Interesting.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/06/17/high-speed-trains-are-killing-airplanes/
Interesting indeed..if you build it, they will ride.
Whuddisay about HSTs on the Amtrak funding thread? If ya wanna compete with da airlines ya gotta put the d*** train where the planes are goin'...and puttem' on their own d*** track...just that no one here has the willpower to do it. We'll all be reduced to horse and buggies before we get a real serious HST program in this country
Yeah I know, go back to my corner...
Have fun with your trains
The local Wis-DOT person who address our local advocacy group pointed this out months ago, but he added that countries that put in these trains also favor the train by reducing the level of air service of the city pairs in question.
Not a stupid policy -- you just spent all of this coin on a train, so your state-run or national-flag airline cuts back on the air mode to you get some payoff from that investment.
And by the way, the EU breakdown on modes assigns about 15 percent of all passenger miles to common-carrier modes, about evenly split between air-rail-and buses. Yes, those terrible leg-cramping intercity buses have 50 times the traffic level of our Amtrak. The breakdown here is 10 percent common carrier with the lion share being airlines. And by the way, of the common-carrier mode split in Europe, air is the mode showing real growth in recent years.
No one is claiming that no one would ride HSR in the U.S.. It is just that over a certain minimum distance, and taking into account all of the subsidies, air is by far the low cost mode of common-carrier transportation, and for a single-occupant car trip, it is lower cost than private auto were one to factor in all of the mileage-dependent costs of driving. This was all laid out in Trains magazine editorials and articles in the early 1960s. Trains and cars are of comparable cost, with the role of the subsidy of the train ride to counteract perceptions that the cost of driving is merely the out-of-pocket gas costs.
Whenever the question of political will comes up, there is this notion that here is poor red-haired child Amtrak with around 1 billion in annual subsidy, and over there is the richly treated and favored Federal highway program, funded at around 40 billion/year. The trains in Europe are funded at about the same rate of our Federal Highway program. The Lautenberg Lott bill is to take Amtrak from around 1 billion a year up to around 3 billion a year and do this for 5 years to see what good things happen. The Vision Report talks about spending 10 billion/year on trains over 40 years. I have poured over their report, and the capital spending they are proposing is lavish compared to the amount of trains they propose, but perhaps they have operating subsidy folded in. Better yet, the probably looked at the current 1 billion for Amtrak and the 40 billion rate of our highway program and lo, behold, came up the 10 billion/year number as politically feasible in this country.
Based on the Amtrak subsidy and what the Vision Report is saying about spending on trains in Europe, 1 billion gets you about .1 percent of your passenger miles on the rails, 40 billion/year gets you about 4 percent of you passenger miles on the rails. There seems to be nothing exceptional about Amtrak spending vis a vis the European experience. You want to get 100 percent of your passenger miles on trains, it will cost a cool trillion/year in subsidy, dwarfing the defense budget, Social Security, or Medicare.
An advocate colleague pointed out in a newsletter that there is subsidy rate and there is underlying cost. Autos may be favorable in some measure of direct subsidy per passenger mile, but with an auto population in the U.S. over 100 million vehicles, that perhaps a cool trillion dollars is spent per year keeping our cars cared for and fed is perhaps not that far fetched. But it is largely a trillion/year in people making choices about how they spend their money, not another $4/gallon in gas tax tacked on to the $4/gallon we are already paying as they do in Europe.
I have another advocacy colleague who is not coy about saying that doubling the price of gas (again) to pay for enough trains is not a bad idea. If you are talking about political will, that is the kind of political will you are talking about, and good luck making that the main agenda item of your train advocacy group.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
ndbprr wrote:Could that possiboy be because of the distances across Europe and why the corridor is successful here? Totaly irrelevant to 98% of the USA.
Could be.
Madrid-Barcelona 269 miles
Paris-Lyon 243 miles
Paris -London 213 miles
Paris-Brussels 165 miles
Paris-Amsterdam 266 miles
Naples-Milan 410 miles
Turin-Venice 229 miles
Shinkansen system: Tokaido Shinkansen 514 miles (375,000 passengers per day).
Sanyo Shinkansen 554 miles, Tohoku Shinkansen 593 miles.
