New reports have raised questions about and spurred opposition to California’s grandiose high-speed rail plans. First, last April, the California state auditor reported that the state’s high-speed rail authority suffered from “inadequate planning, weak oversight, and lax contract management,” which is not exactly what you want to hear about an agency that is about to build the most expensive state-sponsored public works project in history.
Second, a new report from the University of California found that the state’s ridership forecasts “are not reliable.” Based on a re-assessment by economist David Brownstone (who is fast becoming one of the Antiplanner’s favorite economists) and two UC engineering profs, the fares needed to cover the trains’ operating costs would have to be more than double the original projections, which is also more than the cost of flying. Since the measure approved by voters in 2008 forbade any state operating subsidies, such high fares would doom the project.
Many questions had been raised about the state’s ridership forecasts prior to this report. Of course, the Reason Foundation questioned the numbers as long ago as 2008. More recently, several California groups argued that the state rail authority developed a peer-reviewed model, then discarded it in favor of a questionable model that produced higher numbers. Some groups have gone so far as to sue the state for lying about the numbers.
The University of California report has led several newspapers, including the Oakland Tribune and San Diego Union-Tribune, to argue that the high-speed rail authority has lost its credibility and that the state should “abandon the high-speed train fantasy, spend the $2.25 billion in federal funds on more realistic rail projects and not sell any of the [$9 billion worth of] bonds” that voters approved in 2008.
It offers discounts and also promises to make that shop viagra no prescription quick delivery. Boneless penis https://regencygrandenursing.com/life-at-our-facility/virtual-tour sildenafil sales depends on the sensitive veins for erection. But it is still recognized by the medical industry to cheapest viagra from india help in certain health disorders including neuromusculoskeletal dysfunctions. The earlier the underlying cause is discovered, cheapest viagra generic navigate here the more likely it is that other protein complexes, which build up in the heart walls. In response, high-speed rail advocates complain that the media has given so much attention to the University of California report while it supposedly ignored a report from CalPIRG claiming that high-speed rail has been “successful” all over the world. (Update: It turns out the blogger who complained also happened to write the CalPIRG report — something he never mentioned in the blog post that purports to objectively review the report.) The reality is that, as one commenter notes, the press has given high-speed rail a “free pass” until recently, notably ignoring the Reason Foundation critiques when they were published two months before the 2008 election.
As for CalPIRG’s report, its definition of “success” is apparently, “if we subsidize it enough, they will come.” They note that heavily subsidized trains in selected markets managed to capture market share away from heavily-taxed autos and unsubsidized airlines. They also repeat Amtrak’s claims about its share of Boston-Washington travel without mentioning that Amtrak ignores intercity buses, which carry more travelers in that corridor than Amtrak.
In counting “successful” rail lines, CalPIRG ignored the line in China that was recently shut down because it could not compete with slower, lower-fare trains. It also ignored the line in Taiwan that went bankrupt late last year. Nor did CalPIRG bother to ask how much subsidy was needed to make the lines it did consider appear “successful.”
Meanwhile, at the federal level, the GAO just published a report arguing that federal high-speed rail plans were hastily drawn up and not well thought out. Unfortunately, the GAO mainly looked at high-speed rail as a part of the stimulus package and not on its own merits. As a result, it missed several important points.
For example, it divides rail into “conventional” (up to 79 mph), “higher speed” (80-150 mph), and “high speed” (150-plus mph). But the critical distinction should be at 90 to 110 mph, which are the maximum speeds that most railroads will allow passenger trains to run on the same tracks as their freight trains. Anything above that, whether 120 mph or 200 mph, will require construction of new tracks that will cost at least 10 times as much as improving existing tracks to run at 90 to 110 mph.
One major problem is that high-speed rail advocates want the public to pretend that capital costs don’t count, only operating costs — and then want the public to believe that fares will cover operating costs, when they won’t even in the most populated corridors.
Trains operating at top speeds of 90 to 110 mph (meaning average speeds of 60 to 75 mph) will not attract enough riders to make a difference in any market. Trains operating at top speeds of more than 200 mph (meaning average speeds of 140 mph or so) might attract more riders, but their extremely high cost makes them just as infeasible.
So Andrew, the FAA doesn’t have its own expenses as an indepedent regulatory agency (which by the way costs about $3 Billion a year)? Is a cop on the street a subsidy? Government has functions that only they can be responsible for as a duty to society. Oversight of rail, and its costs are not a subsidy either.
Giving taxpayer money to rail for construction or giving it money to keep it afloat is.
*****************
Andrew:
I agree, the railway ticket tax should be reinstated at a 10% level to help fund passenger rail infrastructure. A trust fund with the receipts and earnings including interest for the ticket and waybill taxes collected from 1942 to 1962 would be worth around $50 billion today. Do you support giving that money back to the passenger rail industry in that manner?
Amtrak already spent it so all is even.
On July 12th, 2010, the highwayman said:
Though there also other places along the way from SF to LA.
Any ways what would be a good thing to do in the mean time is extend Amtrak Surfliner service from LA to SF.
****************
You’re making too much sense…. In my eye, upgrading the surfliner route, extending it, electrifying it and adding higher speed service is $9 billion better spent….
