Railway Age reports that China’s Premier Wen Jiabao has suspended “approval of new railway projects” while it investigates the recent accident that killed at least 40 people.
Jiabao also said that the country would “reduce the average speed of new high speed trains at their early stage of operation.” Another report indicates that the government has ordered one of the Chinese manufacturers to stop making bullet trains “because of an improperly working automatic safety system that was causing delays on its Shanghai to Beijing line.”
To pay for new rail lines under construction, China is having to promise to repay borrowings at 5.55 percent interest, which is very high for government-issued bonds. Even at that rate, it was only able to sell 18.7 billion of the 20.0 billion yuan’s worth of bonds it was trying to sell. This suggests that the market thinks the projects are somewhat risky.
The fatal accident should not have happened. The first train should not have been vulnerable to lightning; the signaling system should warned the second train to stop; failsafes should have prevented the trains from getting close to one another. The fact of the accident shows that someone, whether contractor or operator, has been very careless with the project. Adding to the questions about the accident is the fact that it happened after the government had already ordered all trains to slow down; how many would have died if the trains had been operating at full speed?
This diabetic discount levitra induced damage to nerves and blood vessels involved in erection. It has levitra cost of sales functions of killing bacterial, eliminating inflammation, clearing heat, and promoting the blood circulation. This article takes a look at some of the reasons why people are looking cialis online australia pdxcommercial.com to purchase cheap Kamagra online: Value for Money as well. Kamagra is introduced in market by Ajanta pharma which is a situation in women viagra pills which a person begins losing his locks in a certain pattern.
The rail ministry that builds and operates the trains has an incredible 2.1 million employees, more than the number of civilians employed by the entire U.S. government. Moreover, the ministry is in debt to the tune of 2.1 trillion yuan ($326 billion), about 5 percent of the country’s GDP.
When Japan’s government-owned railroad racked up a debt of $300 billion (in today’s dollars) building money-losing high-speed rail lines, the government privatized it in 1987 and absorbed the debt, which helped generate that country’s two-decade long economic doldrums. China has more people than Japan, but its economy is only a little larger.
Mismanagement at the rail ministry poses a threat to the entire Chinese Communist Party. Publicity about the rail accident was so bad that the government ordered a news blackout, followed just three days later by a promise to run a more open government.
All of which makes this an excellent time for California elected officials to take a junket, excuse me, fact-finding tour of China’s high-speed rail lines, paid for by the Chinese rail ministry. I wonder which part of the rail system interests the three Democratic state senators the most: the high costs, the slow speeds, or the corruption?
Awww, let’s hear the wailing & gnashing of teeth now. Let it all out, libs.
If I were to guess, I’d say the high costs and corruption, in that order, is what the leeches in California find interesting.
China borrows money for rail projects? That is great news. You would think that a communist country would just fund such projects instead of buying US debt.
It is great that the participate in the global debt market because that undermines communism and supports freedom.
I don’t understand why people think that a one-party dictatorship that uses an army of ants for labor and which could care less about quality control and safety until exposed by the world press has something to teach us about anything.
If we want to look at how high speed rail is built and works so that we can make rational decisions about planned investments, there are a variety of economically advanced countries which each have a fairly unique model of (1) where to build HSR, (2) how to build it, (3) type of topography to be overcome, (3) level of use desired, (4) speed desired, (5) level of integration to existing rail systems, (6) type of equipment to be used, (7) amount to be constructed relative to population and size of country, etc. I’m thinking here of France, Germany Italy, Spain, Sweden, Britain, Korea, Taiwan, Japan and even our own American Northeast Corridor. Surely that is enough variety of example to draw lessons from without turning to China, which is a unique (basket)case.
Sandy Teal says: “It is great that the participate in the global debt market because that undermines communism and supports freedom.”
I think the term now is “State Capitalism.” It seems to me that the new Chinese model and the devolving US model are destined to collide.
Andrew wrote (emphasis added):
I’m thinking here of France, Germany Italy, Spain, Sweden, Britain, Korea, Taiwan, Japan and even our own American Northeast Corridor.
I know a little bit about Sweden, having traveled around large parts of that nation by various modes (including railroad). Eurostat also publishes modal share statistics for Sweden, and railroad patronage (as a percentage of all passenger travel kilometers) in 2008 was slightly over 9%, but I believe that a fair amount of that 9% is probably local service transit service (similar to SEPTA’s Regional Rail lines) run under contract to regional transit authorities. Private automobiles carry over 83% of passenger kilometers.
First, Sweden does not have much in the way of French-style dedicated TGV railroad track. In fact, the only segment that comes close is north of Stockholm, where the railroad is four tracks wide, and two of those tracks are dedicated to passenger trains, most of which are running to and from Arlanda Airport.
Second, Sweden does allow trains to operate at speeds up to 250 k/h (about 150 MPH) on some of its railroad mainlines, but I don’t think any of that qualifies as HSR, since they also serve freight trains, not just passenger service.
Third, in the past two decades Sweden has built (or is building) some new segments of railroad, including a problem-plagued tunnel through the Halland Ridge in the southern part of the country; the new railroad that connects the Swedish network to the Øresund Bridge-Tunnel to Denmark; and the mostly single-track Botnia Line along its northern coast.
But those new Swedish lines are nothing close in length (or cost) to just the California High-Speed Rail Authority plan – and nothing like what the Chinese have built recently.