----------------------------------
US:
Boston-New York 215 miles
Washington DC-New York 209 miles
New York-Pittsburg 321 miles
Chicago - Detroit 239 miles
Chicago - Minneapolis 354 miles
San Fancisco - L.A. 341 miles
Seattle-Portland 147 miles
Amtrak Hiawath service 86 miles (about 500,000 passengers . . . per year). Michael, I think you have proven the point, that there is a little bit difference in scale between the traffic densities you get with a prosperous country of about 1/3 the US population placed in the thin corridor-like coastal zone on a country that is essentially a large volcanic rock in contrast with the dispersal of population, especially in "fly-over" country.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: Shinkansen system: Tokaido Shinkansen 514 miles (375,000 passengers per day). Amtrak Hiawath service 86 miles (about 500,000 passengers . . . per year). Michael, I think you have proven the point, that there is a little bit difference in scale between the traffic densities you get with a prosperous country of about 1/3 the US population placed in the thin corridor-like coastal zone on a country that is essentially a large volcanic rock in contrast with the dispersal of population, especially in "fly-over" country.
Shinkansen is the busiest passenger high speed rail in the world, and I included the number not to mean that it was typical of non-US passenger rail, but that it was an extreme number.
Well, I am thinking out loud here, because I don't have an opinion either way -- I have to generate the data from scratch.
Europe:
City Population Distance
Madrid 5 million -- Barcelona 3.2 million, 269 miles
Lyon 1.8 million -- Strasbourg 702,000, 238 miles
Paris, 2.6 million -- Lyon, 243 miles
Paris -- Brussels, 1 million, 165 miles
Paris-Amsterdam, 743,000, 266 miles
Turin 908,000 -- Venice 271,000, 229 miles
Naples, 1 million -- Milan, 1.3 million, 410 miles
USA:
Chicago 3 million -- Twin Cities 3.5 million, 354 miles
Chicago-Detroit, 911,000, 239 miles
San Francisco 800,000 -- LA 3.8 million, 341 miles
New York 8.2 million -- Pittsburg 334,000, 321 miles
Washington DC, 600,000-New York, 209 miles
New York -- Boston, 600,000, 215 miles
Seattle 3.2 million -- Portland 568,000, 147 miles
Without beating it to death, I guess I am seeing similar market sizes with similar corridor lengths.
Even here in the central valley we are considered "flyover country". Why? How many cities of 300,000 population have only one airplane five days a week. We are centrally located and are a freight hub to the bay area and the rest of the valley and cannot even keep a single air cargo flight. Our airport is capable of operating the llargest aircraft flying and is equipped with GCA for low visibility landing and takeoff. The one flight we have five days per week flys back and forth to Las Vegas.
Yet we have eight Amtrak trains a day operating through two different Stations. giving us access to Las Vegas , and all points in California via Amtrak California, Amtrak USA to Chicago and Seattle. The problem we have right now is that Amtrak California does not have enough equipment to supply the demand by the traveling public. We are putting a bond measure on the ballot for high speed rail between Sacramento/San Francisco -Los Angeles/San Diego on the November ballot and this time it probably will pass. Even though the two sides can't decide on the route it will actually take.
I have been a proponent of HSR in the state of California for many years, but it is not meant to be a national system in this country as like others have said there is to much flyover country without enough population to support HSR. I'm not suggesting that we should abandon long distance services but if we are going to continue operating them, then lets get the additional equipment necessary to maintain it. I for one firmly believe the ridership is there it has been the lack of equipment and Amtrak's reservation system that has been at fault for some of the poor showing in increased ridership on Amtrak Long Distance Routes. The Superliner equipped passenger trains have not carried additional cars as there are how many awaiting repairs behind the Beech Grove Shops. Until that problem is addressed and the Amtrak reservation system telling people that sleeping car space is sold out three months in advance only to find out when boarding the train there is empty spaces available. And trains such as the Southwest Chief, California Zephyr, and Sunset operate with open spaces for this very reason. And in many cases the coaches are running with vacancies as well. I shudder to think what hairbrained scheme's Amtrak will come up with to waste the new windfall on.
If states like Ohio want HSR connecting there major population centers than let the taxpayers of Ohio get behind it just as California voters are being asked to do. If Texans wants HSR connecting there major population centers than put it on there ballot and let Texans make that decision and pay for it. And the same holds true for any other HSR proposals in the United States that are being contemplated. If the people who will directly effected by it want it let them put it on the ballots of those states. But don't ask the American taxpayer in general to fund HSR.