Obviously billions will be spent in California…. Better its spent on something people actually use… I mean, I’m just dying to pack up the kids and jump on the train to go to Bakersfield!!! Anyone with me????
Rail operates on private lines (that pay taxes) for them and are mostly privately funded. Airlines operate on publicly owned terminals and runways.
Amtrak profits and losses per line:
http://subsidyscope.com/transportation/amtrak/table/
Amtrak has never received more than 2 billion a year from the general fund. FAA routinely gets more annually. The airline industry received billions after 9/11, as well.
http://subsidyscope.com/transportation/
“the FAA doesn’t have its own expenses as an indepedent regulatory agency (which by the way costs about $3 Billion a year)?”
I’m not sure where you get that number from, or what you think this independent regulatory function is.
“Is a cop on the street a subsidy?”
It is to a firm that no longer has to hire its own security agents because a cop is provided in lieu of that personal responsibility.
“Oversight of rail, and its costs are not a subsidy either.”
The FRA costs a $243M annually for its non-Amtrak functions (safety and reasearch), and collects $50M to offset this. The Surface Transportation Board costs another $25M.
I don’t believe the rail industry ever asked for this regulatory apparatus to be established and limit its freedom of action. Traditionally the railroads performed their own safety oversight and funded their own research and coordinated it among themselves through their trade organization, the Association of American Railroads.
If the FRA went away tomorrow, the rail system would hum right along. I can’t think of any reasons why the FRA is strictly necesssary.
OTOH, movement of planes through the air without the FAA would be a disaster, and the FAA’s predecessors were formed at the request of the aviation industry.
“Amtrak already spent it so all is even.”
If you took the old railway ticket tax money, escrowed it in an imaginary trust fund and paid it interest on imaginary treasury notes deposited in it, and then began to dole it out to Amtrak over time from 1971 to present, there would still be $25+ billion in the account given the earnings power of the early money accrued from 1942 to 1962.
On the other hand, if you took all the airport construction and air traffic control spending from the pre-1970 period and started debiting against a non-existant trust fund and charging that fund interest to be paid back later on the loan of money at those times, you would find that the airline industry is in debt to the government for $10’s of billions if not more.
On July 13th, 2010, Andrew said:
I’m not sure where you get that number from, or what you think this independent regulatory function is.
*************
Regulatory functions. Writing and enforcing regulation, certification of airlines, pilots and mechanics. Certification of airports. Things that if an airline or airline paid for would create a financial conflict of interest. Things a government should be responsible for.
WS: Airlines operate on publicly owned terminals and runways.
****************
Airports are publicly held for both liability issues and equal protection issues. A private airport is permitted to exclude a class from operating at the airport, a publicly held airport is not. There are private airports that do just that. You’d have anarchy if all airports went private tomorrow. What is your point?
Andrew: OTOH, movement of planes through the air without the FAA would be a disaster, and the FAA’s predecessors were formed at the request of the aviation industry.
***********
The FAA as an air traffic controller could go away tomorrow, be replaced by a private corporation and do just fine. Second, the industry wanted safety oversight, not a hostile takeover which is what politicians did. This is why they fought for deregulation.
If the FRA went away tomorrow, the rail system would hum right along. I can’t think of any reasons why the FRA is strictly necesssary.
**********
Now you’re really full of it. No oversight of rail? Surely you are joking. Then again, no one actually uses it so maybe you’re right.
It is to a firm that no longer has to hire its own security agents because a cop is provided in lieu of that personal responsibility.
**********
Are you suggesting the only security at an airport is the TSA? If so I have swamp land you might be interested in buying. Airlines and airports spend bilions on security and police services outside of passenger screenign provided by the TSA. In cases where airports don’t have their own police force, they pay rediculous amounts of overhead costs to local police (and fire) departments thereby subsidizing local government, usually on the order of 120 to 150% of direct costs. In comingled fund cities, billions were tranfered from cash rich airports up until the late 1990’s to pay for stadiums, parking structures and convention centers before the government cracked down on the abuse – nearly sending several to jail in Detroit. So who is subsidizing who?
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/acrp/acrp_lrd_002.pdf
Except
for many small airports, most U.S. commercial airports
are self-sustaining, with revenue collected from businesses
(concessionaires), passengers, and airlines covering
most airport operating expenses. In fact, about half
of the smaller commercial airports (nonhub primary
and nonprimary commercial service airports) in the
United States do not break even. Likewise, most general
aviation airports are subsidized by their owners.
From the above link – Page 4:
“… once built, an airport must earn sufficient
revenue to pay its operating expenses and retire its
debt. Revenue comes from a number of sources, including
rents, aeronautical fees, concessions, and parking.8
Operating costs include expense items such as interest
and depreciation or amortization on debt, taxes, and
maintenance and administrative costs, including salaries,
power, and repairs.”
Andrew:
United and Delta don’t own any airports or terminals.
****************
No, but they lease the property from the airport at market rates.
Looks like the COO of Jet Blue is getting fired.
http://consumerist.com/2010/06/jet-blue-flying-from-nyc-to-boston-is-stupid.html
“I may be shooting ourselves in the foot here, with five daily flights from JFK to Boston. But it just may not make that much sense for an airplane on a 150-mile route to fly over 300 air miles to get there. Maybe there’s a different mode of transportation that may be better to carry those customers from point A to point B.”
