Argentina builds high speed rail

[overall]

Railway Age News is reporting that Argentina will build a 435 mile high speed rail line using TGV technology. Argentina beats the US to the punch in the western hemisphere building high speed rail. I think that is pathetic.

 

George

[Krazykat112079]

I think it is wonderful!  More high speed rail is never a pathetic thing.  We'll just narrow it down to the Northwestern semi-hemisphere from now on.

[overall]

My point was that places like Argintina and Viet Nam can see the value in high speed rail while "leaders" like John McCain would rather please the high way lobby than move HSR ahead in our country. I do think that the more HSR is built in other countries the more it begs the question as to why we don't have it here anywhere except the NEC. It sort of undermines the argument that our country is not populated enough to have HSR doesn't it?

George

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

My point was that places like Argintina and Viet Nam can see the value in high speed rail while "leaders" like John McCain would rather please the high way lobby than move HSR ahead in our country. I do think that the more HSR is built in other countries the more it begs the question as to why we don't have it here anywhere except the NEC. It sort of undermines the argument that our country is not populated enough to have HSR doesn't it?

George

A lot less people live between Chicago and Kansas City than between Boston and Washington and the distances are comparable.

[overall]

The new line is being built along a corridor that extends from Buenos Aires, Rosario and Cordoba. Does anyone know what the population is there? How does it compare to the NEC or the Chicago to Kansas City corridor mentioned above?

George

[oltmannd]

My point was that places like Argintina and Viet Nam can see the value in high speed rail while "leaders" like John McCain would rather please the high way lobby than move HSR ahead in our country. I do think that the more HSR is built in other countries the more it begs the question as to why we don't have it here anywhere except the NEC. It sort of undermines the argument that our country is not populated enough to have HSR doesn't it?

George

I knew McCain was anti-Amtrak LD trains, but not anti-HSR.  Do you have a link to a position paper or article about this?

[overall]

I don't know about a poistion paper.He has been quoted in the Trains newswire as saying something to the effect that HSR won't work in this country. There may be something on the "thomas" website or NARP may have a voting record on him. He has, like you say, fought Amtrak funding tooth and nail. He even fought against Amtrak getting funding to repair their existing passenger cars, many of which sit idle at Beach Grove. I am naturally suspicious of politicians and beleive the old saying "money talks". I suspect that the money of the highway lobby has spoken to him as it has many others in the government.

George

[ndbprr]

Announcements and construction are two different things.  Announcements are political in nature to court favor with voters. Construction is what happens after funding.  Dont hold you breath that it will ever be built.

[oltmannd]

I don't know about a poistion paper.He has been quoted in the Trains newswire as saying something to the effect that HSR won't work in this country. There may be something on the "thomas" website or NARP may have a voting record on him. He has, like you say, fought Amtrak funding tooth and nail. He even fought against Amtrak getting funding to repair their existing passenger cars, many of which sit idle at Beach Grove. I am naturally suspicious of politicians and beleive the old saying "money talks". I suspect that the money of the highway lobby has spoken to him as it has many others in the government.

George

I did some digging and found that he's generally been pro-NEC and even co-authored some bills to get it some funding.  He's also on record as being for Amtrak reform and been an outspoken critic of the LD trains.

Generally, he hates anything that smells like pork to him.

He's always struck me as someone who's less beholden to PAC money than most others. 

I suspect that if he were elected, he's take another swipe at Amtrak reform that could really put some heat on Amtrak's LD trains.  And, that might not turn out to be all bad, because the status quo really stinks.

[Prairietype]

My point was that places like Argintina and Viet Nam can see the value in high speed rail while "leaders" like John McCain would rather please the high way lobby than move HSR ahead in our country. I do think that the more HSR is built in other countries the more it begs the question as to why we don't have it here anywhere except the NEC. It sort of undermines the argument that our country is not populated enough to have HSR doesn't it?

George

A lot less people live between Chicago and Kansas City than between Boston and Washington and the distances are comparable.

