TGV: What the US Should Learn from France's High Speed Train

Three key points:

1. Most of the electrical power used by the French TGV network comes from nuclear power plants.  Politics aside, nuclear power isn't viable as an on-board power source for anything smaller than a submarine.
2. Most of the cities served by French TGV have well-organized local public transportation systems that are readily comprehensible to the first-time visitor.
3. In Europe, it is understood that driving one's own motor vehicle is NOT the least expensive alternative.  In the United States, it frequently IS, especially for two or more persons traveling together.

In Europe, the TGV was the natural development of passenger service that never went away.  The same can be said for Shinkansen service in Japan.  In the United States, rail service to the hinterland, and frequent, convenient public transportation to the sprawling suburbs, either is a bare shadow of what it is elsewhere or simply doesn't exist.

There seems to be a lot of, "If we build it, they will come," thinking among US HSR advocates.  The fact is, they will only come if it is either more convenient or less expensive than the alternative choices.  Preferably, both

Will it be?  GOOD question...

Chuck

I agree with the above posts.  In my opinion the article did not give me what I had read in the title.  Most people knowledgable about passenger rail service in North America know most of what the article said.  The mystery, that the U.S. hasn't learned, and that the article did not inform us about, is why the governments and people in Europe are willing to invest in passenger rail, even though it requires public subsidy everywhere.  They have made a long term commitment to evolution and excellence of high speed rail service, while we, on the other hand, repeatedly cripple progress by demanding study after study and dragging debates about it on for years. 

Studies, analyses, and debates produce nothing.  What we need to learn from France's high speed train is how once again to make in our country a favorable policy decision on something that benefits our society as a whole and to dedicate our nation and industry to getting it done.

Another issue the article touched lightly upon (too lightly, I believe) is the decision to go with electric power.  While we continue to build hundreds of Diesel engines per year that have lifetimes of 20 years or more, the rest of the world is stringing catenary all over the place for all types of trains.  I would like to know how our values and viewpoints differ from theirs so that we and they arrive at such opposite conclusions on electric power for railroads.

cordon

Another issue the article touched lightly upon (too lightly, I believe) is the decision to go with electric power.  While we continue to build hundreds of Diesel engines per year that have lifetimes of 20 years or more, the rest of the world is stringing catenary all over the place for all types of trains.  I would like to know how our values and viewpoints differ from theirs so that we and they arrive at such opposite conclusions on electric power for railroads.

  

Consider traffic density, and length of routes:

1. In France, they are double-decking the TGV trains because the tracks are at max capacity.  The longest route is a few hundred miles long.  Aside from that, the rest of the system is also electrified.
2. In Japan, a secondary route will see over 50 trains a day - in each direction - on a slow day.  The only routes still run by diesels are those with light traffic - less than 20 trains a day, most of those DMUs.  Typical route length is a few hundred kilometers between major hubs.
3. In the United States the great name trains ran daily.  The heavy-traffic routes west of the Mississippi can still go hours without a train, passenger or freight.  Only the Northeast Corridor approaches European or Japanese traffic density.  Then consider that you could put the entire country of either France or Japan down between the Missouri River and the Front Range and the entire footprint wouldn't contain more than one major traffic source...

Then factor in the prevalence of copper thievery, and think how tempting those miles of catenary in the heart of nowhere would be...

The conversion to diesel-electric power in the '50s was described as, "Electrification without expensive infrastructure."  At the same time, before the air conditioning explosion, many small towns got all their electric power from diesel gensets very similar to those found in diesel locomotives.  There is still little incentive, outside of the jawboning of the, "Get Green, stop global warming," crowd, to move to massive electrification - and you can't electrify just a little bit at a time.

Chuck

tomikawaTT

and you can't electrify just a little bit at a time.

