Yes the fuel efficiency in the U.S. does not compare to Europe (and others) just because of our "heavy loading standards"; its the choice we have made over the years when it came to railroading in North America. It carried over to the highways, too, with big cars and huge trucks and truck trains (those tractors pulling two or more trailers at 80mph down the Interstate and 65 on the two lanes). Couple that with the fact that there are many other factors differentiating foreign rail systems and societies so you are actually comparing apples to oranges when talking foriegn versus North American railroading. It has technical as well as social and political overtones. We have to decide how we want to pay for our transportation system: a universal system for all to use equally (buy the service you can afford or want) under government financing or only those who can afford travel will pay for any and all travel out of thier own pockets, one trip at a time and at full cost, i.e. no government subsidies, traffic control, terminal control, research and development, tax breaks so that what you pay for is what you get and I ain't gonna help you. Niether exterme is going to work in this country, it has always been a sort of attempt at midddle ground with private and public sectors paying for it all so that all can share the need and use.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
I agree with John's comment that high speed should not imply few intermediate stops. Suburban stops provide a convenience, and smaller markets deserve some rail service, whether on the high speed line or existing infrastructure as a complementary service.
As I've mentioned before, passenger service on the old JNR Tokaido Line did not cease with the New Line; and subsequent high speed lines only brought a reduction in services, not discontinuance, on existing lines. Furthermore the New Tokaido Line had non-stops, expresses, and locals with stops on passing tracks that allowed faster trains to overtake and pass.
I tend to agree with Paul about the fuel efficiency argument regarding Amtrak.
One problem has been the resolution of passenger safety by building rolling tanks and putting massive locomotives in the front. This didn't work at Chatsworth (CA) and lowers train fuel efficiency by increasing weight and resistance. At some point, the force of a collision throws passengers with more fatal results than from crushing. PTC is the only rational solution; and railroads should embrace it as well for freight operations. Way too many costly and deadly collisions occur between freights overrunning signals and block limits.
The second problem is utilization with a relatively small number of intercity passengers in the numerator, even on a sold-out Acela. The morning and evening commuter Hiawathas may be sold out or nearly so much of the time; but the dozen other trains averaged less than 50 passengers! With a one-way fare as much as the promtional rate to Saint Louis and virtually break-even with out-of-pocket driving costs, it's no wonder few beside those destined for downtown Chicago take the train. I've contended that if off-peak fares were reduced by half and ridership doubled, there would be no loss in revenue; and fuel efficiency would surpass a Prius with two people. At least two more peak round trips to Chicago would better meet demand and raise overall fuel efficiency.
Combining peak Amtrak and Metra trains may have been proposed in a previous thread. As it is, #330 arriving at 7:58 am is carded for 102 minutes compared to 92 minutes for other trains. Additional stops at Kenosha and Gurnee with the stop at Glenview moved to Lake-Cook and take the same time. This can be done carrying more passengers and justifying a slot in a near-capacity Metra commuter operation without costly capacity improvements.
I understand the TGV's, ICE's, and AVE's carry around 400 passengers (what is the average load factor?). Cutting through the fluff about high speed, these trains come from branches that provides the volume of traffic to justify the investment in high-speed infrastructure. The California plan may approach European traffic levels with services from San Francisco, Oakland, and Sacramento to Los Angeles and San Diego. It certainly come closer to justifying a Fresno-Los Angeles segment.
The downside is high speed takes energy. 200 mph goes well beyond what it takes to compete with driving. I vaguely recall some fuel comparisons with aviation; but they're not at hand and I'm too lazy (and lunch is ready) to look it up. The question becomes how much energy efficiency compared to driving is given up to compete with the airlines?
To be somewhat contrarian myself, I think the focus on high speed rail in North America is premature, trying to run before learning to walk. For rail travel to work well the most important aspect is it be CONVENIENT for passengers to use. Other things being equal, obviously a fast train is more convenient than a slow one, but that is only part of the picture.