What difference does it make how many people live along a rail corridor as long as the capacity of equipment is filled with passengers on every run? Must there be a queue of passengers waiting in line on standby or something before such service is justified? Isn't there a limit to just how many people can be squeezed aboard (maybe 1000 I would think). If there are only 993 aboard does that disqualify or make it illegitimate?

[oltmannd]

My point was that places like Argintina and Viet Nam can see the value in high speed rail while "leaders" like John McCain would rather please the high way lobby than move HSR ahead in our country. I do think that the more HSR is built in other countries the more it begs the question as to why we don't have it here anywhere except the NEC. It sort of undermines the argument that our country is not populated enough to have HSR doesn't it?

George

A lot less people live between Chicago and Kansas City than between Boston and Washington and the distances are comparable.

What difference does it make how many people live along a rail corridor as long as the capacity of equipment is filled with passengers on every run? Must there be a queue of passengers waiting in line on standby or something before such service is justified? Isn't there a limit to just how many people can be squeezed aboard (maybe 1000 I would think). If there are only 993 aboard does that disqualify or make it illegitimate?

I think the point was that for two similar routes, the one with the greater population along it will have greater ridership (all other things being equal).  And, if one of those routes is already in operation, it can be useful in a ridership model for the one that doesnt' exist.

In my opinion, the winning niche for rail passenger service is along corridors with good population centers along the route.  End point to end point is what airlines do well. 

[nanaimo73]

The new line is being built along a corridor that extends from Buenos Aires, Rosario and Cordoba. Does anyone know what the population is there? How does it compare to the NEC or the Chicago to Kansas City corridor mentioned above?

George

The total population has very little to do with it. What matters would be the number of potential riders. How many Americans would leave their cars at home, and how many Argentinians have cars ?

[Krazykat112079]

The new line is being built along a corridor that extends from Buenos Aires, Rosario and Cordoba. Does anyone know what the population is there? How does it compare to the NEC or the Chicago to Kansas City corridor mentioned above?

George

Those three Argentinian metro areas have populations of 12 million, 1.6 million, and 2 million respectively.  The distance is 435 miles, which is roughly the same length as the NEC. 

The NEC population is much higher, though with Washington metro (5.6 million), Baltimore metro (2.6 million), Philly metro (5.8 million), New York metro (18.8 million),  New Haven metro (0.8 million), Providence metro (1.6 million), and Boston metro (4.5 million).  The NEC population approximately equals the entire population of Argentina. 

The Chicago-KC population is more similar to the Argentina route, but is spread out more.  The corridor population could vary depending on which route you take, but lets assume that it goes Chi-Peoria-Springfield-St Louis-Columbia-Kansas City.  You have the Chicago metro (9.5 million), Peoria metro (0.4 million), Springfield metro (0.2 million), St Louis metro (2.8 million), Columbia metro (0.2 million), and KC metro (2 million) over a roughly 600 mile route.  

A comparable length route to the Chicago-KC corridor, is the proposed San Diego-Sacramento HSR corridor.  This population is about double the midwest corridor. 

[Krazykat112079]

The total population has very little to do with it. What matters would be the number of potential riders. How many Americans would leave their cars at home, and how many Argentinians have cars ?

According to a study done in 1998, 47% of the population in Argentina live in a household that owns a car.  The best stat for the US I could find, was that 8% of households in the US do not have cars.

As for how many Americans would leave their cars at home? You might see that number go up if there was viable alternative transportation and the price of gasoline was more in line with the rest of the world. At a consumption rate of 388.6 million gallons of gasoline used per day (which is over 10% of the world consumption of all petroleum products per day, stats from 2006), an extra $1 per gallon (which based on what I could find is reasonable adjustment to big economy world petrol prices) would fund the entire US DOT budget in less than half a year or the entire Argentina HSR project in 4 days.

With all that said, HSR in the US is tricky and will require lots of convincing and proven corridors.  High population helps, but isn't necessary for a corridor.  I'm glad that Argentina is getting HSR, because trains are great, more trains are awesome, and the more that HSR is proven to work around the world, the less convincing it will take here in the US. 

