will do. The trains will be electric, and a good chunk of our electricity is generated by clean sources. Currently, other than electrified railways, there is no truly clean transportation system in this country. Electric cars aren't here yet, and planes will likely always burn hydrocarbons until either hydrogen, or electric-only portable power sources are [further] developed. Every person not using one of the polluting-modes is reducing pollution by a small amount.

It also says "not commuter trains". If the rail is fast enough, there's no reason why they couldn't be used as commuter trains. I think in the commuter rail distance argument in the commuter rail forum, someone mentioned people commuting Lille to Paris. The cities are 140 miles by road from each other (via Google) which is about an hour's travel time by TGV. That's how much time I spend going my 45 miles each day...

 

[Ryan]

No. It makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[George Harris]

I have gotten to where I do not even read this stuff. Generally, they either cook their statistics or assume their conclusion as a necessary part of getting to it.

It is actually amazing that the Northeast Corridor carries as many people as it does since connecitivity to other locations both near and distant is so poor.

 

[henryj]

According to this article building a network of HSR is a waste of effort and money. Not the kind of article I want to see but perhaps it has some validity especially relative to the cost. Any thoughts?

High speed rail works in Europe because of the population density and the general closeness of major metropolitan areas, and fuel there is $6-8 a gallon and automobiles have a 19% vat tax added to their initial costs, and there is no place to park and traffic congestion is terrific. Here in the US we span 3,000 miles coast to coast. HSR would only work in certain highly congested corridors. We would be better served if they would just concentrate on 'higher' speed rail, that is up to 110mph outside of the nec. LA to SF and Chi to Nyk are just too far apart. It's a huge waste of money. People are not going to get out of their cars. Cars will just evolve into more fuel efficient vehicles(as they already are) and life will go on as usual. The best bet for rail is commuter rail where people don't really need to drive to work and back every day.

Our transportation system needs to fundamentally change the way it works and is funded anyway for the various modes to settle into their most economic niche. Right now it's all subsidized in one way or another by the governments both state and Federal. So where the government puts it's money heavily influences which mode is used the most, not necessarily the most efficient. Interstate highways need to be toll roads. Airlines should pay their own way, including the cost of air traffic controllers and airports. The rest of the highway system should be funded from gasoline taxes or some other form that directly impacts automobile users. The DOT's, both Fed and State should be profit centers, not government agencies. People should be able to see directly the cost of driving vs rail vs air vs bus by seeing a bill every time the use one mode or the other. Right now costs are hidden in various forms of taxes and fees so no one really sees the actual direct costs. driving seems to be free because we already have the car sitting in the garage and all it needs is fuel to go. Put a meter on it so you get billed everytime you use it. If all the systems are privatized and have to reflect their true costs then the market place will be the true arbitrator as to which mode fits where and which works best in which markets. Government funded HSR is not going to work except in special markets because the country is dead broke. It can't even meet it's basic obligations and entitlements much less HSR and other pie in the sky ideas.

 

[Ryan]

The DOT's, both Fed and State should be profit centers, not government agencies. People should be able to see directly the cost of driving vs rail vs air vs bus by seeing a bill every time the use one mode or the other.

--snip--

If all the systems are privatized

Isn't going to happen. Moving goods and people from point A to point B will not and can not be profitable. If there was a profit to be had, business would get into the market. If people were to have to pay the full costs of getting to work, massive social upheaval would result, as there are many that literally couldn't afford to get to work and back and many more that wouldn't be able to pay increased prices for food and other staples.

 

[highballing]

I think it really comes down to mindset. High speed rail in other country's, people have come to more of a appreciation and acceptance of that mode of travel. Where in the states, outside of Plane travel. Cars and buses have become the norm for the traveling public and some forms of light rail. Retraining people to think, that you don't have to leave the ground to travel long distances, is the key on this for sure. Our transportation system outside of planes is very outdated. From Arbitrary low speed limits on open interstates. An aging train system, that really needs updating in the velocity department, in the form of high speed rail. I'm not saying that high speed rail will solve all are transportation problems. But if people can come to a appreciation for high speed rail and it becomes a viable form of transportation to get around the country then it could certainly reduce the amount of vehicles on the road. Another thing to consider is that you can't really blame the U.S. traveling public because outside of plane travel what other form of quick transportation is there that goes 100+ besides the Acela.