Maybe they are coming to grips with technical feasibility. You can’t run a train at 200 mph not without significant investment in safety technology and undertaking a huge engineering effort to make the rail as smooth and flawless as possible. Then you have to spend a lot of time and effort and money to keep the track in good shape. There were a high numbers of service failures in the first month of operation which drove passengers back to the existing slower rail services. Many critics have questioned the need for having an expensive high-speed rail system in what is still a largely developing country, where most workers cannot afford to pay for one ticket let alone ride it on a frequent basis. Large construction debt-loads require significant revenues from rider fares, subsidies, and/or other sources of income, such as advertising, to repay. Despite impressive ridership figures, virtually every completed line has incurred losses in its first years of operation. To break even, some of their lines must deliver 40 million rides annually. So far annual rate for one of it’s lines is 25.2 million. Never mind the fact that they probably admit hundreds of millions of trips on it’s normal speed rail.
CPZ:
High speed rail is service at 125 mph/200 kmh and up. This has been a long accepted international definition. Therefore Sweden qualifies. There is lots of HSR worldwide on mixed use tracks – Sweden as you mention, Britain, Germany, and of course our own Northeast Corridor. The only reason to build new HSR tracks and ROW if you want it is (1) your existing ROW is at capacity, (2) your existing ROW is not straight enough for higher speeds and cannot be easily straightened, (3) you want to waste money and be showy.
In California, HSR would obviously and necessarily need new ROW for the two parts over the mountains north of LA and south of San Jose. In the Central Valley, it mostly needs a grade seperated embankment next to the UP or BN or SR99 embankment – those lines are already straight and in existence. In LA and the Bay area, the line will share tracks with upgraded existing ROW’s, because are not going to knock down thousands of houses to build it on a brand new alignment.
Obviously Sweden is not the same as what California wants to do. But it might be instructive for what is really needed and affordable to build in the Northeastern US. That was my point – each situation being discussed in the US is different, and there are multiple appropriate foreign lines that can be looked at to find the closest cousin with which we can rationally compare and discuss them.
bennet said:
I think the term now is “State Capitalism.†It seems to me that the new Chinese model and the devolving US model are destined to collide.
Interesting idea, and depressingly persuasive.
Andrew, it’s hard to take you seriously due to 1) supporting the insane California High Speed Boondoggle, and 2) supporting the endless printing of fiat money as a solution to our debt problems.
metrosucks says: “Awww, let’s hear the wailing & gnashing of teeth now. Let it all out, libs.” and “it’s hard to take you seriously…”
Lol.
Well, it’s true Bennett.I expected wailing & gnashing of teeth, knowing how HSR proponents waived around China’s “accomplishments”, and I don’t know what your position is on fiat currency and Cali HSR, but for a self-described libertarian (Andrew), it’s hard to take him seriously after those stances.
mycommentsucks,
I’m not a big proponent of HSR. Not that I’m against it on its face, but in the CA context (and most contexts in the US) it doesn’t seem likely to work well or be fiscally responsible. So I suppose I disagree with Andrew today.
What made me laugh (or what always make me laugh when reading your comments) is the blatant two-faced nature of the conversation with you. So what if you don’t take Andrew seriously, NOBODY takes you seriously. Maybe tomorrow your first comment won’t be an immature and insulting preemptive shot across you opponents bow. That would be a good start on your way to a smidgin of credibility. That said, I’m not holding my breath.
metrosucks:
supporting the endless printing of fiat money as a solution to our debt problems
That isn’t what I said. I said monetizing the debt would not create inflation, because the money was created when the debt was incurred.
My support for our debt problems is (1) letting all Bush tax cuts expire, (2) cutting the defense budget in half (retain 7 carrier groups, 2/3 of the subs, 4 Army Divisions, half the present air force, declare victory and end wars now), (3) raise Medicare tax for prescription drug benefit or drop the benefit, (4) end Dept of Ed. and HUD and shove back to States, (5) end Ag. subsidies, (6) shove food stamps, WIC, LIHEAP, disability, etc. onto States, (7) end foreign aid and all foreign military bases and presence aside from Diego Garcia and maybe Ramstein. I support a balanced budget now, not in 6 or 10 years, and getting it by attacking the sacred cows and taking the pain now and moving on, not slitting our own throat by going after infrastructure and R&D spending or our national parks or internal security.
Once we are in a better fiscal situation we can discuss fundemental tax reform, medicare/medicaid/health reform, defense contracting reform, etc.
metrosucks:
1) supporting the insane California High Speed Boondoggle
What are the alternatives to support 12 million new Californians? A 4th freeway to complement US101, I5, and SR99? 800 miles of new 6 lane freeway at Maryland ICC prices ($3 billion/20 miles with financing) would be around $120 billion.
Is that a better/cheaper idea? I don’t think so.
So what is your brilliant plan to replace CAHSR?
I quote CP from the other blog post:
Increased road capacity in California and other places where there is a need for it will get used. The same cannot be said for rigidly inflexible and expensive legacy technology like passenger trains.
He’s absolutely right. We know that increased road capacity will be used. But Cali HSR depends on high-on-meth, delusional ridership projections that call for a single corridor to have 5 times more riders than the entire Amtrak ridership of the US. How is that a “better” idea? And despite the fact that the highway “may” cost $120 billion (highways are perfectly capable of coming in under budget, unlike rail), the real cost for the rail will be probably be similar, with endless operating subsidies to boot, over its lifetime.
metrosucks:
But Cali HSR depends on high-on-meth, delusional ridership projections that call for a single corridor to have 5 times more riders than the entire Amtrak ridership of the US.
Its not a single corridor. Its multiple corridors using a single trunk. LA-SF, LA-Sac, LA-SD, SD-Sac, SD-SF, SF-Sac, etc.
Amtrak is hardly something to compare ridershipwise. Outside of the NEC it barely scratches the surface of what could be done.
117 million riders over 365 days is a single one way ride every 152 days for each Californian of the 49 million of the future, or a single round trip every 304 days per Californian. That might be high, but it is not “high-on-meth”. You could also think of it as roughly 2 round trips per year per adult Californian. The average American flies one round trip per year. Is to too much to imagine the average Californian might take two round trips on HSR per year in their state?
the real cost for the rail will be probably be similar, with endless operating subsidies to boot, over its lifetime.