[alphas]

Viet Nam is not a reasonable comparison--few individual car owners.   Argentina is a better one but you have to keep in mind it is currently a pretty socialistic country.   The more government control, the more you will have massive public works.  I'm somewhat surprised the country can afford this since it was only Hugo Chavez loaning them a huge amount of money to pay off the World Bank that got them to the point the country had any funds to invest.  And the newly elected Argentine government has already said it won't reduce the bloated public employee payroll.  (Note: Many of Chavez's critics, and even some of his supporters, in his home country think Argentina will never repay what it owes and Chavez knows it.)   So this high-speed rail may have more to do with politics than anything else.  However, if it works it will be a major achievement.   Given the record of Argentina government in the last 15 years, it is a big "if".

[Mailman56701]

Railway Age News is reporting that Argentina will build a 435 mile high speed rail line using TGV technology. Argentina beats the US to the punch in the western hemisphere building high speed rail. I think that is pathetic.

 

George

  Once it's actually built.  Until then, it's just paper project talk.

[JT22CW]

Argentina is a better one but you have to keep in mind it is currently a pretty socialistic country. The more government control, the more you will have massive public works

Using that logic, then the Soviet Union should have had high speed rail before anybody else.

For the record, Argentina's average population density is 35 people per square mile, which is about 40 percent of the USA's average population density.

From what I've read on the web, the USA has the contract to build the high-speed line, which is ironic. Costs thus far are estimated to be $1.35 billion, or a minuscule $3.1 million per mile, which is a new precedent for low costs.

In my opinion, the winning niche for rail passenger service is along corridors with good population centers along the route. End point to end point is what airlines do well

How come most air passengers have to endure two or more stops in order to make such travel affordable, then? I can't go to Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Airport or Lehigh Valley International Airport (the two international airports closest to me) and hope for an unlimited plethora of one-seat ride destinations by air, never mind reasonable fares unless I fly in the wrong direction for a couple of hours.

Critics of high-speed rail in Germany (these are the pro-rail critics, not anti-rail) often note that the ICE trains on the NBS (dedicated high speed) corridors make too many intermediate stops, slowing down average speeds to 125 mph when they can be a lot faster. On the Shinkansen, the most popular trains are the super-expresses that travel endpoint to endpoint.

As for McCain, the "Rail Passenger Service Improvement Act" that he sponsored in 2002 was a bizarre and vain (IMHO) proposal to have Amtrak broken up into three different units (namely "Amtrak Operations", "Amtrak Maintenance" and "Intercity Rail Reservations"), opening Amtrak up to "competition" (without understanding what "competition" on the rails means) and eventually phased out by 2006 (privatized). No support of high speed rail whatsoever. (Um, Amtrak was created because rail service that was already privatized at the time was struggling under the weight of speed regulations and being unfairly competed against by the government, right??) McCain was actually proposing increasing bureaucracy by creating an "Office of Rail Passenger Development and Franchising" (outsourcing too! imagine Connex operating the Acela Express??), an "Amtrak Reform Board" (their purpose would be coordinating these "other rail providers" would be able to access Amtrak's rolling stock, ROW, reservations and other Amtrak assets, never mind the assets of the other railroads Amtrak currently operated over!); and on top of that, an Amtrak Control Board whose purpose would be to create the "glidepath" (sorry for the theft of cliché) to privatization, as well as try and talk individual states into being saddled with greater financial burden for interstate passenger rail (yeah; try and talk them into doing the same thing with interstate highways, why don't you). For a reputed anti-pork fellow, he seems to like porcine a lot.

And yes; the USA ought to be embarrassed that such countries are building HSR and we're doing it for them, while we have not a mile of it on our soil.

[Mailman56701]

And yes; the USA ought to be embarrassed that such countries are building HSR and we're doing it for them, while we have not a mile of it on our soil.

 

   Hmm.....I'll take that kind of "embarrassment", of securing a multi-million dollar govt. gravy train contract, anytime

   Sounds more like smart business instead.