A great example of high speed rail use would be lets say you want to me some relative at Point B for dinner and chat. Well being that your at point A. The distance is lets say 230 miles. Without high speed rail. Your only option would be to take a plane. We all know the hassle that would be or take a car. Which combine with traffic and the stress of driving the car you wont feel refresh at your destination or when you return back. This would be one of many situations where high speed rail would fit in.

One would also say. If the high speed rail was already done in U.S. and the fares where competitive. Would you find yourself on the high speed rail. If you did then you didn't thing it was such a waste of money after all.

 

[George Harris]

I think a look at what has happened to the California supported trains puts the lie to "People won't get out of their cars." These trains have grown significantly in passenger volume without much in the way of increase in speed. There has however, been much effort put into reliability, a consistent program of station and platform improvements, and having clean equipment with reasonably good and priced food service on all trains.

Now, if a significant increase in speed could be achieved, ridership would take off. Right now there are a lot of people riding that willingingly take a four hour train ride to avoid the hassles of a, if conditions are right, three to 3.5 hour train ride. If the driving time advantage dissapears, ridership should skyrocket. This is the reality that makes the California High Speed Rail project the right thing to do.

It does not take European conditions to make it work. Much of the belief that the way they do things in Europe concerning rail (and many other things as well) is simply a "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence" perspective. Given the travel time and population conditions rail service will work here. When we look at the ridership in Europe, it is also worth remembering that the very high tax regime in most western European countries leaves many people with far less discretionary than we are used to having. Also, travel distances average much shorter. Lay a map of Europe over a map of the US with both at the same scale.

 

[Pastor Dave]

I suppose that whether it is "essential infrastructure" or "old-fashioned pork-barrel" is in the eye of the beholder.

The "economic geography" argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Suburbanization has put just as many folks further away from airports as train stations. I can get to 30th St Station in Philadelphia as quickly as I can Philadelphia Airport. Yes, there are more parking options at the airport, so that might be an issue.

Perhaps I'm biased living in the Northeast. For example, for me to go to Boston, I can easily take a bus to New York and grab the Acela or NEC service. I can, and do, see lots of folks doing such a thing. Now perhaps trying to fit the same model into a trip from Fort Worth - Houston or St. Louis - Kansas City might not work as well.

Finally, HSR should not be presented as a short-term fix to our transportation/energy/environmental concerns. It, IMHO, needs to be considered over the long-term to really appreciate its value.

 

[Guest]

While I support HSR, what I see happening with each proposal is really not what I had hoped for.

For example, in Florida, the HS link between Orlando and Tampa has already been dowsed with politics and compromise such that there is already 5 intermediary stations included. With those, there is no hope that any train would have enough time to achieve and sustain any sort of "high speed". Plus, factor in dwell time at each station, you might as well take a bus or drive your own car since they will take about the same time to travel between Orlando and Tampa.

Of course, then the operation of this HS rail fails, the blame would be placed squarely on the concept of HS rails, and not any on the rather poor implementation.

