Eurostars etc.

[Mario_v]

Hi all again

Pretty interresting queston going about costs, fares, and construction. I would like o just add some 'cents' to it.

Let us start by france. When the idea to build a completely new line, betwenn Paris and Lyon emmerged, there were some factors justifying the need for such infrastructure. The conventional line was at its peak in terms of capacity, and in voth economical and 'physical' terms it would be difficult to upgrade the existing line, wich in great extensions was already quadruple tracked, due to several terrain constraints. It was then decided, in a boldly move to buld the 1st of Europe's HSLs, since it would allow several boosts - capacity, speed - all of this in a travel going directly from town centre to town centre (both Paris and Lyon's airports are distant). It had a real big effect, with the infrastructure already paid off. Aftre the first success, SNCFS several administratons saw as socially viable to extend the network, hence all the new lines built. In  some cases, tehr is a mixed used of infrastructure, of both high speed, and 'classical' lines upgraded for higher speeds, makeing conventional trains something less frequent nowadays.

There are other contries, such as Spain, in wich the building of such lines was a way of both getting cities closer, and reverting a tendency in wich railroad transportation was getting marginal.  In thi case, the firts line built, the Madrid to Sevilla HSL, had a great effect for RENFE, at the sime time being nasty for other competitor, such as Iberia's regional flights. Today, not only RENFE is the main operator between these cities, with some 60% of the market share, it is also one the company's money maker lines.

There are however other projects of this kind, now being launched, such as th Madrid to Lisbon HSL. As all of these lines, it will be a centre to centre operation, wich is a real advantage if one considers that Madrid's Barajas airport is some 14 kilometres (8 miles) from the city centre, and Lisbon's new airport will be located some 40 kilometres (25 miles, with the rest of the travel being completed ... by train) away from the centre, and a total journey time of 2 hours, 40 minutes between towns (by HSL) will be a a great 'card' (by plane, despite time between 'blocking' is abut 70 minutes, but one must take in to account the boading and deboarding procedures, wich is about 90 minutes in total, and off course travelling to and from airports). What worries me, is that the fare 'base' price by train will be some 100 euros, and even if authorities have already stated that there might be some 'dscount' tariffs, by plane, and using low cost companies, such as EasyJet, Vueling, or Clickair, one can get 'no frills' two way tickets, at some 60 / 70 euros. Considering that, and also that and also that a line os such characteristics has many 'proper' construction and project specifications - curves with a radii of no less than 4000 metres for the top operational speed planned, absolutely no grade crossings -  one can imagine that the average price per kilometre is somethinh in the vicinity of 1,2 million euros. And it is not a project in wich one might use the 'social renatbility' motto, wich very common used here in Europe, to justify the cost. It will have to be payed. And that is an issue that still is pretty obscure in my mind, despite some of the projects being in the verge of being  launched over here.  

 

[passengerfan]

Funny you should mention illegal immigration. Just within the last two weeks the INS or Homeland Security whatever they call it began making statewide sweeps. Our local newspaper did an article about the heartless INS taking a mother back to Mexico leaving the father to raise three sons alone. Shes was in this country illegally for fifteen years and it took that long to catch up with her.

What is taking place is the INS or whatever they are called now are doing a crackdown as jobs are being lost and legals are becoming unemployed so they gather up the illegals and send them back to there country of origin.

The sweeps are becoming more of a daily event and many BNSF northbound trains through Stockton have many illegals riding the rails to get out of California.

For many years the Stockton Police and other departments have had a policy where they did not report illegals if they were picked up but now in order to make room in the county jail most illegals picked up are deported rather than face trial and occupy valuable jail space unless it is a major crime they are jailed for.

Al - in - Stockton

[alphas]

But how accurate is the CA website?  I remember reading awhile ago that the majority of long range Federal government predictions usually miss the mark by a considerable margin.   What makes you sure CA's are going to do better? 

I haven't been to CA for about five years (daughter moved to Nevada) but the various times I drove 101, 99, and I5 I don't recall traffic being any heavier on them (other than LA area which compares to NYC area) than what we see on Interstates here in the east--and it appeared to me to be less than on most of I95 and NJ Turnpike.

I'm guessing the CA scenario assumes that CA will continue to have rapid growth but given its growing reputation of not being the best state to do business in or live in taxpayer-wise, that might not be true.  Especially if, and I agree its a big "if", the USA ever does start cracking down on illegal immigration.  

[passengerfan]

Most of those who support high speed rail (HSR) appear to overlook its cost or only make an oblique reference to it.  I wonder how many of the people who support HSR are aware of its true cost (capital and operating) and how it will impact them as taxpayers?

California has one of the highest state income tax rates of any state in the union.  It ranges from 1 per cent on taxable income of $6,287 to 9.3 per cent on taxable income of $44,819.  In 2006 the median family income in California was $64,563.  It is likely that at least half the families paid the maximum tax, except for those with a taxable income of more than $1 million, who pay a 1 per cent surcharge.  Adding $40 billion to the state budget, less what can be obtained from the federal government, plus operating subsidies will probably increase the pressure on state officials to raise taxes, unless they can find cuts to offset the state's share of funding HSR. 

Fares are another subject that has not been discussed.  How much will it cost to ride on the high speed system?  The fares for the Acela provide a clue.  The average cost to ride the Acela from Washington to New York is approximately 74 cents per mile, whilst the average cost from Philadelphia is approximately $1.39 per mile.  These fares, together with the regional fares, don't cover the complete cost of the NEC.  It would take another 16 to 23 cents per mile to recover the other charges (interest, depreciation, etc.) applicable to the NEC, depending on the percentage of these charges worn by the NEC. 

The average cost to fly commercially from Washington to New York is approximately 54 cents per mile, whilst the average cost to fly from Philadelphia to New York, which very few people do except when they are connecting to another flight, is approximately $1.84 per mile. 

The average cost to drive my Corolla is 31.5 cents per mile.  If the cost of gasoline rose to $6 per gallon, the cost to drive my car would be 39 cents per mile, which is well below the cost of taking the Acela, even after figuring in tolls and parking.    

If the California HSR fare is the same per mile as the Acela fare per mile between New York and Washington, the cost to travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco would be approximately $281.  If another 16 cents per mile was added to the fare, the cost would be approximately $342.  This assumes the rail distance between Lost Angeles is roughly 380 miles.