Everything I have seen indicates the rail system will cost about half as much. As to endless subsidies, we’ll see, since the rail line is already being built and will produce actual results. Its not like roads pay for themselves though. Amortizing $120 billion for 30 years at $8 billion per year requires 20 billion gallons of fuel to be burned on the road, which is 1/16th of all fuel taxes collected in the US. Obviously the highway would never come close to paying for itself and would require endless subsidies. Each mile of road would need to produce $27,500 of revenue per mile per day. That would suggest tolls of roughly 25 cents per mile.
You do know how to do math, right? Why not try to make a few calculations before you just airly throw out your opinions.
No, Andrew, you throw out your opinions here and try to distort numbers to make the case for your personal desire to see rail built. No matter how you look at it, it does not make sense. Yes, it probably will be over $100 billion when cost overruns are figured. Also bear in mind that part of the current cost estimate includes wildly optimistic assumptions that part of the cost will be provided by private parties. As far as I know, no such private group has come forth.
Highway projects come in under budget all the time. When was the last time a rail project came in under budget?
And the highway needn’t pay for every cent of its own expenses. The way the gas tax works, taxes collected elsewhere, where roads produce a surplus of revenue, can be diverted to areas where the money is needed for roadwork. Don’t whine about it being “unfair”, either.
How convenient that you would propose a 25 cent a mile toll on a highway (which in your twisted world should pay every cent of its own expenses from local drivers), but billions in direct taxpayer subsidy from all over the country for your preferred rail modality. You should be ashamed of the hypocrisy!
Metrosucks, that’s cross subsidizing.
Andrew wrote:
What are the alternatives to support 12 million new Californians? A 4th freeway to complement US101, I5, and SR99? 800 miles of new 6 lane freeway at Maryland ICC prices ($3 billion/20 miles with financing) would be around $120 billion.
Md. 200 (ICC) is not 20 miles long and it’s not going to cost $3 billion. 18 miles and about $2.6 billion (I realize that when we are talking about billions in cost overruns, as we invariably do with large passenger rail projects in the United States, being off by a few hundred million dollars is no big deal). The cost is somewhat higher that it otherwise would be because its on an entirely new, ungraded alignment with very expensive environmental mitigation being built-in to the cost.
It’s not at all clear to me that California, even if it grows as much as some have claimed, will need more rural freeway capacity to interconnect its larger metropolitan areas (which is what California HSR is supposed to be about, according to its backers) or to connect the state to the rest of North America (which California HSR won’t do anyway). And if rural capacity is needed (on highways like I-5 and U.S. 101), it can often be provided by widening those existing freeways.
Is that a better/cheaper idea? I don’t think so.
Except that most of those California residents (new and currently there) have little or no need to ride a high-speed (or low-speed) train.
So what is your brilliant plan to replace CAHSR?
Fortunately, it does not currently need to be replaced. Just cancelled.
metrosucks:
When was the last time a rail project came in under budget?
I’d have to go and check but I belive some of the Salt Lake City work came in on time and under budget. It happens with rail too.
metrosucks:
And the highway needn’t pay for every cent of its own expenses. The way the gas tax works, taxes collected elsewhere, where roads produce a surplus of revenue, can be diverted to areas where the money is needed for roadwork.
If costs are on the order of 25 cents per vehicle mile and revenue is on the order of 2 cents per vehicle mile, that is a pretty big disconnect.
Thank you for making my point though, about subsidized superhighways. I’ll try to remember in the future that you have now conceded this point.
metrosucks:
How convenient that you would propose a 25 cent a mile toll on a highway (which in your twisted world should pay every cent of its own expenses from local drivers), but billions in direct taxpayer subsidy from all over the country for your preferred rail modality.
You’ve said plenty of times here that highways do pay their own way. I’m just making the actual cost just for construction explicit to you. That cost noted does not include annual maintenance, police, snow removal, brush and grass trimming, or other tasks.
As it is, what really happens is that billions from all over the country are diverted into inefficient and distorting centrally planned superhighway projects that would never have been built by the free market. Socialism at its finest.
You should be ashamed of the hypocrisy!
No, the hypocrisy is “anti”planners who are not “anti”highway planning, but instead are very much “pro”massive highway planning via tax expenditures. Its obvious that such “anti”planning is merely a ruse and a charade for an otherwise hidden agenda which is very much supportive of planning and centralized government infrastructure action as long as it supports the “right” modes.
CPZ:
Md. 200 (ICC) is not 20 miles long and it’s not going to cost $3 billion. 18 miles and about $2.6 billion
Its a ratio.
2.6:18 = 2.9:20.
Considering that MD200 was built a few years ago now, its fair to inflate the construction value to $3 billion for 20 miles, which makes the ratios to a CAHSR equivalent 800 mile superhighway system since 20 goes into 800. Whow ants to divide by 18 in their head?
That cost does not include the finance charges on the debt financing of the road, and the toll levels on MD200 are obviously not enough to amortize the cost at the projected traffic levels.
The cost is somewhat higher that it otherwise would be because its on an entirely new, ungraded alignment with very expensive environmental mitigation being built-in to the cost.
Sounds like the construction environment in California. Mountain passes, pristine farmland, dense urban settings, protected scrub brush areas, etc.
even if it grows as much as some have claimed
Are you a growth denier? Seriously? You are claiming people just might just suddenly stop moving to the most desirable area by climate and income opportunities in the country? So lets not consider what might need to be done to accomodate them? Where are they going to go instead? Wyoming? How has growth denial worked out for Californians since 1970 when it started? I notice that millions of Californians have fled all over the Western US and California is still twice the size it was then.