 

[henryj]

Interesting arguments on all points. However, we should never underestimate the attraction of a pmv(personal mobility vehicle). Even if oil hits $200 a barrel and fuel is $10 a gallon the pmv will morf into something we can use economically whether it's a 'golf cart' or fuel cell or whatever. The niche for passenger rail then will be commuter oriented as in to work and back and short distance inter-city. Of course, one of our favorites, long distance rail can continue as is as it's more like a land cruise and becomes just part of the vacation. True HSR however needs a separate row and must be built from scratch, hence it's extraordinarly expensive to implement and only cost effective in very dense markets. Short distance inter-city rail can function on existing tracks and row if we emphasize point to point speed, not blinding top speed. Eliminate the bottle necks. Bring track speed up to 90-110 mph. It's not that hard to do. Many existing routes once supported multiple passenger trains at such speeds. How to fund this is the issue. Europeans fund it with high gasoline taxes and the vat tax. We need something similar since as was pointed out above high fees and tolls could strangle our transportation system. Germany perhaps sets a good example with their autobahns with high allowable speeds or no limits and their approach to HSR which is to build short sections of HSR that connect to basic grid but increase point to point timings. Germany, as in most of Europe, has a high population density, high fuel costs, little parking and traffic congestion. For anything like this to suceed here we need DOT's that look at overall mobility, not just highways and airports. However they fund it, it all comes out of the same pot. It's just how they approach mobility, not which mode has the best lobby.

 

[George Harris]

there is already 5 intermediary stations included. With those, there is no hope that any train would have enough time to achieve and sustain any sort of "high speed".

Just because there are 5 intermediate stations does not mean that all trains will stop at all stations. Most HSR systems runa combination of "local" and "express" services. Local is still fast. Example: The Taiwan HSR: The express trains make two stops, one a suburban Taipei stop, the other at Taichung, about the halfway point. 1 hour 35 minutes for 210 miles. The locals make 7 intermediate stops and take 2 hours flat. So, 25 minutes for 5 additional stops makes for 5 minutes per stop, and this from 186 mph. In actuality, the schedule even has some slack in it. Not a lot, but some.

 

[Guest]

Just because there are 5 intermediate stations does not mean that all trains will stop at all stations. Most HSR systems runa combination of "local" and "express" services. Local is still fast. Example: The Taiwan HSR: The express trains make two stops, one a suburban Taipei stop, the other at Taichung, about the halfway point. 1 hour 35 minutes for 210 miles. The locals make 7 intermediate stops and take 2 hours flat. So, 25 minutes for 5 additional stops makes for 5 minutes per stop, and this from 186 mph. In actuality, the schedule even has some slack in it. Not a lot, but some.

I think its a lot to assume that there will be enough passengers to support duplicate trains, both a "local" and an "express", between Orlando and Tampa. Plus, I am not as sure as you that a "local" would have enough time to accelerate up to speeds like 186mph, sustain it for any reasonable length of time, and then slow to a stop again. The distance between Orlando and Tampa, divided up into 6 chunks, is only 15 miles each.

 

[leemell]

According to this article building a network of HSR is a waste of effort and money. Not the kind of article I want to see but perhaps it has some validity especially relative to the cost. Any thoughts?

High speed rail works in Europe because of the population density and the general closeness of major metropolitan areas, and fuel there is $6-8 a gallon and automobiles have a 19% vat tax added to their initial costs, and there is no place to park and traffic congestion is terrific. Here in the US we span 3,000 miles coast to coast. HSR would only work in certain highly congested corridors. We would be better served if they would just concentrate on 'higher' speed rail, that is up to 110mph outside of the nec. LA to SF and Chi to Nyk are just too far apart. It's a huge waste of money. People are not going to get out of their cars. Cars will just evolve into more fuel efficient vehicles(as they already are) and life will go on as usual. The best bet for rail is commuter rail where people don't really need to drive to work and back every day.

[snip]

I can't speak for NY to Chi, but LA to SF is a very good candidate for HSR. It is about 325 miles to drive and 6 to 7 hours. The CAHSR will take about 2 hours and 20 minutes. In addition the air route is very nearly saturated, if not completely, it is easily one of the busiest in the world.