One of the biggest advantages in Europe, and why trains are so convenient, is that for many destinations they run as frequently as my city transit bus route. Some make more stops and take longer, but often just catching the next train provides the fastest journey. Waiting half an hour to catch a train that is 20 minutes faster is still a net loss of 10 minutes.
We only have to look at California to see how modest increases in train frequency have led to quite dramatic increases in ridership. By running more trains, the times become convenient for a much broader market. If the business meeting, shopping trip, etc., is shorter you can get home earlier, and of course if it runs overtime, there might be an suppertime departure to still get you home. The one train a day model that is all too common usually has a compromise schedule that is not particularly convenient for more than a handful of passengers.
High Speed Rail necessarily implies few if any intermediate stops. The issue of convenience again comes to the fore. The train may go right past your suburban town, but you will be forced to spend 40 minutes going to the city center before whizzing past your house 10 minutes later. A slower train that actually stops has a 50 minute head start, may well provide fairly competitive overall journey times, and is certainly more convenient to use. This of course is why the automobile is such strong competition to all modes of commercial transport, since the majority of trips are more than simply city center to city center (or airport to airport).
While there are likely a few corridors where high speed rail may be justified, my opinion is that at this stage the California example of increased frequency with relatively fast trains provides a better first stage. First develop a convenient and usable network so that passenger rail is seen to be more than a historical remnant. Once the frequency exists, and the service is being used, it becomes appropriate to consider the megabucks that the much higher speeds will cost.
John
blue streak 1Sam1 As I stated in my post, the first question is whether the U.S. should build high speed rail, i.e. what problem will it solve better than any alternative. The second question is whether we can afford it, which again no one posting to this forum, at least, has answered in detail. If the answers to these questions is yes, then it would be appropriate to look at what other countries have done and determine whether their solutions or modificatons would be a good fit here.Sam1: I think for better or worse the answer to the first question is yes HSR will be built unless there is a quantum shift in the political mindset. That said the 2nd quention comes into play. Can we afford Express (very expensive), Regional ( less expensive for the 110 - 150 MPH) which we sort of have for Bos - NH, Emerging which seems a very good start (90-110)?. Probably the test case of WASH - Raleigh being built and the resulting traffic will go a long way to verifying what we can afford.
Sam1 As I stated in my post, the first question is whether the U.S. should build high speed rail, i.e. what problem will it solve better than any alternative. The second question is whether we can afford it, which again no one posting to this forum, at least, has answered in detail. If the answers to these questions is yes, then it would be appropriate to look at what other countries have done and determine whether their solutions or modificatons would be a good fit here.
As I stated in my post, the first question is whether the U.S. should build high speed rail, i.e. what problem will it solve better than any alternative. The second question is whether we can afford it, which again no one posting to this forum, at least, has answered in detail. If the answers to these questions is yes, then it would be appropriate to look at what other countries have done and determine whether their solutions or modificatons would be a good fit here.
Where is Ed at a time like this?
My major complaint with high-speed train travel is that it is difficult to observe close-by scenery. It passes by so quickly that observation is highly limited, and I get dizzy. Still worse is when any train operates on a sunken track with berms or walls blocking any view. Nevertheless, train travel is more like first-class air travel as far as seating and comfort is concerned.
Mark
Maglev I have been reseving further comment on this topic until I receive my July Trains... The Truth About Trains Is what you know about railroading accurate? We asked the experts to set the record straight about myths, costs, societal influences, technology, fuel efficiency, and more
I have been reseving further comment on this topic until I receive my July Trains...
Whether Trains, which has a vested interest in all things railroad, will produce an objective assessment of the railroad industry, including the argument for high speed rail, presumably, in the United States or beyond, is questionable.
I too will read the article(s). But I will be mindful of the biases that will probably leak into the reporting. I suggest that there are better sources of information.