Do we need a national rail system for passenger service? I say yes but not this mediocre system we have today. Bring back the Portland - Salt Lake portion of the Pioneer and theLos Angeles - Las Vegas - Salt Lake Desert Wind. Bring back rail service along the old Northern Pacific route across Southern Montana. One area that has always been missing in the west is a Dallas - Denver - Billings route. Has anyone tried to drive between St. Louis and Minneapolis/St. Paul. How about Kansas City - Minneapolis?And for a couple of shorter routes how about Lincoln - Omaha - St. Joseph - Kansas City, or Minneapolis - Winnipeg. With gasoline prices looking as bleak as they do Amtrak has the perfect opportunity to show potential riders what the train is all about. And if they put a best foot forward they have an opportunity to retain many of those new riders. Put spies on the trains checking on Amtrak employees and if three bad reports come in on any particular employee put that employee in the unemployment line. In future hire only those that show a little enthusiasm for the job and put them on probation for a year. That way they are easier to get rid of. Enough of my rambling.
Al - in - Stockton
PS Fire all of the reservation clerks to begin with and start fresh their.
This is probably obvious, but what I see in the linked article is that the high speed trains increase the effective market reach of rail passenger service. I suspect that the average passenger is willing to accept as an outside time travel limit a 2 hour to a 2 and 1/2 hour train ride as a trade-off to air travel. For the typical US passenger train outside the NE Corridor, that implies a travel distance at an average speed of 40 mph of 80 miles. On the high speed trains, this means the average "tolerance" corridor extends to between 250 and 300 miles. That explains the prevalence of European routes between 200 and 300 miles: enough distance to reach major population centers, and beat the airplane by the time the passenger drives to the airport, parks, enplanes 30-45 minutes before takeoff, etc. etc.
As opposed to a given available market that can be exploited at the slower speeds, the high speed market is available to a much larger population, and a larger percentage of the population willing to use the trains because of the increased convenience factor. Perhaps in marketing terms, it is not that high speed passenger rail systems are not feasible, rather, they are the only feasible alternative to air travel of moving large numbers of people over key distances who are willing to use the service.
Looking at capacity, the Shinkansen systems certainly show the potential. As I have pointed out here previously, Amtrak carries, on the Empire Builder between Chicago and Seattle/Portland, the equivalent in boardings and arrivals of one small country airport at Kalispell, Montana. Not even a blip on meeting the transportation needs of the nation. It is the National Transportation Equivalent of National Public Radio.
The United States plainly has corridors of potential very similar to those in Europe. I picked these U.S. corridors pretty much at random, but compared to existing European high speed rail corridors, and comparing city pairs with the largest city of the pair first -- the "driver" of the use of the high speed rail corridor -- the average European "driver" has a population of 2.4 million whereas the average "driver" in my random U.S. corridor sample is 5.4 million. The average "receiver" city in Europe is 1.2 million, in the U.S. it's 1 million.
An interesting discussion could be made out of whether the disparity ratio between the drivers and receivers naturally results in more or fewer passengers between city pairs. Europe has a 2:1 ratio, the United States a 5.5:1 ratio. I suspect the higher the ratio, the greater the movement of passengers.
Other comparisons are equally interesting. The average corridor length of existing selected high speed rail systems in Europe: 260 miles. The average corridor length in the U.S. of random city pairs that popped into my head: 260.8 miles. The total population of the referenced city pairs in Europe: 25 million. In the United States random sample: 44 million, a 76% larger population.
This is suggestive, not conclusive, that the potential United States market is substantially greater than in Europe based on geography and population distribution.
Lucky guesses, I suppose, that comparisons of seven corridors in each circumstance had similar characteristics, but it cannot be said that the United States does not have even better potential on relevant corridors than Euorpe.
I would rather ride a train than a plane if the time were comparable. The Europeans, according to the article, seem to be showing that others think the same way, and it really is a "build it and they will come" kind of idea, and certainly they are looking not at national high speed rail systems, but specific corridors that match the marketing profile. The cursory examination here shows that United States not only has comparable corridors, but may in fact offer greater opportunity.