Or is he…? Here’s a piece of an interview with Jet Blue’s CEO: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/JetBlue-chief-says-airlines-high-speed-rail-can-coexist-98219504.html
“Do you see nationwide high-speed rail as a threat or complement to the airline industry?
It’s a complement. I don’t think we need hundreds of departures every day from the Bay Area to Los Angeles.”
*strokes beard suggestively*
PlanesnotTrains:
“Now you’re really full of it. No oversight of rail? Surely you are joking.”
The FRA’s regulations are mainly a series of safety regulations which the railroad industry already accepted and practiced. The primary safety function in the rail industry is performed by the railroads themselves as a matter of quality control. The FRA acts as an agent of quality assurance – i.e. it fines railroads and workers who are not following their own procedures which the FRA has adopted as their safety requirements by performing random audit checks.
“Are you suggesting the only security at an airport is the TSA?”
Well, the only security on a railroad is its own police force! Local police and fire generally will not enter the property until escorted by the railroad police because of concern for their own safety.
Before the TSA existed, the airlines were required to provide their own security. 9/11 shows us how diligent they were in this. Congress stepped in to save the industry from lawsuits that would have rightly ruined these negligent copmanies and left all their assets in the possession of their victims.
The airline industry has diligently spent decades blaming the US Government for its own shortcomings when it comes to hijackings and bombings to the point where people simply accept this as the natural course of things. We would never accept a railroad or trucking line that blamed the US Government for its own failure to secure hazardous materials in its cargo manifest, or that allowed trains and trucks to be comandeered and crashed through lax control of their vehicles and control systems.
On July 13th, 2010, Andrew said:
Before the TSA existed, the airlines were required to provide their own security. 9/11 shows us how diligent they were in this. Congress stepped in to save the industry from lawsuits that would have rightly ruined these negligent copmanies and left all their assets in the possession of their victims.
The airline industry has diligently spent decades blaming the US Government for its own shortcomings when it comes to hijackings and bombings to the point where people simply accept this as the natural course of things.
*******************
You have just clearly demonstrated that you have no concept of what aviation security is about today or how it was structured before 9/11.
On July 13th, 2010, Andrew said:
We would never accept a railroad or trucking line that blamed the US Government for its own failure to secure hazardous materials in its cargo manifest, or that allowed trains and trucks to be comandeered and crashed through lax control of their vehicles and control systems.
***************
Yet high speed rail supporters stress the time benefit of not having to go through security when comparing themselves to air travel. Sounds to me like you’re willing to do just that.
On July 13th, 2010, Spokker said:
I don’t think we need hundreds of departures every day from the Bay Area to Los Angeles.â€
**********
Someone should tell him there are less than 100 such flights and they’ve declined from 150 a day just 10 years ago. Sounds like travel demand is falling between the very markets HSR is being set up to serve.
PlanesnotTrains:
“Yet high speed rail supporters stress the time benefit of not having to go through security when comparing themselves to air travel. Sounds to me like you’re willing to do just that.”
And what, pray tell, would be the benefit of airport style screening of rail passengers?
With this sort of comment I have to wonder, have you ever ridden a train? Do you understand how trains operate? What threat would require intensive security theater?
“You have just clearly demonstrated that you have no concept of what aviation security is about today or how it was structured before 9/11.”
Before 9/11, airlines were required by the FAA to screen passengers and baggage on their own (meaning that in theory they should be liable for breechs of their own security which causes damages and injuries), and did so by contracting out control of access to their gates to private security companies.
With this comment, I have to ask, how old are you? Did you ever fly before 2001? Having been a flier since around 1976, I can certainly attest to a very long history of travel in airports in the old days.
“Sounds like travel demand is falling between the very markets HSR is being set up to serve.”
Is recession-level travel demand going to last forever?
On July 14th, 2010, Spokker said:
“Sounds like travel demand is falling between the very markets HSR is being set up to serve.â€
Is recession-level travel demand going to last forever?
*************
We’ve been in a recession for 10 years? The flights were declining before the recession. Here are the daily flights between the bay and LA by year:
2000 142
2001 142
2002 115
2003 107
2004 107
2005 103
2006 100
2007 100
2008 96
2009 81
2010 78
On July 14th, 2010, Andrew said:
And what, pray tell, would be the benefit of airport style screening of rail passengers?
******************
Signed,
Spain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings
And we are a much bigger target than Spain.
On July 14th, 2010, Andrew said:
Before 9/11, airlines were required by the FAA to screen passengers and baggage on their own (meaning that in theory they should be liable for breechs of their own security which causes damages and injuries), and did so by contracting out control of access to their gates to private security companies.
***************
Using guidelines enforced by the government that the airlines felt were insufficient, yet the Goevenrment made them adhere to because of concerns about profiling and illegal search and seisure.
On July 14th, 2010, Andrew said:
With this comment, I have to ask, how old are you? Did you ever fly before 2001? Having been a flier since around 1976, I can certainly attest to a very long history of travel in airports in the old days.
******************
With over 20 years of experience in air transportation (airlines and airports), I’m 100% certain I’ll at one time forget more than you will ever know about air transportation.