And if rural capacity is needed (on highways like I-5 and U.S. 101), it can often be provided by widening those existing freeways.
Of course, just knock down more of the towns SR99 and US101 go through to add 4 lanes to each. Maybe we should note that by the time 12 million more people live in California, there will be relatively few rural areas left between connurbations along the main rout eof the corridor, as the Central Valley will necessarily become more corridorized with cities growing North-South together and LA and the Bay creeping out to them. So you neededn’t worry about adding rural capacity – you’ll be adding urban capacity, probably with a route to parallel SR99 on the other side of the cities in the valley, rather like one sees in the Autobahn network in Germany where there are parallel routes all over.
Except that most of those California residents (new and currently there) have little or no need to ride a high-speed (or low-speed) train.
Most of them have little or no need to race up and down the state on superhighways but you are more than happy to build them for those who do. Why is that?
Andrew, this would be a lot simpler if you just admitted that you hate highways and want car drivers (and general taxpayers) to be squeezed for your luxury train sets so you can have the “option” of “choice”. Hey, even I will admit that choice is great when someone else pays for it.
Andrew wrote:
Considering that MD200 was built a few years ago now, its fair to inflate the construction value to $3 billion for 20 miles, which makes the ratios to a CAHSR equivalent 800 mile superhighway system since 20 goes into 800. Whow ants to divide by 18 in their head?
Most of the highway isn’t even open to traffic yet!
That cost does not include the finance charges on the debt financing of the road, and the toll levels on MD200 are obviously not enough to amortize the cost at the projected traffic levels.
Users of Md. 200 will fund 100% of its operating costs and over 50% of its construction costs.
Why don’t you show us a passenger rail project built in the United States since 1964 where fares have funded any of the construction costs? I think that might be difficult, since I don’t believe there are any.
Sounds like the construction environment in California. Mountain passes, pristine farmland, dense urban settings, protected scrub brush areas, etc.
In the case of Md. 200, most of the land has been sitting there, untouched, since the 1950’s and 1960’s. It was once farmland. This being Maryland, there’s no such thing as “scrub brush” areas.
Are you a growth denier? Seriously? You are claiming people just might just suddenly stop moving to the most desirable area by climate and income opportunities in the country? So lets not consider what might need to be done to accomodate them? Where are they going to go instead? Wyoming? How has growth denial worked out for Californians since 1970 when it started? I notice that millions of Californians have fled all over the Western US and California is still twice the size it was then.
California’s growth is not what it once was, and many are apparently leaving the Golden State:
If California Is Doing So Great, Why Are So Many Leaving?
Death of the California Dream
California Wages War On Single-Family Homes
California’s Green Jihad
Of course, just knock down more of the towns SR99 and US101 go through to add 4 lanes to each. Maybe we should note that by the time 12 million more people live in California, there will be relatively few rural areas left between connurbations along the main rout eof the corridor, as the Central Valley will necessarily become more corridorized with cities growing North-South together and LA and the Bay creeping out to them. So you neededn’t worry about adding rural capacity – you’ll be adding urban capacity, probably with a route to parallel SR99 on the other side of the cities in the valley, rather like one sees in the Autobahn network in Germany where there are parallel routes all over.
Widening a freeway (which in rural areas can often be done “inward” by using the median) is not going to “knock down” any of the cities that it passes through. It is possible that the state highway agency (Caltrans in this case) might need to take some land, but probably less in total than is needed to build the wasteful HSR.
Most of them have little or no need to race up and down the state on superhighways but you are more than happy to build them for those who do. Why is that?
Sounds like the British upper classes from the 19th Century, worried that the “lower classes” will do too much travel thanks to affordable train travel (which was state-of-the-art back then).
I have friends and family all up and down the I-5 corridor, from San Diego to Oregon, and presumably they sometimes need and want to see each other (and I don’t believe any of them ever use Amtrak to get around). And you might be aware that freeways (Interstate and others) also carry freight, something that the California HSR will be incapable of doing.
metrosucks:
just admitted that you hate highways and want car drivers (and general taxpayers) to be squeezed for your luxury train sets
I do not “hate” highways.
I do believe there should be a higher gas tax and that the current one is inadequate. I also believe railway riders should be subject to the 10% ticket excise tax again. I would like to see reform of union rules and incentives made towards the railroads to make Amtrak and mass transit operations more efficient (i.e. faster speeds to reduce crew and equipment needs). This applies to both buses and rail modes.
There are ZERO luxury train sets running in the US. Even Acela is not a luxury train. There haven’t been any luxury trains running in the US since the 1960’s when the last all-sleeper trains with on-board services like a barber shop, white cloth table service in the diner, and on-board nurse-guides were shut down.
CPZ:
Most of the highway isn’t even open to traffic yet!
Construction started many moons ago in 2007, when oil, asphalt, wages, and cement prices were lower. If it were starting today, the budget would be higher. This isn’t a controversial assertion I don’t think.
Users of Md. 200 will fund 100% of its operating costs and over 50% of its construction costs.
The level of tolls and expected traffic do not bear out those assertions when checked. First of all, 10% of construction came out of the general fund. 5 miles of the road will not be tolled. The tolls are set at 25 cents per mile only in the peak. The traffic level is expected to vary by section between 40,000 and 100,000 vehicles per day and produce about 1.5 million vehicle miles = ~$300,000. $300,000 annualized at 300 days per year assuming lower traffic on weekends and holidays is $90,000,000. Just finance charges @4% on the $2.08 billion in debt is $83 million per year.
California’s growth is not what it once was
California has added at least 4 million people per decade every decade since the 1940’s. This growth has not faltered at all.
Widening a freeway (which in rural areas can often be done “inward†by using the median) is not going to “knock down†any of the cities that it passes through.
