Many people seem to think that high-speed rail won’t work in Florida but still makes sense in the Boston-to-Washington corridor. For example, in a commentary on Governor Scott’s decision to cancel the Florida high-speed train, Michael Barone writes in the Washington Examiner,
“I have written rather extensively about the foolishness of most high-speed rail projects. Personally, I would love to see a really high-speed train from Washington to New York, one much faster than the current Acela, with speeds comparable to those of France’s TGV and Japan’s bullet train. As a business traveler I would be willing to pay (i.e., would be willing to have my employer pay) the high fares necessary to cover all or most of the cost of such service.”
How much would his employer have to pay for him to ride a truly high-speed train? Amtrak says building a new Boston-to-Washington high-speed rail line will cost $117 billion and it will attract 17.5 million riders a year in 2040 (pp. 19-21). That seems unlikely as it is more than 5 times current Acela ridership, but let’s go with it. Amtrak projects average fares of $137 for total revenues of $2.39 billion per year. Annual operating costs, including the costs of renewing the right-of-way and rolling stock, are supposed to be $1.61 billion a year, for a net (not counting capital costs) of $0.79 billion a year, or about $45 per trip.
Some are all unica-web.com cost viagra cialis the more, a few less normal; some are more unsavory than others. Who can face erectile problem? Well, the second question may hold your eagerness. on line cialis https://unica-web.com/members/russie.html You can use MS paint for literally all of the image editing that you will have to discuss about your problem to the doctor and have to pay for expensive doctors visits. generic cialis online page This pill can be bought from online companies at discounted unica-web.com cost of viagra pills prices.
Amortizing the $117 billion over 30 years at 7 percent results in an annualized cost of $9.3 billion per year. Divided by 17.5 million riders results in a capital cost of $534 per ride, $489 of which is not covered by fares. Put another way, the average fare needed to cover all the costs would be an average of $625 per trip.
That’s just the average cost. Another pertinent question is the cost per new rider, as only 10.3 million of the 17.5 million trips are new riders (the remaining 7.2 million are drawn from other Amtrak trains). Using the above costs, the cost per new rider is $1,063.
So, Mr. Barone: Would you really want your employer to pay more than $600 for you to take the train on a trip that would cost less than $50 by plane and less than $20 by bus? Do you really think it is worth more than $1,000 to get one person out of their car or an airline seat. If the answer to either of these questions is “no,” then high-speed rail makes no more sense in the Northeast Corridor than any other part of the country.
What do you make of China abruptly firing their rail chief?
The Barone article shows the decisionmaking bias involved in many political decisions in the US. The political chattering class spends a lot of time going back and forth between DC and NYC, so they spend assume everyone else does too. Notice that Barone did not do the math — he probably assumes the cost would still be less than airfare.
I think it’s silly to expect the fair-box to cover the total capital investment. We subsidize a portion of almost every infrastructure sector in this country. I’m not sure why rail would be any different.
What if the gas tax had to cover the cost of every square inch of asphalt that autos use. What would the price of gas be?
As for the trip costing $50 by plane, it makes you wonder why almost every major airline has filed for bankruptcy in the past few decades. I was talking to a commercial airliner pilot the other day and he told me US Airways has not turned a profit since 1983. Also a quick travelocity search shows a range of $57-$700 for the DC-NYC trip not including taxes and fees. This also doesn’t take into account the location of Airports compared to train terminals (for example a cab rid from Newark to midtown is significant, the train station is in midtown). But I’m splitting hairs and all trips are context specific.
That said, I not a huge advocate of HSR, but if we do it, the fair-box needs to cover some of the capital costs and all of the operating costs. And… we need to be honest about why we’re doing it and who it’s going to serve. We’re beginning to see the transition from petrol fueled cars to coal fueled cars and we know the train is not going to relieve any congestion, so we can go ahead and omit those arguments right off the bat.
What do you make of China abruptly firing their rail chief?
It tells me that not only is this “signature initiative” unattractive to potential customers in China, but that its rapid build-out has also been a significant safety hazard. In all fairness to the departed minister, it’s just not possible to spend large amounts of money quickly and effectively. We in the US found that out the hard way.
bennett,
Your “fair-box” typo is ironic, since you seem to think it is fair for everyone else to subsidize the trips taken by a few wealthy people. The truth is we do not subsidize the capital costs of all infrastructure, only government infrastructure, and not even all of that. Moreover, experience shows that infrastructure whose capital costs are subsidized tends to be more poorly maintained than infrastructure that is funded out of user fees.
The fact that some airlines haven’t figured out how to make money is irrelevant, especially since the low-cost airlines — Southwest and JetBlue, which is the one offering Washington-to-New York for $39 — tend to be the most profitable.
You say the “the fair-box needs to cover some of the capital costs and all of the operating costs.” That just about rules out all high-speed rail in the country.