I see a marketing formula, and I am doing a back-of-the-envelope analysis here: for each additional 50 mph, the number of passengers willing to use the service doubles for each existing station served -- because of increased convenience -- and doubles again for additional stations served -- the increased "tolerance" corridor length. So, for instance, for the Hiawatha service, Chicago-Milwaukee. At 500,000 passengers per year, with high speed rail at 150 mph it would carry 2.0 million -- convenience -- and so forth, but now the upper incremental limit would be 1.5 million riders at the Twin Cities (accounting for the larger population compared to Milwaukee) -- the significantly extended reach of the 'tolerance" corridor.
With gasoline prices looking as bleak as they do Amtrak has the perfect opportunity to show potential riders what the train is all about.
With the load factors and the type of trains Amtrak runs, the systemwide energy usage is 2700 BTU/passenger mile. The figure I have seen for automobile travel is 3300 BTU/passenger mile.
My Toyota Camry, driven at legal highway speeds, averages about 3500 BTU/vehicle mile. With two people in it, it comes to 1750 BTU/passenger mile or about a 50 percent improvement in energy efficiency over Amtrak.
Intercity buses at their load factors run about 900 BTU/passenger mile or three times better than Amtrak. Intercity buses in Europe have 50 times the market share they Amtrak has here.
So what does Amtrak have to contribute to alleviate the high price of gas apart from receiving subsidy money to cover its costs?
I read somewhere, perhaps 10 years ago, that there is a big difference between how Europeans and Americans do the first and last mile. That for HSR to really work, you have to have:
1. Appropriately spaced population centers of significant size.
AND
2. strong suburban/urban transit supporting the terminals and stations.
In the US, we have many candidates for #1, but few outside the NEC with #2. (Chicago and SF are the notable exceptions)
With the trend toward better suburban and urban transit in many US cities, perhaps the soil is being tilled for sucessful intercity service.
For example, in the NE, could you imagine what the parking decks would look like if all the passengers riding out of NYP, 30th St and Union Station drove there?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Paul Milenkovic wrote: With gasoline prices looking as bleak as they do Amtrak has the perfect opportunity to show potential riders what the train is all about.With the load factors and the type of trains Amtrak runs, the systemwide energy usage is 2700 BTU/passenger mile. The figure I have seen for automobile travel is 3300 BTU/passenger mile.My Toyota Camry, driven at legal highway speeds, averages about 3500 BTU/vehicle mile. With two people in it, it comes to 1750 BTU/passenger mile or about a 50 percent improvement in energy efficiency over Amtrak.Intercity buses at their load factors run about 900 BTU/passenger mile or three times better than Amtrak. Intercity buses in Europe have 50 times the market share they Amtrak has here.So what does Amtrak have to contribute to alleviate the high price of gas apart from receiving subsidy money to cover its costs?
I haven't really thought this through too much, but at some point, for Amtrak wouldn't you want to consider utiliizing the marginal BTU/pax mile instead of the average? This would certainly make Amtrak much more attractive than a car.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: So what does Amtrak have to contribute to alleviate the high price of gas apart from receiving subsidy money to cover its costs?
That's a darn good question. I have been a critic of our local bus system, installed at the insistence of the "Green" crowd, because the actual performance of the buses utilizes substantially more fuel per person carried, and because of the diesel engines, is far more of a lethal polluter than the equivalent number of passengers carried by car. And talk about the "Emperor's New Clothes" -- the imposed narrative in support of "transit" is so strongly grounded by misguided perceptions of "efficiency" and "environmentally friendly transportation" that notwithstanding every metric that says the fundamental premise is a lie, the buses keep running at a huge subsidy cost.
It's difficult to find numbers for the cost efficiency of high speed rail. The substantially greater passenger numbers no doubt offer significant differences compared to an Amtrak LD train, but running those high speeds through the Davis Formula suggests very, very high energy costs. On the other hand, these high speed trains are being compared to airline flights under circumstances in which a person wouldn't be jumping into their Toyota twice a day for a 250 mile jaunt each way. Considered too is the fact that both the auto and the airplane are using oil-based fuels, and it's hard to get much more energy inefficient than an airplane ...