Chuck

Germany and France electrified a bit at a time, and of course the US is just a bit electrified. Tighter emissions standards in some places may put an end to national locomotive power pools. Right now CP manages to survive with two power pools, those locomotives that can operate in the US, and those that cannot. It appears that CN may join CP, the second-hand C40-8s that CN bought, will be very expensive to upgrade to Tier 0+ emissions standards so that they can be used in the US, so likely they, and CN's fleet of C40-8Ms will become Canada only locomotives. CP's AC4400CWs and CN's Dash9s will follow as they need overhauls. 

Does anyone have a clue as to what this sentence from the article means?

"Nearly 30 years after the original Paris-Lyon LGV opened, Azema says that the line has paid for itself  (with a retun on investment of 15 percent after nearly 20 years of cumulative profits), but only governments can wait that long for project liks this to pay back."  (p35) 

Now I was taught that return on investment is the annual payback on the investment.  i.e., For every $1 million invested a 15% ROI would mean a return to the investor of $150,000/year.  With the claimed 15% ROI the line would have "Paid For Itself" in slightly less than seven years.  After that time the investor would have recovered the investment.  Beyond that point the investor would enjoy an income stream of $150 throusand per year for each $1 million invested and have the original investment back in the bank.  That is why people make investments.

The author and the Trains editorial staff are obviously using a very different concept of ROI.  I'd like to know what it is so I could actually understand what they are writing about.  Anyone know?

The last words of the sentence are a bad joke.  "...but only governments can wait that long for projects like this to pay back."  When a government forces an investment it has to force the diversion of the investment funds from the private sector into the investment.  If there is a diversion into a project with a longer "Payback Periord" the society is made poorer because scarce investment funds are being forceably diverted to projects that generate less wealth, no wealth, or actually destroy wealth.

According to the article, TGV has been a financial disaster that incurred a huge debt that almost bankrupted SNFC.  The same thing is happening in China where the construction of HSR passenger routes threatens the viability of the very essential rail network.  Only though the use of "Funny Definitions" such as Trains' funny concept of ROI can these absolute boondoggles be justified.

I think the article was very clear on "What the U.S. should learn from France's high speed train."  We should learn: "Don't Go There."  We can't just put it on the credit card because we want it.  These rail systems are HSFD's.  (High Speed Financial Disasters.)

These are excellent points, the kind that are sure to come up in college seminars.  I haven't seen the article as yet but am already disappointed that the points made are not included.  It does seem hard for we North Americans to believe that rail can achieve such high market penetrations.

 On another related point, Saturday's New York Times carried a piece indicating that a third runway at London's Heathrow airport will not be built because it will only lead to more environmental problems of the type that the U K has decided need to be corrected.  We all know what these are.   If I were an airline executive this would cause me great alarm for, if not the immediate future, cetainly the long term future of the industry.  One spokesperson in the new Concervative British government was quoted as saying, "It would be better to build a net work of high speed rail lines to eliminate  short distance flights".  The fact that a Conservative goverment would make such a bold, pecedent shatttering move is something to take note of.  I'd love to know what discussion this initiates in airline board rooms.

 Bill McDonald

What it means can be answered by Lufthansa's chartered regularly scheduled passenger trains replacing short distance flights and running directly to airport railway stations to connect with their long distance flights.

The intent of HSR in the USA is not to greatly reduce air or highway travel, but to make possible increased total travel without further land taking for airport expansion and more super highways, as well as enough reduction to reduce server congestion and improve safety.  To that extent, it MAY make economic sense, certainly some sense in some corridors.

greyhounds

Does anyone have a clue as to what this sentence from the article means?

"Nearly 30 years after the original Paris-Lyon LGV opened, Azema says that the line has paid for itself  (with a retun on investment of 15 percent after nearly 20 years of cumulative profits), but only governments can wait that long for project liks this to pay back."  (p35) 

Now I was taught that return on investment is the annual payback on the investment.  i.e., For every $1 million invested a 15% ROI would mean a return to the investor of $150,000/year.  With the claimed 15% ROI the line would have "Paid For Itself" in slightly less than seven years.  After that time the investor would have recovered the investment.  Beyond that point the investor would enjoy an income stream of $150 throusand per year for each $1 million invested and have the original investment back in the bank.  That is why people make investments.