The average cost to fly from Los Angeles, which takes 1 hour and 15 minutes, is approximately 34 cents per mile or $129 on Southwest Airlines.  This is for a standard fare.  There are cheaper fares that could lower the cost by five cents a mile. 

Whether building HSR in California would save the state $128 billion in highway construction costs is problematic.  I am keen to see the independently audited numbers. 

Missing in the laudatory discussion of Europe's HSR is a discussion of the taxes paid by most Europeans compared to those paid by Americans.  Taxes as opposed to fares cover a significant portion of the cost of Europe's HSR.  According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the total tax burden in the United States (including state and local taxes) was 25.4 per cent of income in 2006.  This is before the inclusion of the taxes embedded in the cost of goods and services, i.e. corporate taxes, employer's portion of the payroll tax, etc.  As one might imagine, the rate varies from state to state because of the different state tax schemes.  In the European countries with supposedly flash high speed rail systems, the tax burden ranges from an average of 35.1 per cent in Spain to 50.7 per cent in Sweden.  Again, this is before any pass through taxes. 

I don't hear many people who support HSR discuss the tax implications of building and operating HSR.  Based on the numbers shown above, it is no wonder.  

I think you are correct about the sticker shock that will come if and when HSR is built and operated.  Acela fares are a good guide. 

The avg cost to drive your Corolla from NY to Washington is a bit more than you figure.  You need to figure in quite a few tolls.  6.45 for the NJTP, 1.50 for Del Mem Br. ,  $4.00 for Del Tpke,  $2.50 for I-95 in MD. and $2.00 for the McHenry tunnel.  That's another 7 cents per mile.

Your correct.  I mentioned that the cost of driving my Corolla would be increased by tolls and parking fees, assuming that I had to pay to park, which would depend on where I was going in the New York area, but even after adding the seven cents a mile that you calculated to the cost, it would still be considerably less per mile than the Acela.  In fact, it would even be less than the average regional train fare of nearly 50 cents a mile between Philadelphia and New York, although not by much.

Also, I used $6 a gallon as an arbitrary figure of where the cost of gasoline could go over the next ten years.  In fact, the cost of gasoline, even in the Northest, is well below this number.  I was in Brooklyn last week.  At the station where I used to buy gas, regular unleaded was selling for $3.73 a gallon. 

Actually fares have been discussed and unlike Acela trains their will be three classes on each California train Coach, Business and First class. In fact there was very extensive discussion on fare structure. There will also be limited stop trains and express trains with the existing present local trains feeding into the HSR system. When it was pointed out what existing Airfares were it was written into the guidelines that HSR fares will match or beat whatever fares the Airlines use. The best part of the CA HSR is it will not be affiliated with Amtrak. It will be operate das a California system and the present Amtrak California trains will be incorporated into the new CA HSR system. Amtrak will only have the Coast Starlight, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief and Sunset Limited. The other Amtrak California trains will be operated and owned by the new CA HSR authority.

With so many jobs lost if the HSR Bond passes then work can begin immediatly in the new year. At peak construction their will be 170, 000 jobs created and work will progress at a very rapid pace. Will it be subsidized by the taxpayers? Yes. Is it necessary? Yes. Do we have the space to expand LAX or SFO? No. Can they handle the number of flights necessary if we don't spend 128 billion on highway expansion? No. Is it cheaper to put in the HSR rail system? Yes. Will there be room for growth with the HSR system for the next fifty years at least? Yes.

Having driven most major highways an Texas and in California I don't see any comparison of congestion that we have in California. And yes I have travelled through Dallas/Fort Worth in rush hours and even San Antonio and Houston.

California poulation is expected to almost double in the next thirty years from its present 28 million to 52 million. Is HSR necessary at this time? Yes. It is probably twenty years late already.

Al - in - Stockton  

You have made many statements to justify the HSR.  Unfortunately, you have not offered a single number to back up the assertions, other than to claim that HSR will save $128 billion in highway construction costs, again without any supporting data. 

All of the assertions I have made can be found at the California Government web site. Especially re the highway expansion costs and possible expansion to SFO and LAX. Did you look at the HSR videos I gave the web site for. California has to do something or we will slowly choke ourselves to a grinding halt. And remember our gasoline is costlier than yours.

Al - in - Stockton  

[Anonymous]

Most of those who support high speed rail (HSR) appear to overlook its cost or only make an oblique reference to it.  I wonder how many of the people who support HSR are aware of its true cost (capital and operating) and how it will impact them as taxpayers?

California has one of the highest state income tax rates of any state in the union.  It ranges from 1 per cent on taxable income of $6,287 to 9.3 per cent on taxable income of $44,819.  In 2006 the median family income in California was $64,563.  It is likely that at least half the families paid the maximum tax, except for those with a taxable income of more than $1 million, who pay a 1 per cent surcharge.  Adding $40 billion to the state budget, less what can be obtained from the federal government, plus operating subsidies will probably increase the pressure on state officials to raise taxes, unless they can find cuts to offset the state's share of funding HSR. 

Fares are another subject that has not been discussed.  How much will it cost to ride on the high speed system?  The fares for the Acela provide a clue.  The average cost to ride the Acela from Washington to New York is approximately 74 cents per mile, whilst the average cost from Philadelphia is approximately $1.39 per mile.  These fares, together with the regional fares, don't cover the complete cost of the NEC.  It would take another 16 to 23 cents per mile to recover the other charges (interest, depreciation, etc.) applicable to the NEC, depending on the percentage of these charges worn by the NEC. 

The average cost to fly commercially from Washington to New York is approximately 54 cents per mile, whilst the average cost to fly from Philadelphia to New York, which very few people do except when they are connecting to another flight, is approximately $1.84 per mile. 

The average cost to drive my Corolla is 31.5 cents per mile.  If the cost of gasoline rose to $6 per gallon, the cost to drive my car would be 39 cents per mile, which is well below the cost of taking the Acela, even after figuring in tolls and parking.    

If the California HSR fare is the same per mile as the Acela fare per mile between New York and Washington, the cost to travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco would be approximately $281.  If another 16 cents per mile was added to the fare, the cost would be approximately $342.  This assumes the rail distance between Lost Angeles is roughly 380 miles.