Davis Formula: 70 mph index value of 100, at 250 mph, index is 714 in terms of relative resistance. That is, if it takes 100 gallons of fuel to move a train a given distance at 70 mph, it takes 714 gallons to move the same train the same distance at 250 mph. I don't know that 250 mph is within the relevant range of the Davis Formula, but this is suggestive as to why the article posted at the onset of this thread talks about replacing air travel. That may be the key niche where high speed rail service shows an economic advantage over anything.
oltmannd wrote: For example, in the NE, could you imagine what the parking decks would look like if all the passengers riding out of NYP, 30th St and Union Station drove there?
Well, in Holland, where the cities and the rail passenger system are pretty well integrated, you rarely see a car parked at the station, but rather, hundreds of bicycles. People who use the transit have adjusted their lifestyles and locations to be able to use the system. That takes time, but an advantage in that context is that the average European moves 2-3 times during their lifetime, whereas the average American moves 7-8 times during their lifetime. Again, this relates to the "Build it and they will come" theory -- and I think Americans might adapt more quickly and readily to high speed rail service when and where it becomes available than any other country.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:At the risk of having my head handed to me, I have come to the conclusion that Amtrak would do a lot better if it gave up on long-haul service entirely and concentrated its assets and energy on the short- to medium-haul market, no runs longer than 400-500 miles with reasonably frequent service, not unlike what's evolved in California. Work on operating a reasonably frequent service (3-4 trips a day in each direction) at first, and increase the average speed and frequency once a viable market has been established.
Welcome to the headless bunch!
The LD trains seem to be a political necessity. Wouldn't it be nice, though, if enough corridors emerged and grew such that the LD trains only had to pay their way incementally and became a relatively insignificant portion of the over network?
Seems like Amtrak is going to get a chance to become relevant. Hope they don't blow it.
Yes, the LD trains are a political necessity. But who is driving the politics?
If it were simply a question of people out in Montana lobbying to keep "their" lifeline Empire Builder and whoever the Senators from Montana having political influence because there are two of them and also two Senators from New York, I would accept this as part of the Virginia Compromise that gave us the Constitution.
But what about from "people who should know better"?
Our local advocacy community has long been supporting the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, which would bring service connecting Madison, WI to Chicago. As a group we had our hopes up in the recent past, and we have our hopes up again with Lautenberg Lott, but we have to see on this. We had our hopes dashed under the Bush Administration, not just because the MRRI was not forthcoming, but the President went on the warpath against Amtrak as part of budget tightening drive shortly after getting reelected.
But what were we talking about among ourselves just before the shoe dropped of President Bush putting the big squeeze on Amtrak? What was the burning concern? Mind you this was a "happy time" when we thought we were getting MRRI, that it was only stalled in Committee or something. Our burning concern was "save the Three Rivers."
Yeah, yeah, we need to preserve the Amtrak network to maintain the integrity of the National System to allow for a turnaround in the fortunes of rail passenger service brought about by future increases in gas prices, highway, and airport congestion. But if we are for the MRRI, we are for duplicating the success of the NEC in the flatlands of the Midwest. But if we are for perserving the Three Rivers, and oh yes, we gripe about the Sunset in our meetings, what does that say we are for?
This is only a hunch, but what the advocacy community is about is how much fun one has riding trains across the expanses of this great country instead of being crammed into regional jets. The LD trains with their diners and sleepers are the real prize. What "fun" is there in riding the Hiawatha in some converted Comet cars for 90 minutes to Chicago? And our advocacy people gripe about Horizon/Comet cars. The fun starts when you get on one of the Western transcon trains.
The purpose of the 300 million plus roadbed and track improvements to connect Madison to Milwaukee is not to have a 2 1/2 hour train ride to downtown Chicago. That is what we tell the public, think how much your property values in Madison would improve if we became a commuter suburb to Chicago. Wife could work 3 days a week in Chicago and Hubby could keep his teaching job at the U.
But in their hearts, what the advocates want the 300 mil spent on is having a direct train connection to the Chicago long-distance hub and all of the reall train-riding fun. When you think of it, it is really hard to get to that Union Station hub from here -- how are you going to start your "fun" trip -- with a 4.5 hr scheduled bus ride with your knees in your face because some unaccompanied child in the seat in front insists on reclining? Recruiting the lawyer-university professor couple to live in Madison by offering the Chicago train ride is only a by product of the real mission.