The author and the Trains editorial staff are obviously using a very different concept of ROI.  I'd like to know what it is so I could actually understand what they are writing about.  Anyone know?

The last words of the sentence are a bad joke.  "...but only governments can wait that long for projects like this to pay back."  When a government forces an investment it has to force the diversion of the investment funds from the private sector into the investment.  If there is a diversion into a project with a longer "Payback Periord" the society is made poorer because scarce investment funds are being forceably diverted to projects that generate less wealth, no wealth, or actually destroy wealth.

According to the article, TGV has been a financial disaster that incurred a huge debt that almost bankrupted SNFC.  The same thing is happening in China where the construction of HSR passenger routes threatens the viability of the very essential rail network.  Only though the use of "Funny Definitions" such as Trains' funny concept of ROI can these absolute boondoggles be justified.

I think the article was very clear on "What the U.S. should learn from France's high speed train."  We should learn: "Don't Go There."  We can't just put it on the credit card because we want it.  These rail systems are HSFD's.  (High Speed Financial Disasters.)

I too was confused by the reporting.  Clarification on this point would be welcome.

My take was the 15% return was after 20 years and wouldn't be the annual ROI to conform with the statement that only the government could afford such a long payback for infrastructure.

I disagree to the extent society is made poorer by the diversion of "investment funds' over such a long period.  The government underwrites many infrastructure improvements such as roads, schools, defense, and parks with little thought of any financial return; but to meet society's needs.  High speed rail is held to a higher standard while addressing a combination of transport, energy, and environmental concerns that affect society.  Furthermore, high speed rail has been shown to induce a net increase in secondary economic activity that is captured in taxes.  I will not go so far to claim new jobs since this may result in some lost aviation and road related jobs.

While I don't think we are facing HSFDs, Tampa-Orlando Airport excepted, I surely sympathize with your comment that we can't just do it because we want it.  There needs to be some prudence exercised.  Maybe 150 mph is a more reasonable goal in many cases, sharing and benefiting existing railroad infrastructure.

After reading the comments here and then the article, I almost would not have realized they were connected.  For the usual naysayers, TGV is seen as a failure and clear evidence of why not to attempt something along those lines here.  The fact that the French capital investment has been more than recovered is seen as not good enough.  By way of contrast, I wonder what the time line has been on capital recovery for the Interstate Highway System or major air transport infrastructures here?

From what I've read, Switzerland's decision to invest heavily in new tunneled rail ROW was reached largely because of mounting "bridge route" truck traffic clogging Swiss highways.  IIRC, fees from this traffic over time is expected to generate funds to pay for the investment.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/Swiss_transport_funding_is_best.html?cid=9072648

jclass

From what I've read, Switzerland's decision to invest heavily in new tunneled rail ROW was reached largely because of mounting "bridge route" truck traffic clogging Swiss highways.  IIRC, fees from this traffic over time is expected to generate funds to pay for the investment.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/Swiss_transport_funding_is_best.html?cid=9072648

Driving factors in the Swiss decision to spend mega-Euros on new underground railway infrastructure, funded primarily by fees charged to highway trucks transiting Switzerland en route to and from Italy:

• The main plan is to move freight by rail, something the present tunnels can only handle in limited quantities.  (Has anyone said, "Freight," and, "HSR, in the same paragraph in the US?)
• The problem to be solved is massive traffic jams on Swiss highways - of trucks that are 'just passing through.'  Think LA in the rush hour, but with three times as many 18-wheelers.
• The tunnel used by rubber-wheelers on the same route has had at least one crash-disaster that killed a bunch of folks trapped in immovable vehicles behind the truck that started the fire.
• As I understand it, the fees are charged for using Swiss highways and polluting Swiss towns and cities with diesel fumes.  Try levying fees on US 18-wheeler operators for the construction of HSR.  (Any pol that suggests that will be looking for honest work come election day.)

Comparing the Swiss project with any American high speed rail program isn't comparing apples and oranges.  It's more like comparing cats and coils of steel.