The average cost to fly from Los Angeles, which takes 1 hour and 15 minutes, is approximately 34 cents per mile or $129 on Southwest Airlines.  This is for a standard fare.  There are cheaper fares that could lower the cost by five cents a mile. 

Whether building HSR in California would save the state $128 billion in highway construction costs is problematic.  I am keen to see the independently audited numbers. 

Missing in the laudatory discussion of Europe's HSR is a discussion of the taxes paid by most Europeans compared to those paid by Americans.  Taxes as opposed to fares cover a significant portion of the cost of Europe's HSR.  According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the total tax burden in the United States (including state and local taxes) was 25.4 per cent of income in 2006.  This is before the inclusion of the taxes embedded in the cost of goods and services, i.e. corporate taxes, employer's portion of the payroll tax, etc.  As one might imagine, the rate varies from state to state because of the different state tax schemes.  In the European countries with supposedly flash high speed rail systems, the tax burden ranges from an average of 35.1 per cent in Spain to 50.7 per cent in Sweden.  Again, this is before any pass through taxes. 

I don't hear many people who support HSR discuss the tax implications of building and operating HSR.  Based on the numbers shown above, it is no wonder.  

I think you are correct about the sticker shock that will come if and when HSR is built and operated.  Acela fares are a good guide. 

The avg cost to drive your Corolla from NY to Washington is a bit more than you figure.  You need to figure in quite a few tolls.  6.45 for the NJTP, 1.50 for Del Mem Br. ,  $4.00 for Del Tpke,  $2.50 for I-95 in MD. and $2.00 for the McHenry tunnel.  That's another 7 cents per mile.

Your correct.  I mentioned that the cost of driving my Corolla would be increased by tolls and parking fees, assuming that I had to pay to park, which would depend on where I was going in the New York area, but even after adding the seven cents a mile that you calculated to the cost, it would still be considerably less per mile than the Acela.  In fact, it would even be less than the average regional train fare of nearly 50 cents a mile between Philadelphia and New York, although not by much.

Also, I used $6 a gallon as an arbitrary figure of where the cost of gasoline could go over the next ten years.  In fact, the cost of gasoline, even in the Northest, is well below this number.  I was in Brooklyn last week.  At the station where I used to buy gas, regular unleaded was selling for $3.73 a gallon. 

Actually fares have been discussed and unlike Acela trains their will be three classes on each California train Coach, Business and First class. In fact there was very extensive discussion on fare structure. There will also be limited stop trains and express trains with the existing present local trains feeding into the HSR system. When it was pointed out what existing Airfares were it was written into the guidelines that HSR fares will match or beat whatever fares the Airlines use. The best part of the CA HSR is it will not be affiliated with Amtrak. It will be operate das a California system and the present Amtrak California trains will be incorporated into the new CA HSR system. Amtrak will only have the Coast Starlight, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief and Sunset Limited. The other Amtrak California trains will be operated and owned by the new CA HSR authority.

With so many jobs lost if the HSR Bond passes then work can begin immediatly in the new year. At peak construction their will be 170, 000 jobs created and work will progress at a very rapid pace. Will it be subsidized by the taxpayers? Yes. Is it necessary? Yes. Do we have the space to expand LAX or SFO? No. Can they handle the number of flights necessary if we don't spend 128 billion on highway expansion? No. Is it cheaper to put in the HSR rail system? Yes. Will there be room for growth with the HSR system for the next fifty years at least? Yes.

Having driven most major highways an Texas and in California I don't see any comparison of congestion that we have in California. And yes I have travelled through Dallas/Fort Worth in rush hours and even San Antonio and Houston.

California poulation is expected to almost double in the next thirty years from its present 28 million to 52 million. Is HSR necessary at this time? Yes. It is probably twenty years late already.

Al - in - Stockton  

You have made many statements to justify the HSR.  Unfortunately, you have not offered a single number to back up the assertions, other than to claim that HSR will save $128 billion in highway construction costs, again without any supporting data. 

[passengerfan]

Most of those who support high speed rail (HSR) appear to overlook its cost or only make an oblique reference to it.  I wonder how many of the people who support HSR are aware of its true cost (capital and operating) and how it will impact them as taxpayers?

California has one of the highest state income tax rates of any state in the union.  It ranges from 1 per cent on taxable income of $6,287 to 9.3 per cent on taxable income of $44,819.  In 2006 the median family income in California was $64,563.  It is likely that at least half the families paid the maximum tax, except for those with a taxable income of more than $1 million, who pay a 1 per cent surcharge.  Adding $40 billion to the state budget, less what can be obtained from the federal government, plus operating subsidies will probably increase the pressure on state officials to raise taxes, unless they can find cuts to offset the state's share of funding HSR. 

Fares are another subject that has not been discussed.  How much will it cost to ride on the high speed system?  The fares for the Acela provide a clue.  The average cost to ride the Acela from Washington to New York is approximately 74 cents per mile, whilst the average cost from Philadelphia is approximately $1.39 per mile.  These fares, together with the regional fares, don't cover the complete cost of the NEC.  It would take another 16 to 23 cents per mile to recover the other charges (interest, depreciation, etc.) applicable to the NEC, depending on the percentage of these charges worn by the NEC. 

The average cost to fly commercially from Washington to New York is approximately 54 cents per mile, whilst the average cost to fly from Philadelphia to New York, which very few people do except when they are connecting to another flight, is approximately $1.84 per mile. 

The average cost to drive my Corolla is 31.5 cents per mile.  If the cost of gasoline rose to $6 per gallon, the cost to drive my car would be 39 cents per mile, which is well below the cost of taking the Acela, even after figuring in tolls and parking.    

If the California HSR fare is the same per mile as the Acela fare per mile between New York and Washington, the cost to travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco would be approximately $281.  If another 16 cents per mile was added to the fare, the cost would be approximately $342.  This assumes the rail distance between Lost Angeles is roughly 380 miles.

The average cost to fly from Los Angeles, which takes 1 hour and 15 minutes, is approximately 34 cents per mile or $129 on Southwest Airlines.  This is for a standard fare.  There are cheaper fares that could lower the cost by five cents a mile. 

Whether building HSR in California would save the state $128 billion in highway construction costs is problematic.  I am keen to see the independently audited numbers. 