The real mission is that the corridor trains are not the ends in themselves, they are mere feeders just like that regional-jet plane ride to O'Hare where one could just as well take the O'Hare bus with the knees pressed into the face for three hours. As such, what happens to the Sunset is of critical importance and whether we get corridor service Minneapolis-Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago is only incidental.
If there is a political problem that Amtrak is "stuck" with the LD trains in its effort to build up the corridors, that political problem starts with the advocacy community.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: Yes, the LD trains are a political necessity. But who is driving the politics?If it were simply a question of people out in Montana lobbying to keep "their" lifeline Empire Builder and whoever the Senators from Montana having political influence because there are two of them and also two Senators from New York, I would accept this as part of the Virginia Compromise that gave us the Constitution. But what about from "people who should know better"?Our local advocacy community has long been supporting the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, which would bring service connecting Madison, WI to Chicago. As a group we had our hopes up in the recent past, and we have our hopes up again with Lautenberg Lott, but we have to see on this. We had our hopes dashed under the Bush Administration, not just because the MRRI was not forthcoming, but the President went on the warpath against Amtrak as part of budget tightening drive shortly after getting reelected.But what were we talking about among ourselves just before the shoe dropped of President Bush putting the big squeeze on Amtrak? What was the burning concern? Mind you this was a "happy time" when we thought we were getting MRRI, that it was only stalled in Committee or something. Our burning concern was "save the Three Rivers."Yeah, yeah, we need to preserve the Amtrak network to maintain the integrity of the National System to allow for a turnaround in the fortunes of rail passenger service brought about by future increases in gas prices, highway, and airport congestion. But if we are for the MRRI, we are for duplicating the success of the NEC in the flatlands of the Midwest. But if we are for perserving the Three Rivers, and oh yes, we gripe about the Sunset in our meetings, what does that say we are for?This is only a hunch, but what the advocacy community is about is how much fun one has riding trains across the expanses of this great country instead of being crammed into regional jets. The LD trains with their diners and sleepers are the real prize. What "fun" is there in riding the Hiawatha in some converted Comet cars for 90 minutes to Chicago? And our advocacy people gripe about Horizon/Comet cars. The fun starts when you get on one of the Western transcon trains.The purpose of the 300 million plus roadbed and track improvements to connect Madison to Milwaukee is not to have a 2 1/2 hour train ride to downtown Chicago. That is what we tell the public, think how much your property values in Madison would improve if we became a commuter suburb to Chicago. Wife could work 3 days a week in Chicago and Hubby could keep his teaching job at the U.But in their hearts, what the advocates want the 300 mil spent on is having a direct train connection to the Chicago long-distance hub and all of the reall train-riding fun. When you think of it, it is really hard to get to that Union Station hub from here -- how are you going to start your "fun" trip -- with a 4.5 hr scheduled bus ride with your knees in your face because some unaccompanied child in the seat in front insists on reclining? Recruiting the lawyer-university professor couple to live in Madison by offering the Chicago train ride is only a by product of the real mission.The real mission is that the corridor trains are not the ends in themselves, they are mere feeders just like that regional-jet plane ride to O'Hare where one could just as well take the O'Hare bus with the knees pressed into the face for three hours. As such, what happens to the Sunset is of critical importance and whether we get corridor service Minneapolis-Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago is only incidental.If there is a political problem that Amtrak is "stuck" with the LD trains in its effort to build up the corridors, that political problem starts with the advocacy community.
I agree with you whole heartedly.
We have a different problem here on the left coast. We are probably going to get the HSR proposal passed in the November election and two sides are already fighting over the route to be taken. One side says it should be routed over Altamont Pass to the Central Valley to serve a greater population while the other says route it over a Pass further south with about half the population but it would be a faster route between San Francisco and Los Angeles.
The other big arguments going on about the proposed HSR is obtaining the right of way. Both proposals put forward are going to eat up the money, especially as we just passed a measure in March that severely limits eminent domain. My proposal is that we use the right of way we already own above the freeways. After all we have the ability today to build concrete bridges that can withstand all but probably the most severe earthquakes. My proposal whether it be electric trains or Mag-Lev is to operate the proposed HSR above Highway 99 from Sacramento to Bakersfield than above I-5 or below I-5 in a series of tunnels to LA. The San Francisco portion can operate above 101 from San Francisco to San Jose then over Pacheco Pass to connect with the 99 route. The east bay communities can be connected in the same manner over Altamont Pass to the 99 corridor. South of LA once again it can run above I-5 to San Diego.