[Krazykat112079]

The contract winner is Alstom (France) with Isolux Corsan (Spain), Emepa (Argentina), and IECSA (Argentina) as the rest of the consortium.  I'm not seeing where the US government comes into the equation.

[Mailman56701]

The contract winner is Alstom (France) with Isolux Corsan (Spain), Emepa (Argentina), and IECSA (Argentina) as the rest of the consortium.  I'm not seeing where the US government comes into the equation.

  I never said the US govt. was in the equation :)   I would hope that they wouldn't be in the business of building railroads for other countries.

  I was refering to the reference in the post above mine, about the US (private contractors I assume) contract.

[JT22CW]

And yes; the USA ought to be embarrassed that such countries are building HSR and we're doing it for them, while we have not a mile of it on our soil.

 

   Hmm.....I'll take that kind of "embarrassment", of securing a multi-million dollar govt. gravy train contract, anytime

   Sounds more like smart business instead.

Does it?  In that case, there's no excuse not to do it on our own soil, especially if the same returns that other countries are getting on HSR can be gotten here, correct?

[Mailman56701]

And yes; the USA ought to be embarrassed that such countries are building HSR and we're doing it for them, while we have not a mile of it on our soil.

 

   Hmm.....I'll take that kind of "embarrassment", of securing a multi-million dollar govt. gravy train contract, anytime

   Sounds more like smart business instead.

Does it?  In that case, there's no excuse not to do it on our own soil, especially if the same returns that other countries are getting on HSR can be gotten here, correct?

 

   Not at all.  In one case, you're making money.  In the other, you're spending it.

 

[oltmannd]

Argentina is a better one but you have to keep in mind it is currently a pretty socialistic country. The more government control, the more you will have massive public works

Using that logic, then the Soviet Union should have had high speed rail before anybody else.

For the record, Argentina's average population density is 35 people per square mile, which is about 40 percent of the USA's average population density.

From what I've read on the web, the USA has the contract to build the high-speed line, which is ironic. Costs thus far are estimated to be $1.35 billion, or a minuscule $3.1 million per mile, which is a new precedent for low costs.

In my opinion, the winning niche for rail passenger service is along corridors with good population centers along the route. End point to end point is what airlines do well

How come most air passengers have to endure two or more stops in order to make such travel affordable, then? I can't go to Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Airport or Lehigh Valley International Airport (the two international airports closest to me) and hope for an unlimited plethora of one-seat ride destinations by air, never mind reasonable fares unless I fly in the wrong direction for a couple of hours.

Critics of high-speed rail in Germany (these are the pro-rail critics, not anti-rail) often note that the ICE trains on the NBS (dedicated high speed) corridors make too many intermediate stops, slowing down average speeds to 125 mph when they can be a lot faster. On the Shinkansen, the most popular trains are the super-expresses that travel endpoint to endpoint.

As for McCain, the "Rail Passenger Service Improvement Act" that he sponsored in 2002 was a bizarre and vain (IMHO) proposal to have Amtrak broken up into three different units (namely "Amtrak Operations", "Amtrak Maintenance" and "Intercity Rail Reservations"), opening Amtrak up to "competition" (without understanding what "competition" on the rails means) and eventually phased out by 2006 (privatized). No support of high speed rail whatsoever. (Um, Amtrak was created because rail service that was already privatized at the time was struggling under the weight of speed regulations and being unfairly competed against by the government, right??) McCain was actually proposing increasing bureaucracy by creating an "Office of Rail Passenger Development and Franchising" (outsourcing too! imagine Connex operating the Acela Express??), an "Amtrak Reform Board" (their purpose would be coordinating these "other rail providers" would be able to access Amtrak's rolling stock, ROW, reservations and other Amtrak assets, never mind the assets of the other railroads Amtrak currently operated over!); and on top of that, an Amtrak Control Board whose purpose would be to create the "glidepath" (sorry for the theft of cliché) to privatization, as well as try and talk individual states into being saddled with greater financial burden for interstate passenger rail (yeah; try and talk them into doing the same thing with interstate highways, why don't you). For a reputed anti-pork fellow, he seems to like porcine a lot.