PlanesnotTrains:
Security theater would only have stopped people from boarding the train. But anyone can get up on to train tracks almost anywhere and cause mischief.
The point of railroad security is not to keep people off the right of way, which is almost impossible given its extent, but to inspect the right of way regularly and identify and detain suspicious people, and to operate the system such that it self detects common acts of sabotage (i.e. broken rails cause a red signal which stops the train).
If we are a much bigger target, why no strikes against the US rail system?
“Using guidelines enforced by the government that the airlines felt were insufficient”
So you are saying the airlines consciously participated in a process they believed corporately was flawed and dangerous to their customers? This excuse is why they had to be immunized from lawsuits for 9/11.
One simple post 9/11 change that would have made 9/11 impossible – securely locking cabin doors that are made unbreachable by design – didn’t require a federal mandate to accomplish did it? Why wasn’t it done after the first few hijackings in the 1960’s? Hijackers can’t comandeer a plane that they can’t enter the cockpit of.
That reduction in flights between The Bay & LA could be because of larger planes or higher % filled. Passenger count is needed. It is likely thought that passenger count has dropped, but maybe not quite as the # of flights.
Regardless, amount of flights seem small for 2 major UAs. A big item touted by the SHR proponents is the airport capacity. I have not read the portion of airports devoted the cities in question. Perhaps because when it’s realized that <5% of flights are involved, that item will be dropped.
Also, the # of flights, 78-142, is a small amount to try to replace with $50+ billion of new capital. The CA HSR passenger estimate is incredibly high, equal to more than each CA resident taking a round-trip every year.
The timeliness is exaggerated, in that other transport modes are still need to get to/from the train station vs the airport. Door-to-door should be considered, for each.
Security will (or should) be taking about as long as at the airport. The risk & likelihood could even be worse on the trains. There is also danger of track sabotage & just regular damage.
It's strange to go back to old methods. Trains replaced wagons & canals. Airlines replaced trains, for personal travel (not most goods) in the 1950s. It's ridiculous to go backwards.
The conditions in other countries, that "allow" for HSR, do not exist in the US–mainly, density, in UAs & overall (much space between UAs).
Why do proponents ignore the US reality example of the Acela?
The amount of people who want to travel between UAs is just not very high. It’s strange that proponents are try to encourage longer commuting as a benefit–inducing travel.
Scott; It’s strange to go back to old methods. Trains replaced wagons & canals. Airlines replaced trains, for personal travel (not most goods) in the 1950s. It’s ridiculous to go backwards.
THWM: Roads have been around for millenia & I don’t think you’re going to stop using your horseless carriage any time soon.
Nahum 2:4
“The chariots shall rage in the streets, they shall jostle one against another in the broad ways: they shall seem like torches, they shall run like the lightning.”
Highman, that’s you true, but adds nothing to the discussion.
What’s your point?
On July 14th, 2010, Andrew said:
If we are a much bigger target, why no strikes against the US rail system?
***********
Because no one rides it, therefore, there is no significant psychological impact. De-rail a 200 mph train heading into a major city, and its a whole different situation.
++++++
On July 14th, 2010, Scott said:
That reduction in flights between The Bay & LA could be because of larger planes or higher % filled. Passenger count is needed. It is likely thought that passenger count has dropped, but maybe not quite as the # of flights.
The peak was in 2001 at 5.4 million passengers. In 2009 it was 3.8 million.
The passenger count is probably dropping because you should be able to make the drive door to door faster than you can fly, especially if you need to rent a car on the other end.
Short distance flights make little sense when it comes to actual travel time compared to just using a car.
Scott:
“The conditions in other countries, that “allow” for HSR, do not exist in the US–mainly, density, in UAs & overall (much space between UAs).”
Actually, you couldn’t be more wrong. The size and population density of either France or Spain, for example, is near that of the US from New York State south to Virginia and east through Ohio EXCLUDING New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. While California is smaller than those places, it is just as dense. So are Illinois and Michigan without the peninsula. Florida is denser!
France – 211K sq. mi., 279 people/sq. mi.
Spain – 195K sq. mi., 201 people/sq. mi.
California – 159K sq. mi., 232 people/sq. mi.
Florida – 66K sq. mi., 338 people/sq. mi.
New York – 54K sq. mi., 408 people/sq. mi.
Pennsylvania – 46K sq. mi., 274 people/sq. mi.
Virginia – 42K sq. mi., 194 people/sq. mi.
Ohio – 44K sq. mi., 256 people/sq. mi.
Illinois – 57K sq. mi., 223 people/sq. mi.
Lower Michigan – 41K sq. mi., 237 people/sq. mi.
I’m constantly amazed at how ignorant people are of the vast size of Europe and the actual density of the larger US states. Europe from the Urals to the Atlantic is roughly the same size as the continental US + Mexico + the border strip of Canada, and is only marginally more populated (730M vs. 450M). People seem to have it in their heads that Europe is tiny and people are packed in like sardines.
“Europe from the Urals to the Atlantic is roughly the same size as the continental US + Mexico + the border strip of Canada, and is only marginally more populated (730M vs. 450M).”