I can picture the arguing about route going on for the next ten years at least and the money disappearing from the fund for one purpose or another.
The proposal for the California HSR system has a 66% chance of passage according to the three reports I have seen. And that is the highest percentage for passage their has ever been.
I probably won't live long enough to see HSR here in California with our population at 37 million I can think of know other place in the nation that needs it more. The one catch I can see is the early rumblings by PG&E and other Electricity providers about where they are going to get the power from to supply the new HSR. We have several Nuclear Power Plants mothballed here in the State, and I personally think it is time to reopen them and build additional Nuclear generating plants.
One thing for sure whatever way HSR is built in California it will be the biggest work program in State History and will provide more construction jobs than any other project in the states history.
Part of the problem with the advocacy community is that they have been stuck in a 1940's-1950's mentality from well before the establishment of NARP. They don't seem to have realized that while the traveling public may gripe mightily about the state of air service, the public is willing to put up with it because of the time advantage over just about anything else. People will not ride the "Southwest Chief" from Chicago to Los Angeles because of the extra amenities when American Airlines can get them there much faster. An American Airlines 767 is still more comfortable and appreciably faster than the DC7 that flew the same run prior to 1958.
Another thread has lamented the passing of the classic parlor car from the scene, I seriously doubt that today's road warrior traveling business class on the Acela even cares. From what I've read, the legroom and seat pitch are not that different from the average airliner, Amtrak in this case is selling what the market wants. Unfortunately, the advocacy community fails to realize that long-distance passenger trains are not what the markets wants, and haven't been since at least the day the first 707's were assigned to domestic flights.
Paul Milenkovic wrote:The local Wis-DOT person who address our local advocacy group pointed this out months ago, but he added that countries that put in these trains also favor the train by reducing the level of air service of the city pairs in question.Not a stupid policy -- you just spent all of this coin on a train, so your state-run or national-flag airline cuts back on the air mode to you get some payoff from that investment.
Not in the case of Spain on the Madrid-Barcelona route, Iberia, the National Airline, conterattacked by going to 100 passenger Regional Jets with a departure every 15 minutes between the 2 cities during the day. RENFE's answer is going to be a nonstop run in 2 hours flat by running at 350kph (217 mph).
Watch European figures, they make no distinction between Intercity and other types of service. So while you can be sure that all Airline service is of an Intercity nature, the same is not true for busses, rail, and automobile. Here is a link to Eurostat the EU statistics bureau, with the latest transport figures. The most recent Passenger service figures are for 2004, while for freight they are 2005.
Eurostat Transport Statistics
No one is claiming that no one would ride HSR in the U.S.. It is just that over a certain minimum distance, and taking into account all of the subsidies, air is by far the low cost mode of common-carrier transportation, and for a single-occupant car trip, it is lower cost than private auto were one to factor in all of the mileage-dependent costs of driving. This was all laid out in Trains magazine editorials and articles in the early 1960s. Trains and cars are of comparable cost, with the role of the subsidy of the train ride to counteract perceptions that the cost of driving is merely the out-of-pocket gas costs.Whenever the question of political will comes up, there is this notion that here is poor red-haired child Amtrak with around 1 billion in annual subsidy, and over there is the richly treated and favored Federal highway program, funded at around 40 billion/year. The trains in Europe are funded at about the same rate of our Federal Highway program. The Lautenberg Lott bill is to take Amtrak from around 1 billion a year up to around 3 billion a year and do this for 5 years to see what good things happen. The Vision Report talks about spending 10 billion/year on trains over 40 years. I have poured over their report, and the capital spending they are proposing is lavish compared to the amount of trains they propose, but perhaps they have operating subsidy folded in. Better yet, the probably looked at the current 1 billion for Amtrak and the 40 billion rate of our highway program and lo, behold, came up the 10 billion/year number as politically feasible in this country.Based on the Amtrak subsidy and what the Vision Report is saying about spending on trains in Europe, 1 billion gets you about .1 percent of your passenger miles on the rails, 40 billion/year gets you about 4 percent of you passenger miles on the rails. There seems to be nothing exceptional about Amtrak spending vis a vis the European experience. You want to get 100 percent of your passenger miles on trains, it will cost a cool trillion/year in subsidy, dwarfing the defense budget, Social Security, or Medicare.An advocate colleague pointed out in a newsletter that there is subsidy rate and there is underlying cost. Autos may be favorable in some measure of direct subsidy per passenger mile, but with an auto population in the U.S. over 100 million vehicles, that perhaps a cool trillion dollars is spent per year keeping our cars cared for and fed is perhaps not that far fetched. But it is largely a trillion/year in people making choices about how they spend their money, not another $4/gallon in gas tax tacked on to the $4/gallon we are already paying as they do in Europe.I have another advocacy colleague who is not coy about saying that doubling the price of gas (again) to pay for enough trains is not a bad idea. If you are talking about political will, that is the kind of political will you are talking about, and good luck making that the main agenda item of your train advocacy group.