The highway is already constricted and uses the median through urban areas. How else would you widen it? As I suggested, what would probably happen is building a new freeway on the northwest side of the central valley towns, closer to the Sierra Nevada.
I have friends and family all up and down the I-5 corridor, from San Diego to Oregon, and presumably they sometimes need and want to see each other
I have family and friends in Pittsburgh, but that doesn’t mean everyone in Philadelphia wants or needs to drive the PA Turnpike every year. Beware of the Pauline Kael effect. Just because you have friends and relations who drive I5 doesn’t mean everyone in California does. I fail to see this as an argument against HSR though. Obviously they cannot consider taking a mode which does not exist.
And you might be aware that freeways (Interstate and others) also carry freight, something that the California HSR will be incapable of doing.
There are already freight railroads in California with excess capacity. barely any freight uses the UP Coast Line.
“There are ZERO luxury train sets running in the US. Even Acela is not a luxury train.”
This is not correct. The poorly-named “Acela” most certainly caters to the expense account crowd. Have you checked the fares recently? There are cheaper “Northeast Direct” trains picking up the upper end of the leisure market, and Megabus, Bolt Bus and the Chinatown buses are picking up the budget traveler. On top of that, you’ve still got lots of cars clogging I-95.
You can’t compare “Acela” to the 20th Century Limited. They serve(d) different markets. The expense account crowd no longer uses overnight trains for business travel.
Hugh Jardonn:
I don’t think you understand the concept of luxury. Luxury is a private jet or motor coach or rail car, or a train like the Venice-Simplon Orient Express. The Concorde might have qualified as luxury travel. The very highest end cabins on cruise ships are luxury. The top suite at high end hotels are luxury. Luxury is people sitting waiting on your to serve you hand and foot.
First class service is not luxury service. Neither is travelling expense account.
Would you call the first class cabin of a 737 a “luxury” service? I wouldn’t.
Andrew wrote:
[Regarding Maryland’s Route 200 (InterCounty Connector) toll road]
Construction started many moons ago in 2007, when oil, asphalt, wages, and cement prices were lower. If it were starting today, the budget would be higher. This isn’t a controversial assertion I don’t think.
Irrelevant. The contracts to design and build the road were fixed price, and unlike most rail projects, the ICC cost overruns were minimal from the original estimates of $2.4 billion.
The level of tolls and expected traffic do not bear out those assertions when checked. First of all, 10% of construction came out of the general fund.
That was a budget decision made by the elected Governor of Maryland and the elected General Assembly, but more to the point, it’s not relevant.
5 miles of the road will not be tolled.
What is your source of information for that?
In any case, you are incorrect. Any motorist using any part of Md. 200 will be charged a toll.
The tolls are set at 25 cents per mile only in the peak. The traffic level is expected to vary by section between 40,000 and 100,000 vehicles per day and produce about 1.5 million vehicle miles = ~$300,000. $300,000 annualized at 300 days per year assuming lower traffic on weekends and holidays is $90,000,000. Just finance charges @4% on the $2.08 billion in debt is $83 million per year.
The tolls (and more to the point) the traffic and revenue projections were very conservatively set, and if traffic threatens to cause levels of service to deteriorate, toll rates will be raised to maintain free-flow of traffic.
The highway is already constricted and uses the median through urban areas. How else would you widen it? As I suggested, what would probably happen is building a new freeway on the northwest side of the central valley towns, closer to the Sierra Nevada.
I am not aware of Caltrans planning any new north-south freeways in California, and your assertions are speculative at best.
But I do believe that a new N-S freeway (or preferably, a new toll road, like the ones built by Orange County, Calif.) would be much more cost-effective than a rail line.
I have family and friends in Pittsburgh, but that doesn’t mean everyone in Philadelphia wants or needs to drive the PA Turnpike every year. Beware of the Pauline Kael effect. Just because you have friends and relations who drive I5 doesn’t mean everyone in California does. I fail to see this as an argument against HSR though. Obviously they cannot consider taking a mode which does not exist.
If they do not take I-5, then they will likely be driving U.S. 101; or perhaps Ca. 99 or U.S. 395. But not Amtrak. And even in Pennsylvania, the traffic on the East-West Mainline of the Penna. Turnpike is a little higher than what Amtrak carries on the old PRR mainline from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh.
There are already freight railroads in California with excess capacity. barely any freight uses the UP Coast Line.
That’s no justification to spend $60 billion (and rising, I would guess the final pricetag if this thing gets built would be closer to $100 billion, not including the inevitable operating deficits) on a new train line for passenger traffic.
Andrew wrote:
You could also think of it as roughly 2 round trips per year per adult Californian.
***************
Do you have any idea how insane that estimate is? Here’s perspective:
As a California native, in 40+ years, and all the traveling I have done within the state, HSR would have been a alternative for me exactly twice in my entire life.
Adrew also said:
I don’t think you understand the concept of luxury. Luxury is a private jet or motor coach or rail car, or a train like the Venice-Simplon Orient Express.
*****************
“Luxury” in transport terms is $100 HSR or plane ride vs. $30 bus or Amtrak ride. You are the one who is not understanding the term “luxury”. People who can’t fly today won’t be taking HSR tomorrow because the cost will be the same or possibly more. The assumption that rail will cost less is false because the system is ultimately going to cost more than twice what is projected or be so heavily subsidized in terms of capital cost that people will be forced to pay for it even if they don’t use it.
I’ve realized that Andrew won’t be swayed by reason or logic. He wants trains, and dammit, like a petulant child, that’s all there’s is to it!
CPZ:
I am not aware of Caltrans planning any new north-south freeways in California, and your assertions are speculative at best.
Exactly. California is not planning new freeways but is planning on 12 million new residents. How will they travel? Obviously either on existing infrastructure or the new HSR line. California’s plan to accomodate these new residents and its existign residents is HSR. You are making my point.