Europe is larger than the Continental United States, it’s true. (“Marginally” more populated? Ha. Only if 61% more is “marginal”. Distort much?) Europe’s population density is almost twice the Continental United States. Exclude Scandinavia and Russia, and you’ve got a smaller area than the US with a much higher population density.
Not taking a position on the claims attached to this. Just trying to rectify geographic and statistical distortions.
“We’ve been in a recession for 10 years?”
Yes, after 9/11 and the dotcom bubble burst, a recession began, but the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates. It’s like giving drugs to an addict. Thing seemed ok for a bit, but the crash was much worse than it would have been.
Andrew, the density figures that you listed are irrelevant.
I already covered that in my original post.
Regional densities (states) don’t have much meaning.
I really don’t want to take the time to fully explain why your reasoning is flawed.
Take a group of people, obese & bulimic. According to you, they are all healthy because the avg BMI is okay.
I’ll give you a hint: Look at the major UAs in Europe, their density & how far apart they are.
In Illinois, where [from Chicago] will you go, for medium distance? Twin Cities, Detroit, St. Louis.
How many travel between?
Scott:
“Europe is larger than the Continental United States, it’s true. (“Marginally†more populated? Ha. Only if 61% more is “marginalâ€. Distort much?)”
61% more? Or 38% less? 38% less doesn’t sound like as much a difference does it? Distort much? That’s why I gave actual population – 730M vs. 450M.
“Europe’s population density is almost twice the Continental United States.”
I was discussing the CONUS+Mexico+the Canadian border region. Density is roughly 180 in Europe vs. 110 for that.
“Exclude Scandinavia and Russia, and you’ve got a smaller area than the US with a much higher population density.”
Okay, do that, and density is 308 per sq. mile.
The eastern US without its unpopulated corners of Maine and Mississippi plus California and you’ve got a smaller denser North American area too – 233 per sq. mile.
No one is proposing high speed rail across Wyoming and Montana. Where it is being proposed, the average overall population density is the same as in France and Spain.
“I’ll give you a hint: Look at the major UAs in Europe, their density & how far apart they are.”
Paris-Berlin – 700 miles
Hamburg-Vienna – 680 miles
Paris-Madrid – 790 miles
Milan-Naples – 480 miles
London-Munich – 720 miles
Copenhagen-Brussels – 680 miles
Was this the point you were trying to make, or am I picking the “wrong” city pairs?
European and American Metro Areas (sample – European ones are somewhat hard to get land areas for the Metros)
Paris – 12M, 5600 sq. mi.
Madrid – 6M, 4000 sq. mi.
Berlin – 5M, ~5000 sq. mi.
Rhine-Rhur – 11M, 3500 sq. mi.
New York City – 19M, 6700 sq. mi.
Chicago – 9M, 10800 sq. mi.
Philadelphia – 6M, 4600 sq. mi.
Miami – 6M, 6100 sq. mi.
LA – 15M, 5000 sq. mi.
I’m really not seeing this huge qualitative difference in size and densities either.
“In Illinois, where [from Chicago] will you go, for medium distance? Twin Cities, Detroit, St. Louis. How many travel between?”
In 1995, it was around 1 million round trips each per year. Surprisingly to many, midwest regional travel is not that high in number.
In California and Las Vegas, by way of comparison, there were 50 million round trips between the major cities in 1995. That is more than the 45 million round trips in the Northeast Corridor from Boston to Norfolk.
If the relatively non-high speed trains of the northeast have 1/6 of the total travel market, its not unreasonable to think real high speed trains in California could get 1/4 of the market (25 million trips).
On July 14th, 2010, Andrew said:
The passenger count is probably dropping because you should be able to make the drive door to door faster than you can fly, especially if you need to rent a car on the other end.
*****************
Even on the worst day, air travel is faster than a car will ever be.
On July 14th, 2010, Frank said:
Yes, after 9/11 and the dotcom bubble burst, a recession began, but the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates. It’s like giving drugs to an addict. Thing seemed ok for a bit, but the crash was much worse than it would have been.
***************
I gather its more indicative of the lack of a manufacturing base in California. That and much of the traffic 10 years ago was connecting traffic that now bypasses Los Angeles and San Francisco instead going to Denver, Phoenix and Salt Lake City.On July 15th, 2010, Andrew said:
If the relatively non-high speed trains of the northeast have 1/6 of the total travel market, its not unreasonable to think real high speed trains in California could get 1/4 of the market (25 million trips).
***********
There aren’t 25 million trips.
Total 2009 Air Passengers between the points which will be served by CAHSR:
13.2 million a year. (Source: BTS Data, December 2009)
HSR would have to capture 100% of all air travel on the route to even have a chance of meeting their projections, which will not happen because over 60% of those passengers are connecting to other flights where rail is at a disadvantage because it will be easier to clear security at the small airport and connect at LAX or SFO than it will to get of off the train, transfer to the airport, then go into crowded LAX or SFO to clear security.
Andrew: In California and Las Vegas, by way of comparison, there were 50 million round trips between the major cities in 1995. That is more than the 45 million round trips in the Northeast Corridor from Boston to Norfolk.
**********
That’s nice, but this system will not include Las Vegas. You take Las Vegas out of that and the market is cut to less than half.