And yes; the USA ought to be embarrassed that such countries are building HSR and we're doing it for them, while we have not a mile of it on our soil.

Show me any successful HSR operation that doesn't have and serve decent sized population centers along it's route, regardless if there are express trains running the route, and I'll concede that point.

I will agree that the 2002 bill that McCain co-sponsored was goofy.  Sometimes doing anything different, goofy or not, is better than the status quo.  And, yes, I CAN imagine Veloia (Connex was purchased by the French a couple of years ago) or Herzog operating Acelas.  Just arrange the game so that the better job they do, the more money they make and stand back!  I think Amtrak could do a much better job with their LD train's, too, if they had a reason to.

Embarrassment and/or pride is never a good reason to spend billions of dollars, is it?

[Railway Man]

Embarrassment and/or pride is never a good reason to spend billions of dollars, is it?

No, of course it isn't.  It has to be trillions. Plus a whole new bureaucracy.  We could call it the Department of High-speed Spending (DHS), and administer the day-to-day operations through the Trains Splurging Agency (TSA).

More seriously, let's see how Veolia does in Austin. 

RWM 

[JT22CW]

Show me any successful HSR operation that doesn't have and serve decent sized population centers along it's route

Sweden's X2000. The country has an average population density of 52 people per square mile, yet the X2000 is very successful, even when its endpoints have a mere 14,000 inhabitants (Arvika in particular).

(Here's a map of France's population distribution. Overlay a map of the LGV network, and you'd be hard-pressed to find "decent" population centers along the routes.)

I will agree that the 2002 bill that McCain co-sponsored was goofy. Sometimes doing anything different, goofy or not, is better than the status quo

The bill thereof was not goofy, but hypocritical (but typical of such politicians' lip service to less bureaucracy while trying to implement more of it), and also bespoke a lack of research (thus ignorance) into how modern intercity rail works (speed sells).

As for "anything different", then different it was not; it was a copy (and a bad one) of the failed British privatization model (which was not privatization when all was said and done). Within McCain's proposal was "backdoor open-access", which US private railroads would be dead-against, and the problems withal that he leaves completely unaddressed.

And, yes, I CAN imagine Veloia (Connex was purchased by the French a couple of years ago) or Herzog operating Acelas. Just arrange the game so that the better job they do, the more money they make and stand back

You're imagining something very unrealistic and bizarre, then. Veolia Transport, f.k.a. Connex, does not operate high speed trains anywhere; they're all about urban/suburban transit (light rail, subway, commuter rail, buses). They are very fond of their pork diet. MBTA's commuter rail has suffered under their ministrations; and we all know what happened in Britain.

You cannot put the cart before the horse. Has any business come to be without investment, especially in infrastructure? If the USA is going to remain socialistic in regards to its transportation infrastructure, then let them be honest about it and no more be selective and discriminatory against any mode.

I think Amtrak could do a much better job with their LD train's, too, if they had a reason to

Yup; they're making no attempt to upgrade the speeds of railroads that they actually own. Porter IN-Kalamazoo MI has had no money spent on it and is not being upgraded to 110 mph. (I can't speak as to what's going on with the Inland Route; but what with Amtrak being a political animal, state politics would have a great deal to do with that, especially with Connecticut.)

You do realize that investing in more rapid operation on the freight railroads involves all of such railroad's locomotives being upgraded to these signaling capabilities as well, right? This is the legacy of the Chase MD accident. That's the only way that you'd be able to get average speeds for Amtrak's LD trains to improve (but people are riding those trains in droves in spite of that).

Embarrassment and/or pride is never a good reason to spend billions of dollars, is it?

One might say that hypocrisy is not a good reason either. However, trillions per year are spent on it in the USA.