But not Amtrak. And even in Pennsylvania, the traffic on the East-West Mainline of the Penna. Turnpike is a little higher than what Amtrak carries on the old PRR mainline from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh.
Amtrak has only ever operated one or two trains past Harrisburg each way. It typically carries 250-300 people per day on each of these trains, so 600-1200 west of Harrisburg. East of Harrisburg, ridership is much higher with more trains, and Amtrak manages about 2800 riders per day from west of the Philly area. Lets say 5000 total riders on Amtrak along the PRR mainline. The PA Turnpike serves around 30,000 vehicles per day between Philly and Harrisburg and 25,000 between Harrisburg and Breezewood. Assuming a few buses and some multiple occupanices, traffic is probably somewhere north of 50,000 people, but not by a lot. Which means Amtrak serves 8% of the volume of the PA Turnpike with just a handful of slow trains. I doubt you imagined the ratio was that high.
That’s no justification to spend $60 billion
No one said it was. You were crying about HSR not serving freight. I pointed out it wasn’t needed for that because there is freight capacity.
PlanesnotTrains:
As a California native, in 40+ years, and all the traveling I have done within the state, HSR would have been a alternative for me exactly twice in my entire life.
Again, this is the Pauline Kael effect. She didn’t know anyone who had voted for Nixon, therefore it was impossible that he had been elected.
I live along the Northeast Corridor of Amtrak. In my nearly 40 years of life, I’ve taken the train hundreds of times to NY, Boston, Baltimore, and Washington, and generally do so at a rate of 30 or more times per year for business and pleasure. I know other people who would take it 200 times per year. The wife of one of my professor’s in college ran an Art Gallery in NYC and took Amtrak for 300 trips per year to run her business.
Surely you grasp that for every person such as yourself who HSR is of no use, there are other people who would use it 2 to 50 times per month. You do understand everyone is not like you, right?
“Luxury†in transport terms is $100 HSR or plane ride vs. $30 bus or Amtrak ride. You are the one who is not understanding the term “luxuryâ€. People who can’t fly today won’t be taking HSR tomorrow because the cost will be the same or possibly more.
Travel is not for poor people. Is this something else you don’t understand? Have you ever met people like some of the poor people I lived near in Lowell, MA? Their “big trip of their lifetime” was to go in to Boston, 25 miles away. Travel is a middle class activity. Just go check out a highway rest stop, an airport, or a train station and look at who is travelling. Big hint, it is not hardscrabble people on welfare or working for $20K per year. Most travel, like most economic activity, is undertaken by people earnign $30K to $500K per year. When poor people travel, they are typically moving or going to see a relative, and they are taking the very cheapest way of going possible.
Merely travelling on HSR or an airplane is not luxury. Public luxury travel is scarce. It is stuff like airplane seats in first class that recline into beds. Acela First class is as close to luxury travel as you will find on rail in this country, but I wouldn’t call it true luxury.
The assumption that rail will cost less
The point is not to cost less, but to provide transportation options and capacity. If you want inexpensive transportation, ride a bicycle or walk.
What an incredibly ignorant response.
PlanesnotTrains, I want coexistence, but you, O’Toole, CPZ, metrosucks, Cox, Scott & etc want war.
PlanesnotTrains, I want coexistence, but you, O’Toole, CPZ, metrosucks, Cox, Scott & etc want war
**************
Then find a way to pay for it on your own. There is no justification for HSR in California. The ridership numbers are a complete lie.
Again, this is the Pauline Kael effect. She didn’t know anyone who had voted for Nixon, therefore it was impossible that he had been elected.
**********
The problem is that your multiple trips by a single person is not the rule, it is the exception.
I live along the Northeast Corridor of Amtrak.
*********
You haven’t lived out here, and you assume to much about why we drive vs. plane or existing rail. Its because we are predominantly leasure out here in our vehicles outside the intercity commute. HSR does nothing for the commuter. Once one is outside the city out here, there is no traffic. If one travels at an appropriate time, there is no traffic. The claims about needed highway expansion are false because the expansion isn’t needed between cities, its within the cities to handle commuters. Therefore, the claimed savings of not havign to build highway miles will never materialize because every single lane mile is within the cities and will therefore have to be built in spite of HSR.
Surely you grasp that for every person such as yourself who HSR is of no use, there are other people who would use it 2 to 50 times per month. You do understand everyone is not like you, right?
********
Again, such ridership is the exception, not the norm. Again you show you have no comprehension of how we are in California and why we travel.
Travel is not for poor people. Is this something else you don’t understand?
********
Again you grossly overstate what “luxury” means when it comes to transport and two, what an incredibly ignorant and elitist response.
Exactly. California is not planning new freeways but is planning on 12 million new residents. How will they travel?
************
The transport demand for that could be handled by upguaging existing fleet mixes (which airlines have done for the past decade moving from 30 seat turboprops to 70 seat jets) and adding about 100 flights per day within the state. The majority of growth will be at smaller airports in currently smaller cities where airport capacity is a non issue. As these markets grow (Fresno et al), they no longer have to funnel passengers to LAX and SFO, they can support their own flights to areas beyond California negating or eliminatign that capacity flow. The large markets are already mature, have been since the mid 1990’s.
PlanesnotTrains:
You haven’t lived out here, and you assume to much about why we drive vs. plane or existing rail.
Actually, I have spent time living in Millbrae in the Bay Area for a year.
Its because we are predominantly leasure out here in our vehicles outside the intercity commute.
Well, except for all the business travel and non-leisure personal trips, and tourists, and trips by people who don’t even live in your state yet.
HSR does nothing for the commuter.
HSR is not for commuting. It is for time sensitive business and leisure travel, and travel from intermediate to large markets.