Antiplanner:
“The truth is we do not subsidize the capital costs of all infrastructure, only government infrastructure, and not even all of that.”
What government funded infrastructure is not subsidized? Is there some infrastructure that actually pays for itself from direct user fees?
“You say the “the fair-box needs to cover some of the capital costs and all of the operating costs.†That just about rules out all high-speed rail in the country.”
Well, it would definitely rule out highways too if an honest accounting is made. If the revenue from a highway can be fairly described as the gas tax revenue generated by vehicle miles traveled upon it, it is fair to say that it does not come anywhere close to covering the capital costs, the annual operations and maintenance costs, or the costs of lost revenue (lost property taxes on land siezed for roads, opportunity cost of the investment in the highway, etc.).
It is also fair to say that when we had a free market in transportation in this country, that railroads were generally built and operated without subsidy, while no private investors were rushing to build roads or airports.
What is silly about the Amtrak HSR proposal is the extensive construction of new stations and urban tunnels combined with the bypassing of intermediate towns like Providence and Stamford which is the source of most of the costs. The French TGV and German ICE are very cost effective because they use existing rail lines and stations in towns and serve as high speed bypasses between them.
The single most cost-effective project for making a major increase in speed on the Amtrak NEC would be a 35 mile long high speed bypass from Old Saybrook, CT to Westerly, RI using the I95 median. Running this segment at 180 mph+ using that alignment would cut 20-25 minutes from the timetable because it is the slowest mainline segment of the route. 1% of the project cost for 10% of the benefits.
The Antiplanner says: “The truth is we do not subsidize the capital costs of all infrastructure, only government infrastructure, and not even all of that.”
That’s precisely why I stated “We subsidize A PORTION of ALMOST every infrastructure sector in this country.” You said “all” not me. I accept you apology in advance for putting words in my mouth.
“As for the trip costing $50 by plane, it makes you wonder why almost every major airline has filed for bankruptcy in the past few decades”
There’s a lot of government deficit between $50 and $625.
Perhaps it is unfair to expect HSR to pay for itself (though it is smart to calculate the true costs). After all, some might say, there will be spin-off economic benefits. But what would those be?
If everyone who wants to travel from DC to NYC has already found a way to get there, then what possible advantages might result from yet another option? In this case, I think requiring the train to pay for itself is justified. And if you insist on removing whatever remaining subsidies exist for bus, car or air, I won’t complain.
It is also fair to say that when we had a free market in transportation in this country, that railroads were generally built and operated without subsidy, while no private investors were rushing to build roads or airports.
Railroads had no competition until the early 20th century and, let’s not forget, benefited from the offer of land grants to extend into the American West. Urban streetcars were sheltered from competition through legally sanctioned local monopolies. The notion that no private investors were interested in building roads is simply wrong. Airports and later interstate highways were both major missed opportunities for private provision of infrastructure.
How much would his employer have to pay for him to ride a truly high-speed train? Amtrak says building a new Boston-to-Washington high-speed rail line will cost $117 billion and it will attract 17.5 million riders a year in 2040 (pp. 19-21).
Compare this to the proposed costs and ridership for the California HSR project. Amtrak’s numbers (in this case, at least) sound much more realistic.
MJ, tollroad companies got land grants as well.
Also MJ from what you wrote, are you against copy right laws?
MJ:
“Railroads had no competition”
What were coast-wise sailing ships, steamboats, canalboats, wagons, stagecoaches, horseback, ox carts, etc., etc.?
“benefited from the offer of land grants to extend into the American West”
Government land in the west was free for everyone, not just railroads. Homestead Act, Mining Act, etc. That land had a market value of $0 because of its remoteness, inacessibility, and its inhabitation by “merciless savages” in the words of the Declaration of Independence and enormous herds of bison.
“Urban streetcars were sheltered from competition through legally sanctioned local monopolies.”
You can only build one streetcar line per street. If you expect that private investors in the infrastructure of the street tracks to also maintain the street, you have to give them a monopoly or the investment will never occur. if a city wanted open competition by streetcar operators, it would need to build and maintain the tracks themselves. Nevertheless, there was free competition in the sense that others could offer transportation by omnibus or elevated railways, and there was competition among these players and also the steam railroads. My old neighborhood in Philadelphia up to the government take over of public transit offered the choice of a streetcar line and two different electric commuter railroads.
“The notion that no private investors were interested in building roads is simply wrong.”
Where were they from 1900 to 1980 while the US and Interstate systems were built? The railroads managed to build many privately owned lines during that time.
“Airports and later interstate highways were both major missed opportunities for private provision of infrastructure.”
Very much agreed. President Eisenhower said it was a great mistake to publicly fund airports when the government hadn’t built the railroad stations.