If I want to know how Amtrak is performing, I dig the information out of their financial and operating reports that contain objective, primary source data (Energy Information Administration) or data that has been audited by an independent auditor (Amtrak Annual Report). If I want to know how much the French Government subsidies the TGV system, I pull the information from the system and government financial reports. If I want to know the energy footprint of passenger rail compared to alternative modes of passenger transport, I go to the Energy Information Administration. And lastly, but not least, if I want to know the subsidies required to run a light rail system, I go to National Transit Database.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
al-in-chgo re: "[B]ut building high speed rail because the Europeans and Japanese have done so is akin to adopting the budget of the family down the street irrespective of whether it meets your needs." Why are YOU allowed to make facile analogies based on the individual nuclear family when you are so insistent I can't analyze like agents by relating one nation's HSR system to another's? -- a.s.
re: "[B]ut building high speed rail because the Europeans and Japanese have done so is akin to adopting the budget of the family down the street irrespective of whether it meets your needs."
Why are YOU allowed to make facile analogies based on the individual nuclear family when you are so insistent I can't analyze like agents by relating one nation's HSR system to another's? -- a.s.
You have missed my point. You appear to be looking at other countries for a solution that will work in the U.S. without analyzing the problem, i.e. where is high speed rail a good fit. And how will we pay for it.
It is a matter of timing.
al-in-chgo What is your idea of "hard evidence"? Physically bound printouts from the cost accounting or marketing departments at SNCF? Yes! The financial information can be found in the SNCF financial statements, although they are not nearly as transparent as Amtrak's financial reports. If you actually have hardcopy French statistics, shouldn't you be the one to share them with us? With actual numbers, I mean? And policy and operating decisions? I did not challenge Mr. O'Toole's asertions. Data regarding the profiles of people who use the high speed rail systems in Europe and Japan are probably difficult to get. If they are available, they would show hard data, i.e. incomes, type of travel, etc. The examples from other countries are to show a couple of things: (1) by reason of analogy, what has worked there might work here; and (2) no major industrialized country that has set at least a basic HSR network as a priority has failed to achieve that. Deficits of funding and technology can be made up for if the political will and social support are there. If the users will not pay the full cost to use the system, either directly or indirectly, the cost falls on non-users, who for the most part are the taxpayers. The first question is whether the United States should build high speed rail to solve a real transport problem. The second question is whether it can afford it. If the answer is yes, then looking at what other countries do to get ideas that may be applicable here is appropriate. But building high speed rail because the Europeans and Japanese have done so is akin to adopting the budget of the family down the street irrespective of whether it meets your needs. With the exception of a few rants about Mr. O'Toole's political views, which are irrelevant, most of the folks who have responded to his views with some worthy ideas. However, no one has put forth a realistic plan of how to pay for the proposed high speed rail or a concrete cost/benefit analysis. In the business world where I spent all of my working career, if I had proposed a major project without a reasonable projection of the cost and benefits, I would have been on the street looking for another job.
What is your idea of "hard evidence"? Physically bound printouts from the cost accounting or marketing departments at SNCF?
Yes! The financial information can be found in the SNCF financial statements, although they are not nearly as transparent as Amtrak's financial reports.
If you actually have hardcopy French statistics, shouldn't you be the one to share them with us? With actual numbers, I mean? And policy and operating decisions?
I did not challenge Mr. O'Toole's asertions. Data regarding the profiles of people who use the high speed rail systems in Europe and Japan are probably difficult to get. If they are available, they would show hard data, i.e. incomes, type of travel, etc.
The examples from other countries are to show a couple of things: (1) by reason of analogy, what has worked there might work here; and (2) no major industrialized country that has set at least a basic HSR network as a priority has failed to achieve that. Deficits of funding and technology can be made up for if the political will and social support are there.
If the users will not pay the full cost to use the system, either directly or indirectly, the cost falls on non-users, who for the most part are the taxpayers.
The first question is whether the United States should build high speed rail to solve a real transport problem. The second question is whether it can afford it. If the answer is yes, then looking at what other countries do to get ideas that may be applicable here is appropriate. But building high speed rail because the Europeans and Japanese have done so is akin to adopting the budget of the family down the street irrespective of whether it meets your needs.