Once one is outside the city out here, there is no traffic. If one travels at an appropriate time, there is no traffic.
That is true about driving in to NYC also. If you pick the right time, there is no traffic and you can park on the street. The problem is, that is not when most people want to travel, as seen by traffic jams and peak travel hours.
The claims about needed highway expansion are false because the expansion isn’t needed between cities, its within the cities to handle commuters. Therefore, the claimed savings of not havign to build highway miles will never materialize because every single lane mile is within the cities and will therefore have to be built in spite of HSR.
I don’t agree with your assertion. As you state later on, the growth won’t be in built out areas, but will be in the Central Valley, High Desert, etc. I.e., areas that need new infrastructure because they have very little. These people will want to travel to the major centers of business and government – LA, San Diego, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland.
Again you grossly overstate what “luxury†means when it comes to transport and two, what an incredibly ignorant and elitist response.
Its not elitism. Its observed reality. Just go to an airport and look at who is travelling. It is not a cross section of America.
The transport demand for that could be handled by upguaging existing fleet mixes (which airlines have done for the past decade moving from 30 seat turboprops to 70 seat jets) and adding about 100 flights per day within the state.
100 flights * 100 occupied seats = 10,000 per day. Existing demand is at least 50,000 per day. So in your mind, 33% population growth = 20% demand for air growth? Isn’t it the other way around, growth in travel is exponential compared to growth in population and income? More people induces even more demand for travel as it is more likely people will want/need to travel somewhere else to see other people? Its more likely that 33% population growth will come with 66% demand for air growth.
Think of stone age villagers. When they all live in one village, there is no demand for inter-village travel. Then the population doubles and the village has to split. Now there is demand for travel between the villages for trade and visiting friends and relatives where before there was none. As the villages continue to grow and split, more nodes are created and the number of different paths grows exponentially, leading to much more travel demand than population growth. The same process occurs with modern settlement. As small towns grow into large cities, travel needs explode exponentially.
The majority of growth will be at smaller airports in currently smaller cities where airport capacity is a non issue. As these markets grow (Fresno et al), they no longer have to funnel passengers to LAX and SFO, they can support their own flights to areas beyond California negating or eliminatign that capacity flow. The large markets are already mature, have been since the mid 1990?s.
Travel is not “mature” since the 1990’s. Travel has grown. Modal split has changed, especially with 9/11 security measures. And LA-San Francisco, ignoring all other airports in those regions, is the #1 air route in the US and #18 in the world by traffic. LA-San Francisco is #19 by planes, and LA-San Diego is #20. 440 flights per week and 430 flights per week. The types of things being said about the overall California travel market by anti-HSR advocates are simply ridiculous.
Travel is not “mature†since the 1990?s. Travel has grown. Modal split has changed, especially with 9/11 security measures.
**************
Yes it is mature.
And LA-San Francisco, ignoring all other airports in those regions, is the #1 air route in the US and #18 in the world by traffic.
**********
False. New York to Los Angeles is the #1 air route. San Fran to LA is #40 in the world by traffic.
100 flights * 100 occupied seats = 10,000 per day. Existing demand is at least 50,000 per day. So in your mind, 33% population growth = 20% demand for air growth?
************
Population does not produce a linear growth in travel demand. Transportation planning 101.
You’re over your head in this discussion. Get out.
Actually, I have spent time living in Millbrae in the Bay Area for a year.
*******
HArdly enough exposure to have relevance. The Bay Area is nothing like the rest of the state.
That is true about driving in to NYC also. If you pick the right time, there is no traffic and you can park on the street. The problem is, that is not when most people want to travel, as seen by traffic jams and peak travel hours.
**********
The traffic jams are from the commuters. They peak betwen 7:00am and 8:30 am then again from 4:30 to 6:00 pm. Outside of that, the only time you will hit significant traffic is if there is a major accident or road construction.
LA-San Diego is #20.
*********
LA to San Diego has less than 50 passengers a day, the other 950 onboard passengers are connecting at LAX and will continue to fly to make that connection because HSR goes nowhere near LAX. HSR will do nothing for that market. Again, you make the assumption that everyone is going between two given points when in fact over 75% are connecting and will not shift to HSR.
PlanesnotTrains:
Yes it is mature.
Nearly every short distance air market is down significantly over the past 10 years because more people are driving since 9/11. That doesn’t mean the markets are “mature”, or that there is less overall travel. Gasoline
False. New York to Los Angeles is the #1 air route. San Fran to LA is #40 in the world by traffic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_busiest_passenger_air_routes
Worldwide:
LAX-SFO – #18 by seats, #19 by flights
LAX-JFK – #30 by seats, #21 by flights
US:
LAX-SFO/OAK – #2 by passengers – 6.31 million
LAX/LB/SNA-JFK/EWR/LGA – #6 by passengers – 4.35 million
You’re over your head in this discussion. Get out.
Oh, I think not. I think the person who is in over his head is you, since you cannot even get publicly available statistics straight.
Hardly enough exposure to have relevance. The Bay Area is nothing like the rest of the state.
I know, it is half-way civilized.
The traffic jams are from the commuters. They peak betwen 7:00am and 8:30 am then again from 4:30 to 6:00 pm. Outside of that, the only time you will hit significant traffic is if there is a major accident or road construction.
So why are there traffic jams on early Sunday afternoon with no wrecks and construction, or inbound on Friday night? Commuters? Do you actually ever drive around?
LA to San Diego has less than 50 passengers a day, the other 950 onboard passengers are connecting at LAX and will continue to fly to make that connection because HSR goes nowhere near LAX. HSR will do nothing for that market. Again, you make the assumption that everyone is going between two given points when in fact over 75% are connecting and will not shift to HSR.