 

[Ryan]

Just because there are 5 intermediate stations does not mean that all trains will stop at all stations. Most HSR systems runa combination of "local" and "express" services. Local is still fast. Example: The Taiwan HSR: The express trains make two stops, one a suburban Taipei stop, the other at Taichung, about the halfway point. 1 hour 35 minutes for 210 miles. The locals make 7 intermediate stops and take 2 hours flat. So, 25 minutes for 5 additional stops makes for 5 minutes per stop, and this from 186 mph. In actuality, the schedule even has some slack in it. Not a lot, but some.

I think its a lot to assume that there will be enough passengers to support duplicate trains, both a "local" and an "express", between Orlando and Tampa. Plus, I am not as sure as you that a "local" would have enough time to accelerate up to speeds like 186mph, sustain it for any reasonable length of time, and then slow to a stop again. The distance between Orlando and Tampa, divided up into 6 chunks, is only 15 miles each.

I think that it's a lot for you to assume that every train is going to make every stop. The only thing George was doing was point out that it wasn't necessarily the case that every case was going to make every stop.

 

[Eric S]

While I support HSR, what I see happening with each proposal is really not what I had hoped for.

For example, in Florida, the HS link between Orlando and Tampa has already been dowsed with politics and compromise such that there is already 5 intermediary stations included. With those, there is no hope that any train would have enough time to achieve and sustain any sort of "high speed". Plus, factor in dwell time at each station, you might as well take a bus or drive your own car since they will take about the same time to travel between Orlando and Tampa.

Of course, then the operation of this HS rail fails, the blame would be placed squarely on the concept of HS rails, and not any on the rather poor implementation.

There are not five intermediate stops planned, but rather five total stops: Tampa, Lakeland, Disney World, International Drive, and Orlando.

 

[AlanB]

I think its a lot to assume that there will be enough passengers to support duplicate trains, both a "local" and an "express", between Orlando and Tampa. Plus, I am not as sure as you that a "local" would have enough time to accelerate up to speeds like 186mph, sustain it for any reasonable length of time, and then slow to a stop again. The distance between Orlando and Tampa, divided up into 6 chunks, is only 15 miles each.

Acela hits 135 between Back Bay & Route 128 IIRC, and that's about 15 miles. Acela hits 150 between 128 & Providence, a distance of 20 miles. And the limiting factor isn't the distance between the two stations, its the infrastructure, curves & bridges.

 

[MattW]

How fast can a trainset accelerate anyways? When I've been building my hypothetical Atlanta Commuter Rail, I used 1 mile per hour per second as the average acceleration up to 79mph. What about up to 150? Or 220? Anyone know a nice number to use?

 

[PRR 60]

How fast can a trainset accelerate anyways? When I've been building my hypothetical Atlanta Commuter Rail, I used 1 mile per hour per second as the average acceleration up to 79mph. What about up to 150? Or 220? Anyone know a nice number to use?

1 mph/sec is a reasonable number.

 

[jis]

How fast can a trainset accelerate anyways? When I've been building my hypothetical Atlanta Commuter Rail, I used 1 mile per hour per second as the average acceleration up to 79mph. What about up to 150? Or 220? Anyone know a nice number to use?

1 mph/sec is a reasonable number.

As long as you keep the geniuses at NJT planning far far away from any decision making on that matter You should the idiocy that they have with a single poor ALP46 trying to shove around 10 heavy heavy multi-level cars, specially with a little moisture or leaf on the tracks.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I can't speak for NY to Chi, but LA to SF is a very good candidate for HSR. It is about 325 miles to drive and 6 to 7 hours. The CAHSR will take about 2 hours and 20 minutes. In addition the air route is very nearly saturated, if not completely, it is easily one of the busiest in the world.

I'm looking forward to CA's HSR proposals as well, but we have to look at what happens with proposition 23 to see if HSR has any chance of success in the US. If prop 23 succeeds then the next CA general election will likely include a proposal to strangle HSR with red tape next.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Logical conclusions are derived from deduction based on premises. Thus, most things thought of are actually logical. To whit:

Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Thus, Socrates is mortal.

Logical. Accurate. Reasonable.