Chuck

How different would the Swiss base tunnels be from the Channel Tunnel with mixed high-speed passenger (outside the tunnel) and fast intermodal freight? By comparison, what is the speed limit across Tehachapi?

 Comparing the Swiss project with any American high speed rail program isn't comparing apples and oranges.  It's more like comparing cats and coils of steel.

Just what I was driving at, Chuck.  What should the US learn?

 TGV: What the US Should Learn from France's High Speed Train

What is Switzerland saying the rest of Europe should learn, including France?

Transport Minister Moritz Leuenberger has suggested that his European colleagues look to Switzerland for a good example of how to fund big infrastructure projects.

So, what should the US learn that the rest of Europe should learn?

There seems to be a lot of, "If we build it, they will come," thinking among US HSR advocates.  The fact is, they will only come if it is either more convenient or less expensive than the alternative choices.  Preferably, both.

The US interstate highway system exists.  (It needs to be well maintained).

The US interstate airline industry exists.  (It needs to be profitable and well maintained).

The US interstate railway industry exists.  (It needs to be profitable and well maintained).

So, What should the US learn? 

 From the perspective of someone in the UK there was another article that caught my eye - Kansas.   I can't help thinking that when you look at both the TGV article and the Kansas article you get an inkling of why the US has lost its' way when it comes to passenger railroads.   I mean, who wants one train a day even if it is a day train?

 You need to understand what the train does well and then look for markets where the train can exploit its' advantages.   You have the example in the NEC, why can't you understand that routes like Wichita to Fort Worth are not where the modern train is at its' best?   Forget your historic trains, they're not what works today.

 You need regular, safe, frequent (at least once every 2 hours, probably every hour), comfortable, affordable service over routes that have a maximum travel time of 3 (maybe 4) hours on corridors with high traffic.   It doesn't have to be interstate, intrastate works as well.   And it doesn't have to be a TGV or Shinkansen 100/125 mph works quite well in the right markets. 

 Road congestion and airport security are your best recruiters!

Maybe what we are asking people to give up is not so much their SUV or pickup truck as their "daily driver."  Maybe what we are asking people to give up is their "house on a small plot of land"?

Don Oltmann once linked to some FRA study of where they thought "things were going", and what trains are is an "aggregator", essentially a "batch mode" instead of a "continuous process" form of transportation.  This is true for freight and also true for passengers.

As a batch mode, trains are particularly good at some things, especially moving large groups of people concentrated into small areas.  Cars are bad at that -- think of everyone leaving the Dodger's game in L.A. at the same time and the long wait times and traffic jams.

Cars are good at everyone pretty much going where they want to go when they want to go.

Cars are effective when people are spread out; people also need to spread out for cars to be effective, and even that doesn't always work.  Trains are effective when people live close together, and the places where they want to go (work, shopping, entertainment) are also close together.  For trains to be effective, you have to concentrate people.

So I think what is happening when you are promoting trains and comparing cars and highways unfavorablly, you are essentially telling people that they need to move out of houses in suburbia and back into medium-rise rentals and condos in cities, and I think you are going to get a lot of deep-seated resistance on that one which is instinctive, and that is what the anti-train anti-transit faction plays towards.

Now the high speed train could work sort of like air travel -- that you provide lots of parking and that the high speed of train makes up for the inconvenience of leaving your car behind.  I don't think the HSR in France is as heavily "networked" into a feeder network of trains as it is in Japan, but any HSR in the US would be pretty much stand-alone and dependent on autos and taxis and rental cars, just like planes?

jclass

 Comparing the Swiss project with any American high speed rail program isn't comparing apples and oranges.  It's more like comparing cats and coils of steel.

Just what I was driving at, Chuck.  What should the US learn?

 TGV: What the US Should Learn from France's High Speed Train

What is Switzerland saying the rest of Europe should learn, including France?

Transport Minister Moritz Leuenberger has suggested that his European colleagues look to Switzerland for a good example of how to fund big infrastructure projects.

So, what should the US learn that the rest of Europe should learn?