With the exception of a few rants about Mr. O'Toole's political views, which are irrelevant, most of the folks who have responded to his views with some worthy ideas. However, no one has put forth a realistic plan of how to pay for the proposed high speed rail or a concrete cost/benefit analysis.
In the business world where I spent all of my working career, if I had proposed a major project without a reasonable projection of the cost and benefits, I would have been on the street looking for another job.
Thank you, Cricketer, for making such good counter-arguments and for tactfully offering a much better history of my take on "democratization of speed" in Western Europe. Your whole entry is impressive, but I was particularly impressed with the paragraph that begins, "High Speed Rail's more subtle. . . " It was much more consequential than me flopping around talking about "marketing." and such.
A little OT, but I also want to second Cricketer's impression that the interrelationship of French towns and country has an almost Midwestern feel to it. Climates and regions vary, but I was impressed on my three trips not only how charming the older buildings are and how good even ordinary food is, but at the number of things I've seen that might be considrered "quintessentially American small-town" but are not necessarily. These include Wal-Mart type superstores, but they generally got theirs first; county fairs with tilt-a-whirl machines (which were generally made in Italy and look just like the Italian-build fair rides we have); pheasant hunting after harvest (ordinary French citizens do not legally own pistols but can own longarms and they like sport shooting too); and the "Trans-cereales" (hope I've spelled it right) hopper cars that looked a lot like our BNSF, etc., models and were almost as big. There's an attitude pretty widespread in the USA that all things French are either wilfully perverse or hopelessly sophisticated, but that's very far from the truth, which is more complicated but also more fun! - a.s.
I like your last paragraph, Cricketer...it says a lot about how transportation means are viewed. Applied to the automobile in the U.S. it is the explanation of its surge. I live in a small urban area 200 miles from New York City. No trains. No planes. Only highways. Before the superhighway it was an all day trek, 6 to 8 hours, but today, three to three and a half. So those who want to go to NYC go by car, maybe bus. But now, as congestion builds toward the larger city, as parking becomes a major problem, as there are more and more trucks on these super highways, the more time it takes again, and the more desirable a fast train is (i.e., 4 hours or less).
May I add my cent's worth from the other side of the Atlantic. As ever there are arguments on both sides, and I'd certainly not wish to argue that what works in Europe will work in the United States. That said American cities, even some of the most conservative and decentralised ones have adopted Light Rail, based to some extent on European practice, and it works.
Issue 1. High speed rail is for the rich. Partially true, but only because the poor don't travel. If you have no money you can't travel, whether by high speed train, bus, plane or car. You don't have a job, so make no journeys to work and on behalf of work. You don't go and see your friends in the next state and can't afford those weekend breaks to pop away to the city, or indeed countryside. Thus the pool of travellers is already biased towards the richer end of the population.
Issue 2. The democritastion of travel. Al's point is right in principle, but lacks some detail. The fastest trains in the 1950s through to the 1970s were either first class only or 1st and 2nd class but with supplements. This applied to Germany as well as France. Come the mid-late 70s the rail administrations in both countries realised the rail travel was perceived as something for the rich. Germany introduced 2 class intercity services (instead of 1st class only), France the Corail coach (good for 125mph) and of course the TGV. Some TGV sets (less than 1 in 10) were 1st class only, but they ran from Paris to Lyon coupled to a 1st class/2nd class set. I'm pretty sure no trains were 1st class only.
The 1st class only sets were refurbished at mid-life to 1st and 2nd class ones. As you'll all know the orginal Paris to Lyon High Speed Line was a stunning sucess (against considertable scepticism it has to be said). Capacity ran out, leaving bigger trains or better signalling as the only option if the demand was to be catered for. Both were done, from 5 min headways at c160mph there are now 3 minute headways at 186mph. Double deck TGV sets (a stunning technical achievement by the way) were introduced so that each train carried over a quarter more passengers.