Andrew, the European Union is triple the density of the contiguous US.
In the comparison, for France & Spain, take that population of 110 million, there is not a similar area in the US that has that many people.
Do those Euro-city pairs have HSR? Are there comparable pairs in the US? Rarely in the same state–that’s part of the reason why state densities are irrelevant, and not interconnected, being wide clusters.
Metropolitan areas (whole counties in the US) give a poor indicator of density because of rural area included. Part of the point about UA density (& the core too) is for the # of people near a HSR station. The public transport network within those UAs is important too.
Of those 5 US city-pairs shown, only one is medium distance, w/the others being over 1,000 miles apart.
For Chicago, you mentioned that travel to nearby major cities is low, <million. So, no HSR needed.
I question the 50 million round-trips (between major cities) in CA & NV. An indication of it being wrong is that the Northeast corridor has a smaller amount of trips, while there are more people at closer distances there. Over once/capita? I'm guessing that's mostly by car. A big portion of that is for Las Vegas. More tax $ for people to take vacations?
People still need transport to & from each station & around the visiting city, plus (vs car) there's the extra time to/from each station & time in lines.
Your estimate for CAHSR trips is 1/3 of the agency's. And LV is not a destination.
Check out the HSR maps.You’ll see smaller distances between more major cities.
Scott and PlanesnotTrains:
This is the raw travel data from that 1995 BTS survey. Number of trips listed is total round trips by all modes between metropolitan areas. Trips to the Las Vegas or Reno areas are 14 million of 51 million total round trips. Since high speed rail is being proposed to Las Vegas, it certainly doesn’t seem unreasonable to consider the 11+ million round trips made from LA and San Diego to Vegas.
Los Angeles Sacramento 1,631,660
Sacramento San Diego 302,194
Los Angeles Salinas 356,898
Los Angeles San Diego 10,466,883
Los Angeles San Francisco 7,049,954
Los Angeles Santa Barbara 2,036,605
Sacramento San Francisco 5,337,613
San Francisco Stockton 475,895
Salinas San Francisco 677,352
Salinas Santa Barbara 341,478
San Diego San Francisco 2,415,188
Fresno San Francisco 571,533
San Diego Santa Barbara 362,563
San Francisco San Francisco 335,487
San Francisco Santa Barbara 399,637
Bakersfield Los Angeles 1,135,519
Fresno Los Angeles 1,070,261
Los Angeles Modesto 694,280
Fresno Stockton 451,925
Las Vegas Los Angeles 9,120,296
Las Vegas San Diego 2,213,871
Las Vegas San Francisco 418,797
Reno Sacramento 644,983
Reno San Diego 344,230
Reno Stockton 324,960
Reno San Francisco 1,704,123
Since California and Nevada have grown considerably since 1995 (over 10%), these numbers are probably low today by at least 5 million round trips.
Scott:
“In the comparison, for France & Spain, take that population of 110 million, there is not a similar area in the US that has that many people.”
France+Spain = 109 million people, 406,000 sq. mi.
MA+CT+RI+NY+NJ+DE+PA+OH+IN+IL+MI+VA+NC = 117 million people, 401,000 sq. mi.
For good measure, you could add the 48 million people and 200,000 sq. mi. of SC+GA+FL+Lower Ontario+Lower Quebec if you were so inclined. That would give a total land area a little larger (~40K sq. mi.) and population just a little smaller (15 million less) than Italy, Spain, France, and Potugal combined. That small 10% gap in population would probably be closed by the time a system was up and running.
So if high speed rail is justified in France, Spain, and Italy based on density and size, does that also make it justified between Montreal and Miami and Boston and Chicago?
We can do this all day.
Germany – 138,000 sq. mi., 80 million people.
NY(w/o Adirondacks)+RI+MA+CT+NJ+DE+MD+PA+OH+DC – 150,000 sq. mi., 70 million people.
So are we justified in building a German style rail network crisscrossing Boston to Cincinatti and Buffalo to DC?
Do you really just not know what you are talking about with respect to American and European geography and population distribution?
PlanesnotTrains:
“There aren’t 25 million trips.”
You are right. There were 102 million one way trips between major metros in CA and NV in 1995. That is a very big market, with most of it being in personal cars.
On July 15th, 2010, Andrew said:
You are right. There were 102 million one way trips between major metros in CA and NV in 1995. That is a very big market, with most of it being in personal cars.
***********
CAHSR doesn’t go to Nevada, so your point is…. Pointless. It also doesn’t go to other cities you mention like Santa Barbara and Reno. Nevermind the fact that your data is 15 years old and completely useless to the discussion.
Using your numbers, when you factor out the Nevada routes that are nothing more than paper trains you drop to 32,972,642. Going further, when you add the reality that the extension to San Diego is unlikely to ever be built you lose another 13,148,265.
Sad really when your theoretical demand for 102 million gets crushed down to a paltry 19.8 million. Assuming a 100% capture, which as noted will never happen, primarily because this thing doesn’t go anywhere near LAX where it could theoretically take advantage of connecting traffic like it does at multiple airports in Europe.
Andrew,
Good job at selecting states to total similar amounts.
To be more of a coherent polygon, 6 other states should be included.
That doesn’t mean much though.