There seems to be a lot of, "If we build it, they will come," thinking among US HSR advocates.  The fact is, they will only come if it is either more convenient or less expensive than the alternative choices.  Preferably, both.

The US interstate highway system exists.  (It needs to be well maintained).

The US interstate airline industry exists.  (It needs to be profitable and well maintained).

The US interstate railway industry exists.  (It needs to be profitable and well maintained).

So, What should the US learn? 

Let's go back to France.  Their high-speed trunks carry four times or more TGVs to multiple destinations than the number of NEC Acelas.  Admittedly some of this is due to commuter services to the major NEC cities and particularly intense around New York.

1.  Multiple market services are brought together over a common high speed trunk line to pay for the investment.  A similar strategy is employed with the German Neubaustreke. 

2.  Volume of travel also is built through using TGVs for multiple classes and pricings of services that attract the itinerant or casual as well as business traveler.  There is no slower Regional train except for local services on the old Classic lines that were bypassed.

3.  Interoperability, thanks in large measure to a previously electrified rail network, over classic lines is essential for serving multiple markets that can produce the threshhold volume for a cost-effective investment.  This poses a dilemma in the US that might be resolved with incremental development.

4.  Not included in the article, the Paris-Lyon-Marseilles double track line was saturated with around 200 freight and passenger trains a day.  Most trains ran at 120 kph (74 mph) in a fairly constant parade during the daytime and evening hours.  A handful of all-reserved trains such as the Mistral were allowed 140 kph (87 mph) with the necessary schedule window and severe cant deficiency.  Business, both freight and passenger, was being turned away except where air travel was making inroads in the intercity markets.  Building a new line in rural areas, originally for the 270 kph (168 mph) TGV, was less expensive than reconstructing infrastructure along the existing line for two more tracks.

5.  Also not discussed is the taxation policy on fuel whereby the high price of fuel diverts travel to rail and public transport in order to reduce consumption and emissions.  All oil is imported and a detriment to the internal economy.  The money is used to pay fully for road improvements and other needs (some may go to public transport).  Compare that attitude to this past Evanston, IL Fourth of July Parade that featured classic 60's muscle cars revving along the route.

Although the US, taken as a whole, is not very densely populated, the NEC and its feeders, and parts of the Midwest, California, Florida and Texas are.  They have densities that cannot only support HSR, but because the roads are already maxed out and continuing to build more and more highways is becoming unfeasible, they must find alternatives to accommodate the growth.

I have not read this article but have absorbed as much as I can from the comments. 

The USA is car friendly to say the least.  Suburbs, low gas prices, vast highways, etc have all fueled our love for cars and driving. 

I don't travel that often but when I do it is coast to coast.  I have bounced around from airport to airport and seen first hand on too many occasions the frustrations of air travel.  Long before this latest push for HSR came along I was wondering why there wasn't HSR service between New York and Chicago.  O'Hare is one of the busiest airports in the world and if the "short flights"  were eliminated then the airport could function more efficiently.  How many of you have been on a plane that leaves the gate on time and then sits for over 30 minutes because of the backup? 

I once waited in JFK for 2 hours for a flight to Hartford's Bradley airport because of a weather delay (fog).  It would not have taken much longer to drive.  Trains don't stop because of fog.  Trains don't have the same weather delays that planes have.

I think that airlines should get involved with HSR.  It could be a part of those alliances they love to push.  

San Francisco to Los Angeles is a must have.  If they actually build the French system there then travel time could be 2 1/2 hours.  Chicago should be a major rail hub.  Connect St. Louis, Atlanta, Denver, New York, Philly, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati and other cities in the mid-west. 

Amtrak messed up with the Acela.  The NEC has been running for so long that lines were a mess so in many areas they built dedicated new main lines just for Acela.  That was a good move.  Some areas they use what is there.  That was bad.  Between New Haven and New York Acela trains are limited in speed due to track conditions.  It still might be a little faster because the regular line has to switch engines at New Haven (New Haven west is electrified/, east is not).  