Missing in the laudatory discussion of Europe's HSR is a discussion of the taxes paid by most Europeans compared to those paid by Americans.  Taxes as opposed to fares cover a significant portion of the cost of Europe's HSR.  According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the total tax burden in the United States (including state and local taxes) was 25.4 per cent of income in 2006.  This is before the inclusion of the taxes embedded in the cost of goods and services, i.e. corporate taxes, employer's portion of the payroll tax, etc.  As one might imagine, the rate varies from state to state because of the different state tax schemes.  In the European countries with supposedly flash high speed rail systems, the tax burden ranges from an average of 35.1 per cent in Spain to 50.7 per cent in Sweden.  Again, this is before any pass through taxes. 

I don't hear many people who support HSR discuss the tax implications of building and operating HSR.  Based on the numbers shown above, it is no wonder.  

I think you are correct about the sticker shock that will come if and when HSR is built and operated.  Acela fares are a good guide. 

The avg cost to drive your Corolla from NY to Washington is a bit more than you figure.  You need to figure in quite a few tolls.  6.45 for the NJTP, 1.50 for Del Mem Br. ,  $4.00 for Del Tpke,  $2.50 for I-95 in MD. and $2.00 for the McHenry tunnel.  That's another 7 cents per mile.

Your correct.  I mentioned that the cost of driving my Corolla would be increased by tolls and parking fees, assuming that I had to pay to park, which would depend on where I was going in the New York area, but even after adding the seven cents a mile that you calculated to the cost, it would still be considerably less per mile than the Acela.  In fact, it would even be less than the average regional train fare of nearly 50 cents a mile between Philadelphia and New York, although not by much.

Also, I used $6 a gallon as an arbitrary figure of where the cost of gasoline could go over the next ten years.  In fact, the cost of gasoline, even in the Northest, is well below this number.  I was in Brooklyn last week.  At the station where I used to buy gas, regular unleaded was selling for $3.73 a gallon. 

Actually fares have been discussed and unlike Acela trains their will be three classes on each California train Coach, Business and First class. In fact there was very extensive discussion on fare structure. There will also be limited stop trains and express trains with the existing present local trains feeding into the HSR system. When it was pointed out what existing Airfares were it was written into the guidelines that HSR fares will match or beat whatever fares the Airlines use. The best part of the CA HSR is it will not be affiliated with Amtrak. It will be operate das a California system and the present Amtrak California trains will be incorporated into the new CA HSR system. Amtrak will only have the Coast Starlight, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief and Sunset Limited. The other Amtrak California trains will be operated and owned by the new CA HSR authority.

With so many jobs lost if the HSR Bond passes then work can begin immediatly in the new year. At peak construction their will be 170, 000 jobs created and work will progress at a very rapid pace. Will it be subsidized by the taxpayers? Yes. Is it necessary? Yes. Do we have the space to expand LAX or SFO? No. Can they handle the number of flights necessary if we don't spend 128 billion on highway expansion? No. Is it cheaper to put in the HSR rail system? Yes. Will there be room for growth with the HSR system for the next fifty years at least? Yes.

Having driven most major highways an Texas and in California I don't see any comparison of congestion that we have in California. And yes I have travelled through Dallas/Fort Worth in rush hours and even San Antonio and Houston.

California poulation is expected to almost double in the next thirty years from its present 28 million to 52 million. Is HSR necessary at this time? Yes. It is probably twenty years late already.

Al - in - Stockton  

[Anonymous]

Most of those who support high speed rail (HSR) appear to overlook its cost or only make an oblique reference to it.  I wonder how many of the people who support HSR are aware of its true cost (capital and operating) and how it will impact them as taxpayers?

California has one of the highest state income tax rates of any state in the union.  It ranges from 1 per cent on taxable income of $6,287 to 9.3 per cent on taxable income of $44,819.  In 2006 the median family income in California was $64,563.  It is likely that at least half the families paid the maximum tax, except for those with a taxable income of more than $1 million, who pay a 1 per cent surcharge.  Adding $40 billion to the state budget, less what can be obtained from the federal government, plus operating subsidies will probably increase the pressure on state officials to raise taxes, unless they can find cuts to offset the state's share of funding HSR. 

Fares are another subject that has not been discussed.  How much will it cost to ride on the high speed system?  The fares for the Acela provide a clue.  The average cost to ride the Acela from Washington to New York is approximately 74 cents per mile, whilst the average cost from Philadelphia is approximately $1.39 per mile.  These fares, together with the regional fares, don't cover the complete cost of the NEC.  It would take another 16 to 23 cents per mile to recover the other charges (interest, depreciation, etc.) applicable to the NEC, depending on the percentage of these charges worn by the NEC. 

The average cost to fly commercially from Washington to New York is approximately 54 cents per mile, whilst the average cost to fly from Philadelphia to New York, which very few people do except when they are connecting to another flight, is approximately $1.84 per mile. 

The average cost to drive my Corolla is 31.5 cents per mile.  If the cost of gasoline rose to $6 per gallon, the cost to drive my car would be 39 cents per mile, which is well below the cost of taking the Acela, even after figuring in tolls and parking.    

If the California HSR fare is the same per mile as the Acela fare per mile between New York and Washington, the cost to travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco would be approximately $281.  If another 16 cents per mile was added to the fare, the cost would be approximately $342.  This assumes the rail distance between Lost Angeles is roughly 380 miles.

The average cost to fly from Los Angeles, which takes 1 hour and 15 minutes, is approximately 34 cents per mile or $129 on Southwest Airlines.  This is for a standard fare.  There are cheaper fares that could lower the cost by five cents a mile. 

Whether building HSR in California would save the state $128 billion in highway construction costs is problematic.  I am keen to see the independently audited numbers. 

Missing in the laudatory discussion of Europe's HSR is a discussion of the taxes paid by most Europeans compared to those paid by Americans.  Taxes as opposed to fares cover a significant portion of the cost of Europe's HSR.  According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the total tax burden in the United States (including state and local taxes) was 25.4 per cent of income in 2006.  This is before the inclusion of the taxes embedded in the cost of goods and services, i.e. corporate taxes, employer's portion of the payroll tax, etc.  As one might imagine, the rate varies from state to state because of the different state tax schemes.  In the European countries with supposedly flash high speed rail systems, the tax burden ranges from an average of 35.1 per cent in Spain to 50.7 per cent in Sweden.  Again, this is before any pass through taxes. 