Consider how deep we are in the hole and countries with HSR are not so. Coincidence? If so, perhaps a strange one; but it's telling, insofar as how these countries exercise control over the scruples of their business (no executive compensation of 500 times the average employee salary or anything like that) and how serious they are about making their transportation energy-efficient.

No, of course it isn't. It has to be trillions. Plus a whole new bureaucracy. We could call it the Department of High-speed Spending (DHS), and administer the day-to-day operations through the Trains Splurging Agency (TSA)

That's exactly what McCain was proposing, in his Amtrak-killing bill. The link to it is still in the thread. Care to re-read it? For all its troubles, Amtrak is not so liberally and process-impedingly structured.

And yes; the USA ought to be embarrassed that such countries are building HSR and we're doing it for them, while we have not a mile of it on our soil.

Hmm.....I'll take that kind of "embarrassment", of securing a multi-million dollar govt. gravy train contract, anytime

Sounds more like smart business instead.

Does it? In that case, there's no excuse not to do it on our own soil, especially if the same returns that other countries are getting on HSR can be gotten here, correct?

Not at all. In one case, you're making money. In the other, you're spending it.

Nice short-term thinking, there. Ever heard the term "you gotta spend money to make money"? So it's OK to keep blowing money on commercial aviation, where even the airlines are losing bucketfuls of money, rather than switch funding to a mode that has already proven profitable where it's been implemented? (What did you not understand about the word "returns", sir...?)

Smart business hasn't existed in the USA in decades.

[Mailman56701]

Not at all. In one case, you're making money. In the other, you're spending it.

Nice short-term thinking, there. Ever heard the term "you gotta spend money to make money"? So it's OK to keep blowing money on commercial aviation, where even the airlines are losing bucketfuls of money, rather than switch funding to a mode that has already proven profitable where it's been implemented? (What did you not understand about the word "returns", sir...?)

Smart business hasn't existed in the USA in decades.

   I'd appreciate it if you'd quit trying to put words in my mouth.   Fwiw, I'd love to see a high speed train(s).

  However;

  - I don't in the least feel "embarrassed" or any other melodramatic term needed, that some other country has it and the US doesn't.

    Perhaps if you'd lose the obvious chip on your shoulder some of this would be more apparent

[nanaimo73]

 
Smart business hasn't existed in the USA in decades.

Apple seems to be doing okay.

[JT22CW]

Apple seems to be doing okay

Nonsequitur. Other US corporations that do lots of outsourcing also "seem" to be "doing okay". Doesn't make that smart business.

Mailman: What words are you claiming that I put in your mouth? I claim all the words in my last reply to you as my own and did not misquote you, FTR; if you disagree with my interpretation of what you actually said, then that's another matter.
 

[Mailman56701]

Apple seems to be doing okay

Nonsequitur. Other US corporations that do lots of outsourcing also "seem" to be "doing okay". Doesn't make that smart business.

Mailman: What words are you claiming that I put in your mouth? I claim all the words in my last reply to you as my own and did not misquote you, FTR; if you disagree with my interpretation of what you actually said, then that's another matter.
 

   Have a nice day JT22CW. 

[oltmannd]

Embarrassment and/or pride is never a good reason to spend billions of dollars, is it?

No, of course it isn't.  It has to be trillions. Plus a whole new bureaucracy.  We could call it the Department of High-speed Spending (DHS), and administer the day-to-day operations through the Trains Splurging Agency (TSA).

More seriously, let's see how Veolia does in Austin. 

RWM 

The problem with contract operators, as I see it, is the contract.  If you hire someone to run your trains or busses, and they want to maximize their profit, the only lever available is cost. They can cut staffing, cleaning, maintenance, and training.  They get paid the same whether the customer show up or are happy or not.  They have to do just enough to stop a mutiny by the passengers.

I think it would be interesting to have a provision where the contrator would get a cut of the farebox, so there would be an incentive to provide good service, too.  Perhaps go all the way and let them set the fares and do the marketing, too.  They payment to provide the service would just raise the profitablity floor.

Actually, it's the same problem with transit agencies and Amtrak - except they don't even have an incentive to work the cost side of equation