Here is what to learn from the French:  strive to be better, faster, and safer every day.  In 2007 TGV hit 357.18 mph.  That is only 4 mph slower than the record for mag-lev.

 Everyone I know who has traveled in Europe feels that HSR should be built in the USA.  It is comfortable, fast, and efficient.  Airlines don't provide that very well.

Hartington

From the perspective of someone in the UK there was another article that caught my eye - Kansas.   I can't help thinking that when you look at both the TGV article and the Kansas article you get an inkling of why the US has lost its' way when it comes to passenger railroads.   I mean, who wants one train a day even if it is a day train?

You need to understand what the train does well and then look for markets where the train can exploit its' advantages.   You have the example in the NEC, why can't you understand that routes like Wichita to Fort Worth are not where the modern train is at its' best?   Forget your historic trains, they're not what works today.

You need regular, safe, frequent (at least once every 2 hours, probably every hour), comfortable, affordable service over routes that have a maximum travel time of 3 (maybe 4) hours on corridors with high traffic.   It doesn't have to be interstate, intrastate works as well.   And it doesn't have to be a TGV or Shinkansen 100/125 mph works quite well in the right markets. 

Road congestion and airport security are your best recruiters!

It may not seem like much; but the one Kansas alternative may actually work for Kansas.  Except for restrictions coming into Kansas City, the BNSF has a pretty fast track competitive with driving.  A morning train out of Kansas City through Lawrence (University of Kansas) and Topeka (capitol) arrives Wichita (largest city in Kansas) at midday, continues to Oklahoma City in late afternoon and to Fort Worth.  The return train leaves Fort Worth in the morning, arrives Oklahoma City midday, Wichita in the late afternoon, Topeka, Lawrence, and Kansas City in the early evening.  This compliments the schedule of the Heartland Flyer between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth.  Another train might be put on from Wichita to Kansas City in the morning and returning in the evening.  The silver lining in a Southwest (#3 & #4) reroute would be another round trip from Wichita (beats driving to Newton) to Kansas City and continuing to Chicago.

Frequency of service is important, but the time, distance, fares, and ridership are too.

Connecticut Dave

I have not read this article but have absorbed as much as I can from the comments. 

The USA is car friendly to say the least.  Suburbs, low gas prices, vast highways, etc have all fueled our love for cars and driving. 

I don't travel that often but when I do it is coast to coast.  I have bounced around from airport to airport and seen first hand on too many occasions the frustrations of air travel.  Long before this latest push for HSR came along I was wondering why there wasn't HSR service between New York and Chicago.  O'Hare is one of the busiest airports in the world and if the "short flights"  were eliminated then the airport could function more efficiently.  How many of you have been on a plane that leaves the gate on time and then sits for over 30 minutes because of the backup? 

I once waited in JFK for 2 hours for a flight to Hartford's Bradley airport because of a weather delay (fog).  It would not have taken much longer to drive.  Trains don't stop because of fog.  Trains don't have the same weather delays that planes have.

I think that airlines should get involved with HSR.  It could be a part of those alliances they love to push.  

San Francisco to Los Angeles is a must have.  If they actually build the French system there then travel time could be 2 1/2 hours.  Chicago should be a major rail hub.  Connect St. Louis, Atlanta, Denver, New York, Philly, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati and other cities in the mid-west. 

Amtrak messed up with the Acela.  The NEC has been running for so long that lines were a mess so in many areas they built dedicated new main lines just for Acela.  That was a good move.  Some areas they use what is there.  That was bad.  Between New Haven and New York Acela trains are limited in speed due to track conditions.  It still might be a little faster because the regular line has to switch engines at New Haven (New Haven west is electrified/, east is not).  

Here is what to learn from the French:  strive to be better, faster, and safer every day.  In 2007 TGV hit 357.18 mph.  That is only 4 mph slower than the record for mag-lev.

 Everyone I know who has traveled in Europe feels that HSR should be built in the USA.  It is comfortable, fast, and efficient.  Airlines don't provide that very well.