Issue 3 Population density. It is an issue, France is actually mostly empty space, with150 miles plus between major cities. Not Western empty space I agree, but to some extent midwestern empty space. Agricultural land is cheaper to build on than an urban environment, so high speed lines in France are significnalty cheaper than in Germany, Belgium and the UK, let alone Japan.
Issue 4 Congestion. There is no solution to congestion, and perhaps never has been, save for short periods when transport provsion gets ahead of mobility needs. That happended in the late 19th centruy with urban trolley systems, in the 1920s and 30s with the first motor cars and in the 1960s and 70s with freeways. But traffifc tends to expand to fill the (road) space avaialble, or in other words you can't build ytourself out of congestion.
What you can do is increase mobility. Urban railways tend to do this by building underground. Congestion reduces for a while, but then the people who would never have dreampt of getting their cars out when it took 30 minutes to go five miles realise the roads are emptier and drive, thereby increasing congestion. Buiding freight capcity takes trucks off the roads so reducing congestion and encouraging new operators to put trucks on the newly uncongested roads thereby making them more congested. As Sam might say - that's the market.
High Speed rail's more subtle. Why would I go to Paris if it took me 5 hours. But if it's 2.5 hours I'll go, because I don't waste my weekend travelling. This is suppressed demand, ie journeys are undertaken that would not have been undertaken before. This applies to business journmeys as well. When it took 4 hours from Paris to Lyon business people did not consider making the trip there and back in a day. Now it's 2 hours each way, and up to every half hour in frequency people travel.
Nothing's simple, perhaps best to think about unintended consequences in all of this.
Population density is not the question here. France, and the rest of Europe, have over the past two centuries, developed their transportation system into what it is. So have we ours. At this point it is not sensible to apply our standards to them or thier standards to us. Compare, yes, But you cannot draw similar conclusions.
As for the idea that France has the right population density and the midwest does not I've a question. How does the population density of France compare with Illinois and Indiana? Then add the MKE - Chi route?. In the east what is the density from BOS - RIC? Add Albany - NYP? Pittsburg - PHL? San Diego - Santa Barber?
Maglev The whole idea that "we can't afford high-speed rail" is out-of -context in this world today... Facebook Gets $200 Million Backing From Digital Sky By Joseph Galante "May 26 (Bloomberg) -- Facebook Inc., the world’s largest social-networking service, received an investment from Russia’s Digital Sky Technologies that values the company at $10 billion, more than Starbucks Inc. or Safeway Inc. Digital Sky will buy $200 million in preferred stock, gaining a 1.96 percent stake in the company, Palo Alto, California-based Facebook said today in a statement..."
The whole idea that "we can't afford high-speed rail" is out-of -context in this world today...
Facebook Gets $200 Million Backing From Digital Sky
By Joseph Galante
"May 26 (Bloomberg) -- Facebook Inc., the world’s largest social-networking service, received an investment from Russia’s Digital Sky Technologies that values the company at $10 billion, more than Starbucks Inc. or Safeway Inc.
Digital Sky will buy $200 million in preferred stock, gaining a 1.96 percent stake in the company, Palo Alto, California-based Facebook said today in a statement..."
Facebook, Inc. is a for profit business. It is able to attract private capital because the investors believe that it is a going concern that will return their capital with interest.
Unfortunately, most passenger rail projects, including operations, depend on taxpayer monies because they are money losing propositions and cannot attract private capital.
I agree with you that maybe too much attention is paid too soon on high speed rail, before Amtrak service is brought to all large city pairs in the 48 states.
Mailman brought new Amtrak timetable which shows some of the same old disappointments:
- no connections Albuquerque-El Paso. I've thought for many years that an Amtrak train from El Paso - Denver would succeed, given the great Latino migration northward. Now there's a report that Gov. Richardson (NM) wants to extend his RailRunner trains, already serving Santa Fe (!!) to those end points.