I didn’t assume anything, I pointed out where the flights are. Maybe there should be a branch to LAX as has been discussed in conjunction with this project, given that it also serves SFO. It seems wasteful to use up 60 landing slots per day on puddle jumpers.
What is the “takeaway” for this? — Aside from the fact that an accurate cost-benefit analysis, w/many overs & unders in estimation has not been done?
Accidents happen, especially when there is more physical contact w/the ground & guide-ways (rails). There is more danger for a train hitting something. The terrorism threat will even be easier — anywhere along the track, and the TSA will be groping passengers.
Advantage of HSR? Not there!
Reducing congestion? Ridiculous claims for HSR.
. Congestion is intraurban.
. HSR is interurban.
Typical of leftists’ inability to distinguish differences.
Worldwide:
LAX-SFO – #18 by seats, #19 by flights
LAX-JFK – #30 by seats, #21 by flights
US:
LAX-SFO/OAK – #2 by passengers – 6.31 million
LAX/LB/SNA-JFK/EWR/LGA – #6 by passengers – 4.35 million
**************
First of all, Wikipedia is not the US DOT O&D database – never use them as a source. Second, you are combining markets. Each market is unique. Finally, your confusing total passengers vs. origin and destination (O&D) passengers. Rail will only be capapable of capturing O&D. Can you try to grasp this? Please.
So why are there traffic jams on early Sunday afternoon with no wrecks and construction, or inbound on Friday night? Commuters? Do you actually ever drive around?
***********
Easy – and I drive in it. People who drive up the coast to Santa Barbara come home, a place HSR is not going. Additionally, there is a huge Mexican population that goes from northern LA to northern Mexico just about every weekend. Is HSR going to Rosarito or Ensenada? That would be news.
I didn’t assume anything, I pointed out where the flights are. Maybe there should be a branch to LAX as has been discussed in conjunction with this project, given that it also serves SFO. It seems wasteful to use up 60 landing slots per day on puddle jumpers.
*******************
There is no branch to LAX so the point is completely moot. If rail were to capture 100% of the O&D load (50 pax a day) that saves 1 flight because they aren’t on puddle jumpers anymore, they are on 50-90 seat jets (there are 30 a day not 60 – 15 years ago there where 60 per day). Even though they plan to run it to SFO you still have to clear security at SFO so the rail advantage is lost to connecting passengers, as I have pointed out before. The security line in Fresno will be a lot shorter than any security line at SFO.
Not sure why I’m wasting my time explaning something so very basic to you. Perhaps its with the hope you will come to grasp it. This thing is DOA anyway.
Worldwide:
LAX-SFO – #18 by seats, #19 by flights
LAX-JFK – #30 by seats, #21 by flights
***************
Don’t confuse ranking by “capacity” with ranking by “passengers”.
There are 6,000 seats a day each way between LAX and SFO, but there are only 2,403 passengers.
There are 5,200 seats a day to and from JFK, but there are 3,294 passengers.
See the difference? Good. Now you know why your conclusions are wrong and why the data you selected to use to support your argument should never be used. It also explains how the LAX-SFO route can support demand without adding more capacity long term. Demand could literally double before one additional flight per day would be needed.
Metrosucks wrote:
I’ve realized that Andrew won’t be swayed by reason or logic. He wants trains, and dammit, like a petulant child, that’s all there’s is to it!
Correct.
This article in the N.Y. Times today (Sunday, 2011-08-14) might be relevant:
Children With Autism, Connecting via Transit
I personally love trains (though not as much as Randal), but that doesn’t mean that I want to seem billions and billions of taxpayer dollars spent on (low-speed, medium-speed or high-speed) trains that will mostly run empty and incur endless operating deficits.
PlanesnotTrains wrote:
See the difference?
I doubt the intended recipients Get It. They are so enchanted by obsolete legacy passenger rail and the prospect that state and federal taxpayers will foot the bill for newly-manufactured trainsets no matter what the (lack of) justification for same.
Good. Now you know why your conclusions are wrong and why the data you selected to use to support your argument should never be used. It also explains how the LAX-SFO route can support demand without adding more capacity long term. Demand could literally double before one additional flight per day would be needed.
And adding capacity with aircraft means (at worst) that an airline (and not the taxpayers, who pay for all passenger rail rolling stock in the U.S.) might have to purchase a new Boeing 737-700 aircraft at a price of about $68 million or maybe an Airbus A320 for about $85 million. But it might be possible to obtain a 737 or A320 used from a different source at a much lower price.
Passenger rail trainsets, once built and purchased, will run only on the lines for which they were ordered for, and nowhere else, until it’s time for that last trip to the scrap track.
Andrew wrote:
Exactly. California is not planning new freeways but is planning on 12 million new residents. How will they travel?
Not by choo-choo train.
And if those 12 million new people do come, there will be increased pressure to expand the highway network, much as Orange County did in the last 20 years.
Obviously either on existing infrastructure or the new HSR line.
Overly optimistic assumptions again, always a problem when discussing passenger rail.
California’s plan to accomodate these new residents and its existign residents is HSR. You are making my point.
No, California HSR is a massive case (and good (as in bad for society) example) of “faith-based” transportation planning.
PlanesnotTrains; Then find a way to pay for it on your own. There is no justification for HSR in California.
THWM: Asking for socialism with flying & driving.
Then asking for capitalism for rail is total nonsense!
CPZ; Passenger rail trainsets, once built and purchased, will run only on the lines for which they were ordered for, and nowhere else.
THWM: We know you’re a liar & thief CPZ, but come on!
Metrolink in L.A. is using some cars that were once on NJT.
THWM: Asking for socialism with flying & driving.
**********
Airports and airlines are not subsidised. The FAA shut down proved that. The funding source (system user taxes) were cut off and the FAA shut down. Notcie when that fundign source went away so too did the grants, whcih come form the funding source, not the general fund.
You want to try again?