The key to air-rail alliances, from O'Hare for example, is getting to the short-hop small and medium markets like Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Lansing, Flint, Toledo, Fort Wayne, Lafayette, Champaign, Decatur, Bloomington, Springfield, Peoria, Quad Cities, Rockford, Iowa City-Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, Dubuque, Janesville, Madison, Oshkosh, Appleton-Neenah-Menasha, Green Bay, and others.

Hsr will enable significant penetration to major markets as far as Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, and Saint Louis; but I wonder whether alliances will work for these.  Frequencies would have to be comparable for overall travel time. 

O'Hare has the advantage of a larger network of international flights in the Midwest as do Kennedy, Los Angeles, and Hartsfield in their respective regions.  Notwithstanding the problem of going through Penn Station at this time, wouldn't a direct Acela from JFK to Washington, DC be nice?  (Is there a provision for transit (hsr?) on the Verrazano Narrows Bridge?)

Connecticut Dave

Everyone I know who has traveled in Europe feels that HSR should be built in the USA.  It is comfortable, fast, and efficient. 

Over the years, as I have traveled extensively on Amtrak's long distance trains, I have met people from many parts of America, not to mention the world, in the dinning car or lounge car, which are good places to strike up a conversation.  Frequently, with those who have ridden the trains in Europe or Japan, the conversation turned to a comparison of passenger trains in Europe or Japan with the trains in America.  And frequently my fellow passengers pose the question, "why can't we have trains in America similar to the trains in France?"  

We can!  All we need to do is raise the effective tax rate in the U.S. by approximately 10 per cent and hike the gasoline tax by approximately $2.50 to $3.00 a gallon.  When I explain that the European and Asian rail systems are funded by massive infusions of government funds, which come from comparatively much higher taxes, many of my fellow passengers seemed to lose their enthusiasm for European style passenger trains in the U.S.

They are equally shocked when I tell them about the subsidies required to support Amtrak's long distance passenger trains.  I have yet to meet anyone outside of a few people who post to these forums who have a clue about the federal, state, and local subsidies required to cover the deficits incurred by passenger rail.

Sam1

They are equally shocked when I tell them about the subsidies required to support Amtrak's long distance passenger trains.  I have yet to meet anyone outside of a few people who post to these forums who have a clue about the federal, state, and local subsidies required to cover the deficits incurred by passenger rail.

Even most people "in the know" seem to want TGV speed at current Amtrak ticket price levels. TGV speed is gonna come with Acela style ticket prices....

oltmannd

Sam1

They are equally shocked when I tell them about the subsidies required to support Amtrak's long distance passenger trains.  I have yet to meet anyone outside of a few people who post to these forums who have a clue about the federal, state, and local subsidies required to cover the deficits incurred by passenger rail.

...or how much their local transit system costs or how much it really's costing them to run their car, etc, etc. But, maybe these facts don't weigh so heavily in the values equation that we, as a whole, tend to use to figure out what our gov't should and shouldn't be doing.

Even most people "in the know" seem to want TGV speed at current Amtrak ticket price levels. TGV speed is gonna come with Acela style ticket prices....

I still think that with the argument back and forth about levels of Amtrak subsidies and whether or not highway gas taxes are self-sustaining or involve large cross-subsidies, I think we are missing the point, I am beginning to think I am missing the point.

And the point isn't about population density, because you could choose to "densify" whatever population you have into urban centers or perhaps residential "clusters" that you connect with trains, or you could choose to "disperse" your population with exurban sprawl connected by highways.

But if all the TGV or HSR does is simply provide a "local" version of the airline network -- the model of you drive there, take the plane/HSR someplace, rent a car or hail a cab at the other end -- if all the HSR does is provide another travel option, what kind of market share do you folks think the HSR is going to get?  Let's leave the question of fares or costs or subsidy levels out of the equation -- sure HSR is high cost but cars are a particularly high cost mode of transportation that people seem to want to put any amount of money, private or public, into in order to have.

