France opened two new high-speed rail lines last year, but they may be the last for awhile because the country is running out of cash to pay for them. A recent review by the European Court of Auditors seems to question whether any more high-speed rail lines should be built anywhere in Europe.
The audit reviewed 30 high-speed rail lines and found:
- Construction costs averaged 25 million euros per kilometer (about $46 million per mile);
- Much of this money was wasted because trains run at an average of just 45 percent of the design speed of the lines;
- Cost overruns and delays are the norm rather than the exception: overruns averaged 78 percent and several lines have been delayed by more than a decade;
- Benefits in many cases are negligible: many of the lines cost more than 100 million euros ($116 million) per minute of train time saved.
Healthy weight helps individuals neglecting many serious health diseases like heart problems, thyroid, levitra without prescription diabetes, hypertension etc. Regular the price cialis checkup and review give a better idea of the overall health benefits of eating right, but we don’t generally care very much about sticking to strict diets – especially considering the time and effort usually involved in doing so. However, Erectile Dysfunction can often be levitra prescription a cause or symptom of another disease and health problem. ED, on the other hand, is caused by an imbalance generic viagra sample more helpful tabs of normal bacteria in the vagina.
The auditors cite an academic study that concluded that high-speed rail was a “success” if it carried 6 million passengers its first year rising soon to 9 million passengers. But this study wasn’t based on the profitability of the lines; instead, nearly all of the benefits it calculated went to business travelers who saved time by riding the trains. The study assumed that time to those travelers was worth 40 euros ($46 dollars) per hour. But if it is really worth that much, why aren’t the trains priced that high?
In any case, based on the 6 million/9 million criteria, only a minority lines audited were a success. Of course, by the more realistic criterion of profitability, even those were failures.
Although the auditors offered the usual platitudes about high-speed rail being “environmentally sustainable,” they conclude that high-speed rail is not economically sustainable. Most of the routes that are likely to capture a lot of riders have already been built, so any further routes in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and other countries that have been building high-speed rail, are likely to be severe drains on the economy.
It’s too bad the audit didn’t question the usual platitudes about environmental sustainability. According to the European Union, nearly 85 percent of passenger ground-level travel in the 28 countries that form the EU is by automobile, and high-speed rail has done nothing to reduce this. For example, in 1990, cars provided 84.8 percent of ground travel in France. Since then, despite France’s aggressive high-speed rail construction program, the percentage of ground travel by car was still 84.8 percent in 2015. While rail’s share grew from 9.3 to 9.9 percent, it did so at the expense of buses, not cars.
Nor is high-speed rail putting a dent in air travel. Unfortunately, the EU doesn’t estimate passenger-kilometers of air travel, but in terms of numbers of travelers, air travel continues to grow faster than rail travel.
Supposedly, high-speed train operations produce less greenhouse gas emissions per passenger-kilometer than air travel. But this ignores the huge emissions produced during rail construction. One study found that the operational savings will recoup the construction costs only if a line carries 10 million passengers per year, a threshold reached by very few lines. Moreover, in Europe, many high-speed train riders would otherwise be riding low-speed trains, and high-speed trains produce far more greenhouse gas emissions per passenger-kilometer than conventional trains.
So Europe has spent tens of billions on high-speed rail lines and accomplished almost nothing. High-speed trains haven’t gotten people out of their cars or noticeably slowed the growth in air travel. On average, such trains have probably increased greenhouse gas emissions relative to conventional trains and air travel. The only real return from high-speed rail construction is to serve the egos of the politicians who fund them.
Air travel continues to grow, I cant imagine why? But it’s good news for Boeing. Never mind the fact Airbus is in a constant state of financial unrest, the company is building factories in the US to accommodate and overcome carbon emission tax regulation on airplane manufacturers set by the European Union. Versus the US where such taxes do not exist. Improving efficiency of small airliners is paramount.
Jumbo jets are a dying trend, it’s fine for long distance, high capacity routes like US to Europe or Japan Airways but using them for connector flights or hub-spoke flights is a waste of money unless the planes filled to capacity. The double decker A380 was designed in the 90’s as part of a business model that hasn’t yet materialized and probably never will. In the 1990’s Boeing and McDonnell Douglas were conceptualizing Much larger double decker planes to replace the 747 and L1011, McDonnell went out of business and Boeing cancelled the plan and spent the 90’s working on the 777 which turned into a very successful product, Airbus continued with the plan and by 2000’s they seemed ready to hit the market with this leviathan, at the time, Airbus was betting big on congestion ridden skies would demand a plane that could carry more passengers over 400 but still have adequate supply of 1st class seating. The major airports like O’Hare, JFK, LaGuardia, and Heathrow couldn’t expand to accommodate more planes so the idea would have been increasing capacity by increasing the size of the plane. Then came 9/11 and the 2008 financial crisis; passenger counts plummeted, airlines defaulted and plane orders declined. Airbus put it resources into a plane that couldn’t sell very well. Where as Boeing’s 747-8 is simply stretch limo-ing a plane that already exists, stretching the fuselage by 20 feet and decreasing the weight and new more efficient engines. The A380 is a matter of too little too late.
Even when automotive fuels are 2-4 times the price what they are in the US, automotive use is still predominant mode of travel. While very light weight fuel efficient cars are less safe statistically, It’s a moot point, that doesn’t matter since Europeans are probably better drivers (getting a license is vastly more difficult in Germany or UK), vehicle speeds in villages and urban areas tend to be low (Less than 25 miles per hour).
Other would have a better handle on it. But my impression over the years is that transit angles for the students because they get the school to offer discounted transit passes to the students. A large part of that discount is actually paid with via student fees.