- poor connections Phoenix-Flagstaff. And why not a Thruway bus Phoenix-Maricopa? I just don't understand that one.
- speaking of Phoenix, isn't it time for a maglev train Phoenix- San Bernardino area, connecting to MetroLink?
- and why no more routes for Auto Train, all these years? NY-Phila.-Chicago, Chicago-Denver, Chicago-St. Louis-Texas, and many many more.
- Here we sit in Allentown, PA, and the best we can hope for appears to be an extension of NJ Transit the few miles over the border. They did run bus services to NYC for a number of years. Another operator took over. Not even Amtrak here!
- Has Amtrak EVER undertaken a comprehensive, professional, national survey, to see what markets are not currently served, and where any expansion should take place first? Isn't the best place to start increased frequency on existing routes?
I do hope the stimulus addresses and solves these needs.
James E. Bradley
Lehigh Valley Chapter N.R.H.S.
I
For the record, I think the next best step is moderate speed trains with about the level of service (daily frequency) of 1959. Is it too much to ask to move only fifty years backwards?
I gave up on supporting maglev; the future is way too far for most Americans to consider. The rest of the developed world is taking leaps and bounds: the cover of this week's Nature (which along with Science, The New England Journal of Medicine, and of course Trains is among the most important of our planet's publications) features the fifth dimension. 100 mph in three dimensions (but three times a day) would be okay for most purposes in this country....
[See "Digital Storage in Five Dimensions: How to cram 1.6 terabytes on a DVD sized disk," cover of Nature volume 459 (issue number 7,245), 21 May 2009.)]
Re: "You have not provided any hard data about the fare structure."
Nor can I, not will I. My evidence, which was enough to persuade me, was based on a TV report, a longish (45-minute) MySpace video, and similar mention; and reason.
What is your idea of "hard evidence"? Physically bound printouts from the cost accounting or marketing departments at SNCF? They wouldn't send them to me and probably wouldn't to the average French citizen. If you actually have hardcopy French statistics, shouldn't you be the one to share them with us? With actual numbers, I mean? And policy and operating decisions?
I personally don't think we have the room (all those suburbs) or the dough to plan and execute a full system of 200 mph trains with no crossings or slow orders anywhere beyond the stations (even the French run the TGV at lower speeds on more conventional track, and there's a lot of it). I do think that we might want to follow something similar to the German model, which was a program of steady upgrades and rising average speeds of their IC trains, but very little brand-new track in new places. Over the past thirty-five years their best trains have gone from a GG-1 top cruising speed (ca. 85 mph) to an almost Japanese one (speeds approx, 140 mph). It cost a lot of money and took a lot of time but the proof is in the pudding--they are popular.
Nowhere in my prior postings have I argued that we should build HRS just because they have it in Japan, France, Germany, England, Hungary, Austria, Sweden........etc etc etc. But I will say that if it makes sense to us, one op-ed from a tunnel-visioned Libertarian should not throw off what could be a national program of infrastructure improvement, as the Interstate Highway program did in the 1960's to early 1970's.
al-in-chgo Re: "The fact that rail travel experienced an upsurge in personal and business train travel following the introduction of TGV service tells us nothing about the incomes or class of the riders." What are you saying? As early as the early Eighties SNCF had a program called "la democratisation de Vitesse" (the democratization of Speed) during which luxury, first-class-only trains, were opened up to second-class seating and riders as well. When TGV was new it was extra-fare, first class only. This became over time a public issue when the "new" wore off the technological miracle of super-fast passenger trains and the French gov't (or at least SNCF, which is government-owned) realized there was a tension between offering a brand-new, high-tech service in which there was room only for the elite (1st class passengers); and the mass democracy of the public on the other hand, that wanted its democratizaztion of speed on TGV and thought it only fair, as fellow members of the taxpaying public, to be included in the new trains. SNCF may not have inquired about the income or class background of its TGV riders when they bought their tickets, but it did bow to public will and start offering second-class seating on the TGV a few years ago. Upshot? The original TGV route now has double-decker trains which carry many more people -- in first and second class both. I must remark that I never heard of any French people whining about how there wasn't enough money, or that equipping the world's fastest trains as bi-levs was so technologically improbable as to be impossible, or that French technology just didn't run that way, or that the French people didn't really like trains all that much. I realize it makes a big difference that France, while large, is not huge and Continental (it's about the size of Texas actually), and that private rates of car-ownership are much lower than here in the USA (and Canada). The country has an excellent system of superhighways, too, some of which started out as toll roads (again, the elite) but trickled down to all car-drivers when the roads were paid for and became free of charge to use. So, yes, SNCF and Amtrak can draw some pretty good inferences about who is riding their trains by keeping credit-card data, especially when correlated with surveys. They'll know if somone's VISA was American or Japanese or German or French. And FWIW Japan National Railways offered its original bullet train (1964) with both first- and second-class seating and to my knowledge has never offered any daylight high-speed trains without both kinds of seating. - a.s.