I don't hear many people who support HSR discuss the tax implications of building and operating HSR.  Based on the numbers shown above, it is no wonder.  

I think you are correct about the sticker shock that will come if and when HSR is built and operated.  Acela fares are a good guide. 

The avg cost to drive your Corolla from NY to Washington is a bit more than you figure.  You need to figure in quite a few tolls.  6.45 for the NJTP, 1.50 for Del Mem Br. ,  $4.00 for Del Tpke,  $2.50 for I-95 in MD. and $2.00 for the McHenry tunnel.  That's another 7 cents per mile.

Your correct.  I mentioned that the cost of driving my Corolla would be increased by tolls and parking fees, assuming that I had to pay to park, which would depend on where I was going in the New York area, but even after adding the seven cents a mile that you calculated to the cost, it would still be considerably less per mile than the Acela.  In fact, it would even be less than the average regional train fare of nearly 50 cents a mile between Philadelphia and New York, although not by much.

Also, I used $6 a gallon as an arbitrary figure of where the cost of gasoline could go over the next ten years.  In fact, the cost of gasoline, even in the Northest, is well below this number.  I was in Brooklyn last week.  At the station where I used to buy gas, regular unleaded was selling for $3.73 a gallon. 

[oltmannd]

Most of those who support high speed rail (HSR) appear to overlook its cost or only make an oblique reference to it.  I wonder how many of the people who support HSR are aware of its true cost (capital and operating) and how it will impact them as taxpayers?

California has one of the highest state income tax rates of any state in the union.  It ranges from 1 per cent on taxable income of $6,287 to 9.3 per cent on taxable income of $44,819.  In 2006 the median family income in California was $64,563.  It is likely that at least half the families paid the maximum tax, except for those with a taxable income of more than $1 million, who pay a 1 per cent surcharge.  Adding $40 billion to the state budget, less what can be obtained from the federal government, plus operating subsidies will probably increase the pressure on state officials to raise taxes, unless they can find cuts to offset the state's share of funding HSR. 

Fares are another subject that has not been discussed.  How much will it cost to ride on the high speed system?  The fares for the Acela provide a clue.  The average cost to ride the Acela from Washington to New York is approximately 74 cents per mile, whilst the average cost from Philadelphia is approximately $1.39 per mile.  These fares, together with the regional fares, don't cover the complete cost of the NEC.  It would take another 16 to 23 cents per mile to recover the other charges (interest, depreciation, etc.) applicable to the NEC, depending on the percentage of these charges worn by the NEC. 

The average cost to fly commercially from Washington to New York is approximately 54 cents per mile, whilst the average cost to fly from Philadelphia to New York, which very few people do except when they are connecting to another flight, is approximately $1.84 per mile. 

The average cost to drive my Corolla is 31.5 cents per mile.  If the cost of gasoline rose to $6 per gallon, the cost to drive my car would be 39 cents per mile, which is well below the cost of taking the Acela, even after figuring in tolls and parking.    

If the California HSR fare is the same per mile as the Acela fare per mile between New York and Washington, the cost to travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco would be approximately $281.  If another 16 cents per mile was added to the fare, the cost would be approximately $342.  This assumes the rail distance between Lost Angeles is roughly 380 miles.

The average cost to fly from Los Angeles, which takes 1 hour and 15 minutes, is approximately 34 cents per mile or $129 on Southwest Airlines.  This is for a standard fare.  There are cheaper fares that could lower the cost by five cents a mile. 

Whether building HSR in California would save the state $128 billion in highway construction costs is problematic.  I am keen to see the independently audited numbers. 

Missing in the laudatory discussion of Europe's HSR is a discussion of the taxes paid by most Europeans compared to those paid by Americans.  Taxes as opposed to fares cover a significant portion of the cost of Europe's HSR.  According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the total tax burden in the United States (including state and local taxes) was 25.4 per cent of income in 2006.  This is before the inclusion of the taxes embedded in the in the cost of goods and services, i.e. corporate taxes, employer's portion of the payroll tax, etc.  As one might imagine, the rate varies from state to state because of the different state tax schemes.  In the European countries with supposedly flash high speed rail systems, the tax burden ranges from an average of 35.1 per cent in Spain to 50.7 per cent in Sweden.  Again, this is before any pass through taxes. 

I don't hear many people who support HSR discuss the tax implications of building and operating HSR.  Based on the numbers shown above, it is no wonder.  

I think you are correct about the sticker shock that will come if and when HSR is built and operated.  Acela fares are a good guide. 

The avg cost to drive your Corolla from NY to Washington is a bit more than you figure.  You need to figure in quite a few tolls.  6.45 for the NJTP, 1.50 for Del Mem Br. ,  $4.00 for Del Tpke,  $2.50 for I-95 in MD. and $2.00 for the McHenry tunnel.  That's another 7 cents per mile.

[Anonymous]

Most of those who support high speed rail (HSR) appear to overlook its cost or only make an oblique reference to it.  I wonder how many of the people who support HSR are aware of its true cost (capital and operating) and how it will impact them as taxpayers?

California has one of the highest state income tax rates of any state in the union.  It ranges from 1 per cent on taxable income of $6,287 to 9.3 per cent on taxable income of $44,819.  In 2006 the median family income in California was $64,563.  It is likely that at least half the families paid the maximum tax, except for those with a taxable income of more than $1 million, who pay a 1 per cent surcharge.  Adding $40 billion to the state budget, less what can be obtained from the federal government, plus operating subsidies will probably increase the pressure on state officials to raise taxes, unless they can find cuts to offset the state's share of funding HSR. 

Fares are another subject that has not been discussed.  How much will it cost to ride on the high speed system?  The fares for the Acela provide a clue.  The average cost to ride the Acela from Washington to New York is approximately 74 cents per mile, whilst the average cost from Philadelphia is approximately $1.39 per mile.  These fares, together with the regional fares, don't cover the complete cost of the NEC.  It would take another 16 to 23 cents per mile to recover the other charges (interest, depreciation, etc.) applicable to the NEC, depending on the percentage of these charges worn by the NEC. 