We get the HSR and we simply "leave things the way they are."  What kind of market share of the 4 trillion auto passenger miles is this thing going to get?  What kind of impact is this thing going to have on oil imports or on CO2 outputs?  Bueller . . . Bueller . . . anyone?

oltmannd

Sam1

They are equally shocked when I tell them about the subsidies required to support Amtrak's long distance passenger trains.  I have yet to meet anyone outside of a few people who post to these forums who have a clue about the federal, state, and local subsidies required to cover the deficits incurred by passenger rail.

...or how much their local transit system costs or how much it really's costing them to run their car, etc, etc. But, maybe these facts don't weigh so heavily in the values equation that we, as a whole, tend to use to figure out what our gov't should and shouldn't be doing.

Even most people "in the know" seem to want TGV speed at current Amtrak ticket price levels. TGV speed is gonna come with Acela style ticket prices....

One lesson from the French is that HSR can do quite nicely, maybe better, by serving more classes of travelers (remember batching? economics) on TGVs at less-than-Acela fares.

I could be around long enough to see suburban development along highways in a metropolitan region so intense in reaction to downtown congestion that it strangles itself.

As much as I'd love to see and ride just one fully functioning, well-run HSR route in the US in my lifetime, I think the wiser decision would be to emulate what the Swiss are doing to deal with highway freight traffic, with resulting positive impacts on livability (congestion, pollution, "shelf-life" of roads and bridges, etc.).

What might be the "HSR equivalent" of freight movement by rail?  Not thinking sheer speed.  Maybe more like a type of "efficient flexibility". 

A road example in our area is the installation of well-designed roundabouts in place of stoplighted intersections.  One was put in at the intersection in our town that had the most traffic accidents.  Accidents and most importantly serious accidents plummeted since the roundabout was put in.  (It took a little while for people to understand how to drive it).  All of the exit intersections along about 20 miles of our "interstate" are now being converted to roundabouts.

HarveyK400

5.  Also not discussed is the taxation policy on fuel whereby the high price of fuel diverts travel to rail and public transport in order to reduce consumption and emissions.  All oil is imported and a detriment to the internal economy.  The money is used to pay fully for road improvements and other needs (some may go to public transport).  Compare that attitude to this past Evanston, IL Fourth of July Parade that featured classic 60's muscle cars revving along the route.

First I want to start out by saying that I don't believe this man to be dishonest.  He really believes what he's saying here and he's honestly stating what he believes.  But he's obviously wrong.  He should look up the new development of the Bakken Field in North Dakota which is projected to soon make North Dakota a larger oil producer than Alaska. Obviously, not all oil is imported.

As far as imported oil being a detriment to the internal economy, it's not true.  If you think it is truly a detriment just change one word in the sentence and see if it still works for you.   Try "All coffee is imported and a detriment to the internal economy." (I know, they grow some coffee in Hawaii.  Not enough to matter.)  Does it still make sense to you?

When we buy imported coffee, and I bought some Maxwell House French Roast tonight, we only do so because the value of what we get exceeds the cost we pay.  That's basically the reason anyone buys anything.  They get more in value than the cost.  The $6.00 or so that I paid for the coffee wouldn't be of much use to me at 6:00 AM tomorrow,  but that coffee will hit the spot.  It certainly won't be a "detriment".

Imported oil is the same way.  We buy it because it's value to us exceeds our cost.  That's not a detriment.  It's a benefit.  Imported oil allows us to move around as we want to and need to in air conditioned comfort listening to the radio or a CD.  That's a life quality thingy.

The poster seems to think that it's a good idea to take quality of life away from people and deny them mobility by increasing the price of petroleum through taxation.  He cites "benefits" from such taxation.  But those benefits are not what folks want.  They want an air conditioned car with with a CD player.  And since this is a Land of Liberty there ain't no government policy that should decide for people what benefits they may enjoy.

I do not for one moment fail to realize that American Soldiers have died because of our dependence on foriegn eneergy sources and I fully support efforts to achieve less dependence on those sources.  Nuclear power would be a great thing.  But simply forcing Americans into a lifestyle they don't want through taxation so that we can have these really neat high speed trains (AKA high speed financial disasters) would be a betrayal of those Americans.