For the 3rd time, the density relevance is on UAs & distance between. Look at the extreme, suppose state & country densities were uniform–the same # of people in each sq.mi. That would make any kind of centralized transportation, useless.
That trip data shows a small amount of travel. Certainly not enough for $50+ billion. What % of those will go to HSR & what % of all travel? The cost per passenger-mile is incredibly high. The energy & emissions difference is mostly negligible, maybe worse.
Look at Amtrak. Very low passenger count. A slight decrease in time will not make much difference.
The EU actually doesn’t have much HSR. Many lines are below 140 mph.
On the map, for routes 140mph+, I see 4 major cities as hubs (none connected) with few lines & major cities as destinations.
Madrid to 1) Seville 2) Barcelona
Paris to 1) London 2) Amsterdam 3) Brussels 4) Lyon & Marseilles
Milan to 2
Rome to 2
To really do a comparison analysis, look [in a list] at the major UAs & the distances, for the US & those in the EU, which have HSR routes.
In addition to denser urban areas, at closer distances, don’t forget that in the EU: more tourism; Europeans seem to visit more; fewer have cars; heavy gov subsidization; extra gas tax; smaller freeway network; etc. Plane tickets might cost more, not sure.
How about Japan? Even much denser.
Here’s a map to visualize the UAs in the US
That might help you get away from your preoccupation with chosen political boundaries & their average density.
PlanesnotTrains:
“CAHSR doesn’t go to Nevada, so your point is…. Pointless.”
DesertExrpess high speed rail does, and the ultimate build-out plan of both includes linking them up.
“It also doesn’t go to other cities you mention like Santa Barbara and Reno.”
The Amtrak northeast corridor doesn’t go to Long Island or Loudon County or northwestern suburban New Jersey, but people ride to/from those places on it regularly.
“Nevermind the fact that your data is 15 years old and completely useless to the discussion.”
If you have newer BTS data, please share it. It would undoubedtly only show an even larger market.
“Sad really when your theoretical demand for 102 million gets crushed down to a paltry 19.8 million.”
That should be 39.6 million one way trips. You need to keep the numbers consistent between either one-way trips or round trips.
I don’t agree that the San Diego extension is a pipedream. Obviously that is the line with the highest potential demand, and the lowest costs per rider. Normally, it would be what should be built first.
Scott:
“Good job at selecting states to total similar amounts.”
Thank you. You said it couldn’t be done, so I wanted to show you that it could, and could in fact be much larger than what you asked for with Florida and Ontario.
“For the 3rd time, the density relevance is on UAs & distance between.”
Fine, the northeast US is the same size and density as France. The French system forms a cross with Paris being an offset center. Boston-Norfolk is the same distance as Lille-Marseilles. Strasbourg-Bordeaux is somewhat longer than Philadelphia-Detroit. This suggests that we could “mimic” the French system in size and results by building Boston-Norfolk, NYC-Buffalo-Cleveland-Cincinatti, and Philadelphia-Pittsburgh-Detroit.
“What % of those will go to HSR & what % of all travel?”
As I pointed out, Amtrak northeast corridor ridership+intercity ridership on the commuter railroads is about 1/6 of the total travel market. I don’t believe these services have been optimized by price to maximize ridership.
“The cost per passenger-mile is incredibly high.”
Do you mean per annual passenger-mile? Assume for a second that the whole system was built for $50 billion, including the private Las Vegas proposal, and that 25 million one way trips are captured with an average distance of 200 miles. That’s 5 billion passenger-miles per year, so sunk capital costs are $10 per annual passenger-mile. I agree that seems high.
What is your upper limit on cost per passenger-mile?
“The energy & emissions difference is mostly negligible, maybe worse.”
I really don’t care about environmentalist issues. But if this is important to you, you should note that much of the power for Amtrak’s northeast operation comes from Susquehanna River hydropower, which is essentially “free” and “zero emissions”. California could be powered the same way if that were important.
Andrew, You seemed to missed the sarcasm & the point that you “cherry-picked” states to arrive at comparable totals.
To be fully literal in finding an area & population the size of France & Spain, one would need to overlay it’s ~figure-8 shape on the US. Of course that’s not necessary, but a rectangular or elliptical shapes would suffice. You chose contiguous states, but in a hodge-podge, like gerrymandering.
Still, that’s not really the point. Look at how close the population centers are. And secondarily, as I briefly stated, how many people in each UA are likely to travel to a HSR station, based upon time & convenience.
You seemed to have proven that rail won’t work well in the US by pointing out some UAs sets similar to France. See, in capitalism, if there is a need to be paid for, businesses will provide. Rail used to be predominantly private & had much higher ridership. There are more efficient ways to transport.
Are there cities in the US comparable to stations for the TGV that, that could achieve a sufficient ridership, while covering costs? Again, Amtrak should be a gauge & that fails.
The Acela should “optimize price”? How? Meaning? If prices are lower, people will purchase more? How brilliant. Seriously, you’re being ridiculous. Do you think that Acela has a huge surplus? More riders carries more costs. Sure, base capital can be amortized over higher numbers, but there are limits. To cover costs (fixed & operating), any HSR will have to be 2-3 times the cost of Acela.