Re: "The fact that rail travel experienced an upsurge in personal and business train travel following the introduction of TGV service tells us nothing about the incomes or class of the riders."
What are you saying? As early as the early Eighties SNCF had a program called "la democratisation de Vitesse" (the democratization of Speed) during which luxury, first-class-only trains, were opened up to second-class seating and riders as well. When TGV was new it was extra-fare, first class only. This became over time a public issue when the "new" wore off the technological miracle of super-fast passenger trains and the French gov't (or at least SNCF, which is government-owned) realized there was a tension between offering a brand-new, high-tech service in which there was room only for the elite (1st class passengers); and the mass democracy of the public on the other hand, that wanted its democratizaztion of speed on TGV and thought it only fair, as fellow members of the taxpaying public, to be included in the new trains.
SNCF may not have inquired about the income or class background of its TGV riders when they bought their tickets, but it did bow to public will and start offering second-class seating on the TGV a few years ago. Upshot? The original TGV route now has double-decker trains which carry many more people -- in first and second class both. I must remark that I never heard of any French people whining about how there wasn't enough money, or that equipping the world's fastest trains as bi-levs was so technologically improbable as to be impossible, or that French technology just didn't run that way, or that the French people didn't really like trains all that much. I realize it makes a big difference that France, while large, is not huge and Continental (it's about the size of Texas actually), and that private rates of car-ownership are much lower than here in the USA (and Canada). The country has an excellent system of superhighways, too, some of which started out as toll roads (again, the elite) but trickled down to all car-drivers when the roads were paid for and became free of charge to use.
So, yes, SNCF and Amtrak can draw some pretty good inferences about who is riding their trains by keeping credit-card data, especially when correlated with surveys. They'll know if somone's VISA was American or Japanese or German or French. And FWIW Japan National Railways offered its original bullet train (1964) with both first- and second-class seating and to my knowledge has never offered any daylight high-speed trains without both kinds of seating. - a.s.
The post that I referred to did not tell me anything about the class of people who ride the TGV. It did not tell me who makes up the personal class; it did not tell me who makes up the business class; it did not tell me how much they pay; it did not give me any hard data. Neither did O'Toole. You can take his comment for what it is worth. I do, however, from fare data and experience have a pretty good idea of who rides the Acela, which at the end of the day is the most important insight for me.
Is second class service on the TGV akin to business class on Acela? How much does it cost? Who uses it? You have not provided any hard data about the fare structure.
I am pleased that the French are happy with their TGV, although I don't know what percentage of the population uses it, which would be a better indication of their happiness. Having reviewed the SNCF financial reports, I know that the system requires a very large subsidy from the French Government. You can find the numbers in the annual financial report, although they are a tad difficult to dig out.
I don't care whether the French are happy with the TGV or the Japanese are happy with their bullet trains. I am interested in what is the best solution for the United States, which by the way staged a little revolution a couple of hundred plus years ago to distance itself from the Europeans.
I am concerned with what will work best for the U.S. And how to pay for it.