Socrates is a man. All men are elephants. Thus, Socrates is an elephant.

Equally logical. Inaccurate. Ridiculous.

Why? All men are NOT elephants. But if you assumed they were, it would be perfectly logical to believe that man such as Socrates was indeed an elephant.

Rail costs money. Spending money with out a monetary ROI is wasteful. Rail has no obvious monetary ROI. Thus, rail is wasteful.

Equally logical. However, the premises are up for question.

Rail costs money? No bleep, Sherlock.

Spending money without a monetary ROI is wasteful. Questionable. Spending money without any ROI is indeed wasteful, but your ROI does not need to be monetary.

Rail has no obvious ROI. True, it does not generally have an obvious monetary ROI. We call that "profit". But whether it has a monetary ROI that can be found with careful calculation, that's different.

Since the premises are questionable (not ridiculous, mind you), the conclusions drawn from them must also be called into question. The logic, however, is flawless.

High speed rail would have many benefits, primarily reducing the amount of time people spend standing around in airports. They'd be standing around train stations, which are usually nicer to look at. But seriously, I have never seen an unbiased study on the overall economic impact rail provides under various circumstances.

They are usually done by Cato like groups who want it to go away, or governmental agencies looking to either build themselves a monument or "curtail wasteful spending". Rail advocates are generally not well funded enough to produce such a study, and the only "organized" organization on rail serves primarily as a conduit to funnel railfan money into Ross Capon's pocket. No, I'm not joking. A solid percentage of the money NARP takes in pays his salary.

My opinion of NARP notwithstanding, its study of the benefits of rail would, understandably, also not be unbiased.

Would building HSR be wasteful? I have no idea, quite honestly, but I am sure it would depend on where it was built. I seek to remind, however, that the Interstate system was considered by many to be a waste- they were convinced that while Germans liked to travel long distances by car, Americans prefer to stay close to their communities, and would never use them.

Much like an HP executive once told a man named Steve: "What would ordinary people want with computers?"

 

[leemell]

I can't speak for NY to Chi, but LA to SF is a very good candidate for HSR. It is about 325 miles to drive and 6 to 7 hours. The CAHSR will take about 2 hours and 20 minutes. In addition the air route is very nearly saturated, if not completely, it is easily one of the busiest in the world.

I'm looking forward to CA's HSR proposals as well, but we have to look at what happens with proposition 23 to see if HSR has any chance of success in the US. If prop 23 succeeds then the next CA general election will likely include a proposal to strangle HSR with red tape next.

Prop. 23 failed by a wide margin.

 

[George Harris]

Don't know how it is done now, since it has been years since I was involed in this sort of stuff, but:

In deciding whether or not it is beneficial to build a highway project, there is a cost-benefit analysis. While the costs are generally real and paid by the involed govenment agencies, the benefits are not income or reduced costs to the state (unless there is some reduction in maintenance costs involved), but usually in the form of public benefits in the form of accident reductions, time saved, or energy / wear and tear on vehicles saved. Since part of the benfit is reduced costs and time for ttrucks, it could logically be argued that part of the justification in road improvements is of direct monetary benfit to certain specific private businesses. Similar analyses are done for airport expenditures. Do you really think that airports at smaller cities have any hope of ever covering their construction and operating costs through landing fees?

Therefore, why should public expenditures on rail projects be held to a different standard? Some of these same benefits for highway projects also accrue to road projects, such as transfer of traffic from highway to road or from air to road that reduces both the maintenance expenditures on these facilities and the need to expand them are as real, if not more real, monetary benfit to the public as the calculated benefits of a road project.

 

[leemell]

[snip]

Much like an HP executive once told a man named Steve: "What would ordinary people want with computers?"

That quote comes from a movie "The Pirates of Silicon Valley", not from real life. As far as anybody knows, that did not happen. There was a quote by Ken Olsen the founder of Digital Equipment Corp. that is very similar. Snopes has Olsen's quote and the very important context.