Adding LV to the CA HSR will raise price way above $50 billion. regardless, it’s good you realize that the capital cost is very high.
HSR is often touted as having big savings in energy & emissions. False. I didn’t state “caring”. Selecting a certain power source is flawed. When there is a grid, that is inaccurate. One can easily say that certain rail gets power from coal & the homes get power from hydro. Even with energy sources directed at certain uses, if there was not “X” user, then “Y” sources could be cut.
On July 16th, 2010, Andrew said:
DesertExrpess high speed rail does, and the ultimate build-out plan of both includes linking them up.
+++++
DesertExpress is vaporware at this point and it’s still irrelevant because you’re trying to use its ridership to justify demand for the CAHSR system which does not include DesertExpress.
—
On July 16th, 2010, Andrew said:
The Amtrak northeast corridor doesn’t go to Long Island or Loudon County or northwestern suburban New Jersey, but people ride to/from those places on it regularly.
++++
Apparently you are geographically challenged. Do you even know where Santa Barbara is in relation to the nearest HSR station? Its 2-3 hours smart guy.
—
On July 16th, 2010, Andrew said:
If you have newer BTS data, please share it. It would undoubtedly only show an even larger market.
+++++
First, it’s not undoubtedly an even larger market. I’ve already demonstrated it has fallen using not only 2000 BTS data but also 2009 BTS data.
—-
On July 16th, 2010, Andrew said:
That should be 39.6 million one way trips. You need to keep the numbers consistent between either one-way trips or round trips.
+++++
Wait, so now you claim a one way trip automatically means a round trip? You’re full of it.
—-
On July 16th, 2010, Andrew said:
I don’t agree that the San Diego extension is a pipedream. Obviously that is the line with the highest potential demand, and the lowest costs per rider. Normally, it would be what should be built first.
+++++
The San Diego leg is a pipe dream over and above the $34 billion initial expense. CAHSR only threw them a bone to get votes. Per the results, San Diego clearly saw threw this heaping pile of crap.
—-
Give up Andrew. Your data is flawed, your analysis is flawed and you’ll say and do anything to make HSR look viable. Just like CAHSR.
Oh, for TGV routes, you already did mention some cities. I mean elaboration, in figs for riders, distance, population, density, stations, alternatives, tourists, etc.
Of course, that’s a big order & not expected to be fully answered.
But the original point is that there are big differences between the EU & the US. Urban density is still a big factor. Again, on your selection of the US Northeast Corridor (BosWash) have negative results for HSR.
Another thing to consider, that I brought up recently, is that not that much of EU rail is really high speed.
That actually casts more serious doubt on rail in the US, because the claim is made that Amtrak ridership is not comparable because of low speeds, but in the EU there are many riders at moderate speed.
Conclusion: the elasticity [of riders to speed] is low, in the US; in the EU, people still ride rail, being mostly indifferent to speed.
One can pick withing these agglomerations, to find a possible need, within cost, for HSR, but not realistic.
Now go between those regions, it’s too far & even more cost-prohibitive.
Scott:
“One can easily say that certain rail gets power from coal & the homes get power from hydro. Even with energy sources directed at certain uses, if there was not “X†user, then “Y†sources could be cut.”
Power stations making 25 Hz power are making it specifically for the northeast rail electrification system. There are no other signficant users of that type of electricity. The plants were built specifically to sell power to the Pennsylvania Railroad.
PlanesnotTrains:
Most of what you’ve written is not worth responding to at this point. More bluster and less substance by the post. But I will address the following:
“First, it’s not undoubtedly an even larger market. I’ve already demonstrated it has fallen using not only 2000 BTS data but also 2009 BTS data.”
You showed trips taken on a plane have dropped, not overall travel between the regions. I suspect trips on the plane have dropped because more people are driving (or riding a bus or train), having decided that the time spent driving to/from the airport and waiting to board the plane and sitting on the taxiway plus actual flight time is equal to the or near enough the time to just drive I5 straight to where they are going.
“Wait, so now you claim a one way trip automatically means a round trip? You’re full of it.”
No, I pointed out the BTS data said 51 million ROUND trips between the city pairs I noted. That is equal to 102 million ONE-WAY trips. I had to convert the nuumber because ridership of planes and trains is normally given in one way trips.
Andrew,
As I stated, intrastate flying has declined because people now have access to connecting hubs outside the state and are less dependent on LAX and SFO to get places. It does not mean more people are driving or taking the train. What it does mean is that the level of travel demand along the route proposed for HSR has declined because people no longer have to go to LAX or SFO. People who drive do so for a reason -> mobility on arrival. Air Fares are already cheaper than driving and that doesn’t divert anyone, neither will rail.
And no, you said 102 million trips and then ran off a list of cities that aren’t within 200 miles of a proposed HSR train station to boost your numbers. When you deduct your bogus cities, the count drops to 19.8 million. Then you tried to double that number.
Andrew, I’m guessing that you’re kidding now, that there is a certain type of electricity, only for railroads made over a century ago, which is relevance for unbuilt HSR.
I’m guessing too that you have dropped your objections because you realize that rail habits could not be developed by people in the US as in other countries.
I cum for high speed rail. Government subsidized loads all over my high speed train.