The average cost to fly commercially from Washington to New York is approximately 54 cents per mile, whilst the average cost to fly from Philadelphia to New York, which very few people do except when they are connecting to another flight, is approximately $1.84 per mile. 

The average cost to drive my Corolla is 31.5 cents per mile.  If the cost of gasoline rose to $6 per gallon, the cost to drive my car would be 39 cents per mile, which is well below the cost of taking the Acela, even after figuring in tolls and parking.    

If the California HSR fare is the same per mile as the Acela fare per mile between New York and Washington, the cost to travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco would be approximately $281.  If another 16 cents per mile was added to the fare, the cost would be approximately $342.  This assumes the rail distance between Lost Angeles is roughly 380 miles.

The average cost to fly from Los Angeles, which takes 1 hour and 15 minutes, is approximately 34 cents per mile or $129 on Southwest Airlines.  This is for a standard fare.  There are cheaper fares that could lower the cost by five cents a mile. 

Whether building HSR in California would save the state $128 billion in highway construction costs is problematic.  I am keen to see the independently audited numbers. 

Missing in the laudatory discussion of Europe's HSR is a discussion of the taxes paid by most Europeans compared to those paid by Americans.  Taxes as opposed to fares cover a significant portion of the cost of Europe's HSR.  According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the total tax burden in the United States (including state and local taxes) was 25.4 per cent of income in 2006.  This is before the inclusion of the taxes embedded in the cost of goods and services, i.e. corporate taxes, employer's portion of the payroll tax, etc.  As one might imagine, the rate varies from state to state because of the different state tax schemes.  In the European countries with supposedly flash high speed rail systems, the tax burden ranges from an average of 35.1 per cent in Spain to 50.7 per cent in Sweden.  Again, this is before any pass through taxes. 

I don't hear many people who support HSR discuss the tax implications of building and operating HSR.  Based on the numbers shown above, it is no wonder.  

[passengerfan]

Mario,

California's High Speed trains will operate at sustained speeds of 200 to 220 mph. Not putting the cart before the horse so to speak the bond on the November ballot comes first.

Their have already been talks with the Germans, French and Japanese regarding the system and initially it will use existing stations but they will be replaced by stations as seen in the video clips in more suburban settings in the years to come. It won't solve all of California's transportation needs but it is definitely a big step in that direction.

I personally attended many of the hearings on the proposed High Speed Rail in the Central Valley and it will certainly bring many construction jobs to the region and the Port of Stockton is where the Cement for the project will land. The amount of Re-Bar alone for the project is staggering. The tunnel boring machines already exist and work on the nine tunnels could begin as early as next spring if the Bill passes by a simple majority. Even though the system will pass through earthquake faults so does the system in Japan and they have had no trouble at all since they first started constructing their HSR. The system will be built to withstand an 8.5 earthquake and California has never had one of that magnitude. This is the same standard adopted by the Japanese.

One of the first parts to be constructed will be incorporated with the existing commuter corridor along the west bay, in fact 950 million is allocated for this alone. Additional tracks will be built alongside the existing commuter tracks and they also will be upgraded for faster commuter trains between San Francisco and San Jose. This additional right of way has already been quietly purchased over the last few years under the guise of a quiet zone next to the commuter rail tracks.  

There are already plans that if Proposition 1A passes in November to begin the acquistion of the additional land's needed will take place as fast as possible and eminent domain will be used where necessary. Look at the video clips carefully and remeber not all will be built immediatly but everything should be in place in thirty years.

The priorities are initially the San Francisco - Los Angeles and Sacramento - Los Angeles systems which become one in the Central Valley, and then the route to San Diego.

The additional routes over Altamont and the east bay connector will all use Stockton as sort of a Hub City.

On the back burner is an extension from Sacramento North to Oregon if the people of Oregon are interested this would make Portland a 3-1/2 hour trip from Sacramento and Seattle a 4-1/4 hour trip from Sacramento. So it would be possible to board a train in Seattle in the AM and 6-3/4 hours later step off in Los Angeles. Todays Amtrak train requires more than 24 hours for the same trip.  

It won't be in my life time but maybe my grandchildren will be able to enjoy this farsighted system.

Al - in - Stockton   

[Mario_v]

That seems to be a neat project.

But I wonder, since nowadays railroadd have the same gauge, something that doesn't happens in all of Europe's countries, if it wouldn't be possible to use existing stations as depart/arrival poinnts for these new trains. Since those 'older' stations are normally conveniently situated, that is one of the big advantages of high speed, the ability to get far much better travel times from city centre to city centre, something that in most cases is not possible with airports. One of the stations that immediately caome to my mind was LAUPT. Of cours that also brought another thought. Since high speed trains operate in electrified lines, wich require different height cleareances, compatibilising it with the existing bilevel commuter trains will be almost impossible. The only solution will be to have dedicated trains, but that restrains the stations capacity. That is only one of the defiances one will have to meet.

Also a thing that I found out to be fun in the presentation video. The 'fleet' of trains seemed to be a mix of european TGV2N (bilevel TGVs) and the most recent Shinkansen trains. It is true that both models operate under 25 Kv AC wire and in the same gauge, but all the rest is quite different technically speaking. Was that done only for the movie, or trains are yet to be chosen ? One must not forget that some new models of this type of trains are to be launched in the near future - New high Speed Talgo, Alstom's AGV, and maybe more.

 

[Mario_v]

I tried to do it by simple 'copy/paste', but the link doesn't apppers active. Does anyone knows how to place an 'active' link. In alternative it is possible to copy and paste the link on a new window. Like that , at least, works.

Thanks for the warning

[passengerfan]

Try this link.

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/galleryaspx

Al - in - Stockton

Change to http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/gallery.aspx

Sorry Al - in - Stockton

[passengerfan]

Try this link.

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/galleryaspx

Al - in - Stockton

[blue streak 1]

That link doesn't work

[Mario_v]

Since everybody is talking about Europe's high speed, here's a presentation video from Spain's RENFE, concerning the Madrid to Barcelona high speed line.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmbMYTJpAAM

Throughout the movie, the terrain difficulties are perfectly visible - after leaving Madrid, just after Guadalajara, the line crosses a series of 'sierras' after wich enters the Aragon plains, with other hills being overcomed right after Zaragoza. It is possible to see  that despite the difficult terrain, the line was engineered to the highest standards possible, with a top operational planned speed  of 350 Kmph. Due to technical reasons related with the 'ERTMS' ATP system however, it is being operated at 'only' 300, but with  intentions to raise it as soon as teething problems related with the novelty of the system get solved. Despite that, nonstop trains cover the distance between the two cities, wich is about 415 miles, in just 2 hours and 38 minutes. Talk about Scorching the ties.