I posted excerpts from Mr. O'Toole's column because they represent a contrarian point of view, and I believe that they are worthy of a rational discussion.
I have never been to France or Spain. If you want Mr. O'Toole to support any of the assertions that he made in his column, you are free to contact him. I understand that he has responded to e-mails and letters from interested parties.
I have ridden the Acela on several occasions. Most of the people that I met on the trains were business people traveling on expense account. Moreover, I have looked closely at the fares for the Acela and have compared them to the regional fares, as well as those for competing buses and airlines. The differences are particularly dramatic between Philadelphia and New York, for example. They are less so between Washington and New York. The fare structure, coupled with my experience, plus the accommodations on the Acela (first and business class only), tell me that the Acela service is intended primarily for persons traveling on an expense account or higher income patrons. To further buttress this argument, most of the discounts that are available on other Amtrak trains are not available on the Acela.
The fact that rail travel experienced an upsurge in personal and business train travel following the introduction of TGV service tells us nothing about the incomes or class of the riders. In fact, it does not tell us whether they rode the TGV or a non-TGV service. Who are these personal users? Who are the business users? What criteria were used to define the categories? Did the personal rail users ride on the TGV or a non-TGV service? Did the business travelers use the TGV or a non-TGV service?
It is interesting to note that business travel increased 180 per cent whilst personal travel increased 90 per cent. It is possible that the business travelers went on the TGV, whilst personal travelers went on non-TGV services. What was the base? What per cent of intercity travel in France was by train prior to the introduction of the TGV service. What was the per cent after introduction of the TGV? What is the per cent today?
Just to keep the record straight, I favor moderate speed passenger trains in high density corridors where the cost of expanding the highways and airways is prohibitive. I supported the implementation of commuter rail between Fort Worth and Dallas, although the subsidy required to operate it is very high. I also support the Austin commuter rail service and will be a regular rider when they get it going. I support the development of train service from Austin to San Antonio if it can be done for a reasonable cost.
I have not bought into the argument for TGV style high speed rail. It is a very costly alternative that will be used by a small percentage of the population.
As for "foreigners," let's not forget that our cheap dollar makes things cheap for them. It may indeed be worth the extra money to them to ride a train (Acela) which is almost the equal of the bullet trains, the TGV, and the German InterCity network." Saves time and cleaner equipment, etc.
Paul Milenkovic And how are we in the advocacy community any different in our thinking about cheap oil, when we support high rates of subsidy to save maybe 20 percent on oil usage per passenger mile? How are we any different than Mr. O'Toole when our most ambitious plans would replace auto travel at the single-digit level and result in net oil savings that are a fraction of a percent of total usage?
And how are we in the advocacy community any different in our thinking about cheap oil, when we support high rates of subsidy to save maybe 20 percent on oil usage per passenger mile? How are we any different than Mr. O'Toole when our most ambitious plans would replace auto travel at the single-digit level and result in net oil savings that are a fraction of a percent of total usage?
Paul these people are more in line with my thinking.
Securing America's Future Energy
Sam1 wrote:
"Studies in Japan and France have shown that high speed rail is not about serving the common citizen. Instead it is used largely by foreign tourists and in-country elites."
Please provide a primary source for this statement.
I found contradictory examples after a brief Google search. "Four years after the Paris/Lyon TGV route opened, rail passenger trips increased 90 percent for personal travel and 180 percent for business travel. Both increases came at the expense of air and automobile travel." Also: "British Airways reported a loss of 30 to 40 percent of its passengers on its competing one hour London to Paris flight" (after inauguration of Eurostar). From
I am one who is in favor of rail passenger service but not as enthusiastic about HSR being the panacea for all passenger rail transportation problems; I think it is highly over stated or hyped. However, that being said, what a good HSR system will do is alliow the rest of the passenger system be utilized with connecting and lesser intermediate services. Thus the "less elite" also can have more and better services.
The facts lie in the statistics and statistics can lie when improperly applied.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.