Michael Sol on June 19 suggested that the "the average passenger is willing to accept as an outside time travel limit a 2 hour to a 2 and 1/2 hour train ride as a trade-off to air travel". I think he's being little pessimistic. The standard model over here is that for decent high speed services (125mph top speed and above) 3 hours is what to look for in relation to the business market.
The leisure market is heading towards four hours or, depending on service levels, even more. For business travellers speed is essential, for leisure travellers a hassle free journey has higher value. For example London to Edinburgh by rail is rather over 4 hours for 393 miles, averaging around 90mph. Business travellers will go by plane as it is feasible to get there and back in a day without travelling for 9 hours. With an hourly service from 6am to 6pm carrying over 400 seats the leisure market still goes by train.
Certainly there is a window where people will prefer to travel by train as a means of transportation, and it is likely entirely different than those who travel for leisure.
Interesting blog post today on that point:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-trains-just-dont-work-in-america/
Cricketer wrote: Michael Sol on June 19 suggested that the "the average passenger is willing to accept as an outside time travel limit a 2 hour to a 2 and 1/2 hour train ride as a trade-off to air travel". I think he's being little pessimistic. The standard model over here is that for decent high speed services (125mph top speed and above) 3 hours is what to look for in relation to the business market.
London to Manchester (180 miles) in the UK is a good example. A few years back, trains running at 110mph max took 2 hours 40 minutes for the journey. Rail had a market share of under 40% when compared with air.
The current upgrade (125mph trains and 2 hours fastest journey) has seen rail's market share rise to over 60% - and from December we'll be talking about a train between the two cities every 20 minutes.
Air France / KLM is actually considering to enter the HST-market after 2010. They negotiate with Veolia, which would run the trains for them. Most probably, they would concentrate on a few connections, for example Paris to Brussels.
As for the plans for further HST-ROWs in the U.K., it will be interesting to see how much Network Rail will realize. After all, they still have a lot of upgrading to do on the existing system. But rising fuel-costs certainly favour trains over cars or airplanes.
cogloadreturns wrote:A journey on high-speed train Eurostar between London and Paris generates one-tenth of the carbon dioxide produced by an equivalent flight, according to independent research commissioned by Eurostar.
This is interesting, as the fuel efficiency of a high speed transportation system on the ground exceeds by several times the fuel efficiency of air travel. This requires enormous taxpayer support, but if fuel efficiency is a key driver in the decision making process, it now seems that government investment in high speed rail service makes far more sense than further expansion of the air transportation system.
This is interesting, as the fuel efficiency of a high speed transportation system on the ground exceeds by several times the fuel efficiency of air travel.
Ordinarily I am OK with people having their sources of information and dont' go around demanding a "citation or bibliographic reference", but perchance, do you or anyone else have such a reference on this one?
It is generally assumed that trains and even high-speed trains have energy efficiencies that are multiples of air transport, but in many cases and upon closer examination, trains can have superior energy efficiency but it is not multiples.
Amtrak's energy efficiency is not multiples of airlines -- it is maybe 30 percent better at best. If there are documented cases of European or Japanese high-speed train services with efficiencies documented to be multiples of airlines, that is something I need to know about, to make the case with respect to what Amtrak should be doing differently to save large amounts of energy.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.