And it has proven to be a success. Since the opening of the line, local airline Iberia as lost some 60 % of the market share to RENFE in the route(and believe me, it was a busy airbridge, with a plane every 15 minutes at rush hour periods). Consequently, RENFE was forced to launch more train services.

 

 

 

[Cricketer]

Well said Matt: look forward to you turning these ideas into an article in due course. 

[Matt Van Hattem]

My apologies for misidentifying that French train in the photo caption.

I appreciate all of the comments made here about my article and European trains in general.

I think what amazed more than the high-speed trains alone was the ability to connect so easily between systems that tapped different markets.

The high-speed trains were one part of an interlocked network of streetcars, subways, commuter trains, etc. Every connection added value to the rail system as a whole.

It's true Chicago-St. Louis is not on the same par as London-Paris. I think the real challenge in America is how to make rail travel easy from the spread-out suburbs where many people live. If you have to begin your trip in a car and drive too long to reach a train station, chances are you'll just forget the train and make the whole trip by car, particularly if your destination is a far-flung suburb as well.

I'm eager to see what will happen with California's high-speed proposal.

Matt Van Hattem

Senior Editor

[beaulieu]

With all the debt that CA has, how can it do anything major right now?  Or do all the voters think the Feds are going to give them the money?    Also, $40B sounds low to both construct and equip the HS rail system I've seen talked about for CA considering all the US restrictions in regards to environment, safety, etc. that Europe generally doesn't have.

For sure scratch safety from your list. All the Western European countries have train safety systems on the vast majority of their lines that would have prevented the Metrolink collision. They don't believe that building a tank is the best path to safety. 

 

As an outsider, I suspect the highway lobby feels its going to get its share no matter what and that the state will probably end up basically doing both.  Especially since the presumption is that Congress will provide huge highway infastructure spending next year no matter who wins the Presidency, the only assumed difference being it will be much higher under Obama then McCain.

The one thing that most caught my attention in the Trains article about Europe is that HS rail works up to a travel limit of approx. 4 hours.    Given that HS in Europe is mostly constructed in flat terrain and the distance between major cities in much of the US, that excludes many areas of the USA from HS.    Plus Europe already had extensive rail commuter lines to tie into the HS rail terminals which many US cities currently lack.   Finally, the author mentioned that London to Paris is about the same as Chicago to Saint Louis--but forgot to mention the huge difference in population between the end points in Europe vs. the end points in the USA.   The Chicago area population is large enough to sustain frequent HS rail but is the St. Louis area?   (And I doubt there's anywhere near the vacation travel between these 2 cities as there is between London and Paris.)

Eurostar is not all there is to HSR in Europe, it isn't even one of the largest players. Compare Paris to Lyon or even better Paris to Nice against your example of Chicago to St. Louis. Also the major companies now believe that train trips of up to 6 hours are competitive for leisure travel.Not all of Europe is flat try Google Earth and look at the terrain that the Spanish RENFE has to operate in. (Madrid to Barcelona especially)

One thought about the high cost of HS rail that I have wondering over: after the success of the Erie canal many of the then existing states began to spend big bucks building canals.  None of these were financially successful due to the arrival of the railroads shortly after their completion.  I wonder if there's some new passenger transportation technology thats going to show up 30 or so years from now that could make investment in HS rail obsolete just about the time it really gets up and running in the USA.    For example, passenger panes that have the ability to land and take off like helicopters (military already has these) which could eliminate many of the airport delays.    

Helicopters and VTOL flight are very inefficient compared to normal fixed wing. The fuel burn per weight of payload is significantly higher, and is unlikely to ever improve relative to fixed wing conventional aircraft. 

[al-in-chgo]

If this gets deleted for being "political," so be it, but STOL's reminded me of VTOL's, and that if the amount of money the military has p***** away on the Osprey could be recovered, it would double Amtrak's budget for almost five years. 

Or so 60 Minutes implied -- did they really mean $5 billion for Osprey over the years??  -  a.s.

 

From a separate post "Not TGV":  "Did anyone else notice the misidentified train in the Left-hand photo on page 36 of the Nevember 2008 Trains Magazine. The photo identifies the left-hand train as a TGV and comments on how similar it is to the Eurostar alongside it. Actually the train on the left is a "Regional" or "North of London" Eurostar set, while the one on the right is known as a "Three Capitals" Eurostar intended for service between London and Paris or Brussels. The Regional Eurstar trains were intended to operate from Birmingham and Manchester to Paris and Brussels. After the trains were built but before that service started, Eurostar decided they couldn't make money on that service, and it wasn't economical to use these shorter trains . . . "

Well, in the last analysis, I think TRAINS did a great job on a wide-ranging article that was not intended to be comprehensive, and I am grateful to them for that.  Who knows?  Might even spur subscriptions in the EC countries .  - a.s.

[al-in-chgo]

If this gets deleted for being "political," so be it, but STOL's reminded me of VTOL's, and that if the amount of money the military has p***** away on the Osprey could be recovered, it would double Amtrak's budget for almost five years. 

Or so 60 Minutes implied -- did they really mean $5 billion for Osprey over the years??  -  a.s.

PS:  I checked a couple of websites and the consensus seems to be at least eleven Ospreys at $170 million apiece or more.  So, more like $2billion than five, but almost enough to double Amtrak's budget for two years. 

[Cricketer]

The magazine hasn't quite made it over the Atlantic yet, but the mention of it has made me look forward to a good read. While Trains is unashamedly an American magazine I always enjoy the articles on European railroading, particulalry those that are not simply hagiographies. Or in simpler terms everything isn't perfect here.

As for the number of hours a journey must be for rail to have a majority share there are a couple of things to bear in mind. Business travellers need to get there as quickly as possible. So virtually everyone I know at work travels to Brussels by train; at 2hrs it's no contest. Everyone coming down for business from Edinburgh or Glasgow (four and a half hours on the train) will fly unless they want to stay the night, and nights away for business are now not fashionable. 4 hours is really at the top end of the timeframe for business travellers, though the ability to use laptops, and the hassle of airports have pushed the time limit upwards. For the leisure market timings are rather more elastic. 6 hours is increasingly the limit, especially with direct trains or a trustworthy system of connections.

European High Speed rail is not entirely built on the flat. True there's hardly a hill from Paris north to Amsterdam, and very little east from Amsterdam to Russia, but that is the exception. Elsewhere hill, and in some cases mountains are the rule. Maybe not like the Rockies, but the Alps are significantly higher than the Appalachians. Spanish High Speed lines burrow like moles and soar like Eagles. Much of Italy is hilly, for example the new high speed line from Bologna to Florence will be 78km or which about 73km will be in tunnel. The oldest of the lines there headed from about 100ft to over 2000ft, and back to about 100ft in around 60 miles. 2% gradients matter. As a final example the German Cologne to Frankfurt high speed line has gradients exceeding 3%. 

Population of itself is only part of the equation. Population density and extensive commuter rail lines (as Al-in-Stockton said) are equally significant. To again be personal my Brussels to London one way trips involve 1. Subway train 5mins, 2. Different subway train 10 mins, 3. High Speed Rail 2hrs, 4. Subway train in London 15 mins, 5. Commuter train for 15 mins, 6. Commuter train for 3 minutes. If there was no local train service I'd probably get a cab to the airport (30 mins), fly and pick up my car that I'd left at the airport near London earlier.

 

  

 

[passengerfan]

With all the debt that CA has, how can it do anything major right now?  Or do all the voters think the Feds are going to give them the money?    Also, $40B sounds low to both construct and equip the HS rail system I've seen talked about for CA considering all the US restrictions in regards to environment, safety, etc. that Europe generally doesn't have.

As an outsider, I suspect the highway lobby feels its going to get its share no matter what and that the state will probably end up basically doing both.  Especially since the presumption is that Congress will provide huge highway infastructure spending next year no matter who wins the Presidency, the only assumed difference being it will be much higher under Obama then McCain.

The one thing that most caught my attention in the Trains article about Europe is that HS rail works up to a travel limit of approx. 4 hours.    Given that HS in Europe is mostly constructed in flat terrain and the distance between major cities in much of the US, that excludes many areas of the USA from HS.    Plus Europe already had extensive rail commuter lines to tie into the HS rail terminals which many US cities currently lack.   Finally, the author mentioned that London to Paris is about the same as Chicago to Saint Louis--but forgot to mention the huge difference in population between the end points in Europe vs. the end points in the USA.   The Chicago area population is large enough to sustain frequent HS rail but is the St. Louis area?   (And I doubt there's anywhere near the vacation travel between these 2 cities as there is between London and Paris.)

One thought about the high cost of HS rail that I have wondering over: after the success of the Erie canal many of the then existing states began to spend big bucks building canals.  None of these were financially successful due to the arrival of the railroads shortly after their completion.  I wonder if there's some new passenger transportation technology thats going to show up 30 or so years from now that could make investment in HS rail obsolete just about the time it really gets up and running in the USA.    For example, passenger panes that have the ability to land and take off like helicopters (military already has these) which could eliminate many of the airport delays.    

 

STOL aircraft were already tried between Montreal and Toronto the DH -8 and DH -9 also several US cities tried the same aircraft and they never caught on. Both of the above aircraft flew out of downtown locations and the Turbo trains were far more successful at attracting passengers. The big item in the mix for California is going to be overcoming the enviromental wackos opposed to Nuclear Power plants. This is not on the ballot yet, one thing at a time. A major dam project has been held up for forty years by the Sierra Club and others, and several operating Nuclear Power plants were shut down. Now power is increasing at a staggering rate and the little people are complaining. They can't afford to drive their cars to airports to catch planes and the numbers of cars are decreasing daily where alternative means of transportation (commuter rail etc.) is available. Now is probably the perfect time to push HSR through and the 170,000 jobs it will create could help see us through the present crisis.

Al - in - Stockton  

[alphas]

With all the debt that CA has, how can it do anything major right now?  Or do all the voters think the Feds are going to give them the money?    Also, $40B sounds low to both construct and equip the HS rail system I've seen talked about for CA considering all the US restrictions in regards to environment, safety, etc. that Europe generally doesn't have.

As an outsider, I suspect the highway lobby feels its going to get its share no matter what and that the state will probably end up basically doing both.  Especially since the presumption is that Congress will provide huge highway infastructure spending next year no matter who wins the Presidency, the only assumed difference being it will be much higher under Obama then McCain.

The one thing that most caught my attention in the Trains article about Europe is that HS rail works up to a travel limit of approx. 4 hours.    Given that HS in Europe is mostly constructed in flat terrain and the distance between major cities in much of the US, that excludes many areas of the USA from HS.    Plus Europe already had extensive rail commuter lines to tie into the HS rail terminals which many US cities currently lack.   Finally, the author mentioned that London to Paris is about the same as Chicago to Saint Louis--but forgot to mention the huge difference in population between the end points in Europe vs. the end points in the USA.   The Chicago area population is large enough to sustain frequent HS rail but is the St. Louis area?   (And I doubt there's anywhere near the vacation travel between these 2 cities as there is between London and Paris.)

One thought about the high cost of HS rail that I have wondering over: after the success of the Erie canal many of the then existing states began to spend big bucks building canals.  None of these were financially successful due to the arrival of the railroads shortly after their completion.  I wonder if there's some new passenger transportation technology thats going to show up 30 or so years from now that could make investment in HS rail obsolete just about the time it really gets up and running in the USA.    For example, passenger panes that have the ability to land and take off like helicopters (military already has these) which could eliminate many of the airport delays.    

[passengerfan]

Al,

It was a great article shows what can be done when when the majority agree. Same is true for the proposed California HSR which goes to the voters in November. So far it looks as if it might pass 60%. Spend 40 Billion on the HSR system over the next eight years or 128 Billion to widen the existing highways that need it over the same period of time. So far and for the first time the Highway Lobby has remained silent. Not much you can say when everything points to $5.35 per gallon gasoline next year.

Al - in - Stockton

[al-in-chgo]

What did you think of the article on European HST's in the November TRAINS?  - a.s.