- ‹ previous
- 48 of 2794
- next ›
HSR Tradeoffs
The latest rail news from California:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger quietly spiked an effort last month to win $1.1 billion in federal high-speed rail stimulus funds for 29 projects to improve the safety, speed and capacity of heavily
traveled commuter corridors through Southern California. Instead, he ordered state officials to seek money for only one project — the proposed bullet train between San Francisco and San Diego.
....The action has sparked debate among rail advocates about whether too high a priority is being placed on the high-speed train project at the expense of the second-busiest rail corridor in the nation, where budget-strapped commuter services have been trying to improve safety, add track and cut travel times from San Diego to Santa Barbara.
Not to beat a dead horse, but this is the kind of thing I was afraid of when we approved the LA-SF high-speed line last year. There's a limited amount of money available for transit projects statewide, so as we spend more on HSR, there's less available for other projects. It's not a firm 1:1 tradeoff, and certainly politicians have the option to try and increase the total size of the transit pie, but in general there's a pretty strong tendency for budget decisions to work like this.
My doubts aside, hopefully the LA-SF line will be great when it's finally up and running. But there's definitely a cost involved to other transit projects in the meantime.
Glad you're back on your
Glad you're back on your feet Kevin, stay away from the tinned salmon in the future.
"$1.1 billion...."
I'm trying to figure out why you think there are only a limited number of federal dollars. How much was the GM bailout and how is that working out for us? And the $787 TARP that is deemed too small and how is that working?
Now would be a great time to build HSR through the West Coast and South West, with lines stretching from San Diego to Seattle, from Los Angeles to Chicago and Dallas.
But please don't pull my tit with tales of not enough resources.
...
I think he did it not as a brave grab to improve the state and bring us into the twenty-first century, but to scare off marginal supporters.
I hope it works out for us as a brave grab, though ^-^
Commuters are the only thing
Commuters are the only thing that makes sense. Businesses don't need to travel SD to SF very often and will probably be able to avoid it even more in the future (technology, etc.)
If you're after tourists, you'd make more money with an LA-Vegas line than a LA-SF line and you could get the casinos to pay for the operating costs.
Ain't that the truth? An
Ain't that the truth?
An LA/Las Vegas line would be packed, constantly. It would make the 15 drivable again for transportation and trucking companies. The real beauty is that Las Vegas is a city with excellent public transportation, so there really isn't any need to drive there in the first place.
...
I'd run the LA-SF line pretty frequently for trade shows and relatives. If it then went the rest of the way up the coast, or inland anyhow, to Portland Seattle and Vancouver, BC there'd be no reason for me to hop a flight ever 'cept going over the rockies.
The two core tourist spots in California are in SF and LA, so linking them could add tourist dollars as well.
Commuters are not where all the money is. The north-south lines on the east coast do quite well getting people between the cities and vacation areas.
NOW you're not sure the high
NOW you're not sure the high speed rail we approved was such a good idea?
Frankly, I can't believe this wasn't ridiculed more before, and after, the election. The idea that we'd spend $10B when we're $30B in the hole is ludicrous enough, but the fact that these people could even claim that $10B was a serious estimate was even better. LA spent $1B PER MILE on light rail projects during the past 10 years. You're telling me we're going to be able to go 400 miles on $10B? Give me a break.
I also find it highly amusing that for all the liberals' posturing about being a friend of the poor, you continually dump money into rail projects that are ridden almost exclusively by the middle class, which wouldn't be so bad, except that rail costs an exorbitant amount of money, which means bus service inevitably gets cut and fares go up. Bravo.
Reality in transit discussions
I'd love to see real live high-speed rail in this country. I grew up in the Midwest, and it pains me to think how you could lay rail lines across the nice, flat prairie to connect Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis, St. Louis, etc.
Unfortunately, the Yglesiases and Atrioses of the blogosphere seem to underestimate the enormous shift in American attitudes necessary to really improve mass transit. This country has always and will always want government on the cheap, and mass transit ain't cheap, as it involves subsidizing operating budgets in addition to capital outlays. (Highways mainly require capital outlays. Most of the operating costs are shunted to car owners.)
Oh, and politicians love to have highways named after themselves, but not so much sections of track. Maybe we should start naming train routes after politicians so that, you know, the Harry Reid line would connect LA and Vegas.
I also read that the definition of 'high-speed' is fairly watered down to where a train that travels faster than a car is high-speed. It was in an article about how HSR would trim the Chicago-St. Louis trip by 30 minutes or so, to about five hours. (All my numbers are from memory but scaled about right.) I'm a regular on trains and here to tell you that a five-hour train ride covering 300 miles ain't gonna do the trick. It needs to be 1.5 to 2 hours, maybe less, to be a reasonable alternative to air travel.
...
At no point in in post-war history has car owners paid for the operating costs of the highway system. It seriously does not pay for itself.
The railroads do currently pay for themselves, even the stupid Amtrak trains out in the west you can never count on and can't pre-pay bus trips on because they're not allowed to compete with the other busses.
America doesn't need
high speed passenger rail service. It needs WIDESPREAD standard speed passenger rail service. That would mean wherever there are already train tracks. After THAT happens, special high speed lines, with dedicated tracks will be demanded, built and greatly used.
We need more go and less show.
Seriously
I looked up a ticket on Amtrak from Miami to DC and it was almost $400. I could have hopped a cheap commuter airline for half that. Until passenger rail is cheaper than air travel, its hopes for becoming popular are doomed.
profits
Unfortunately, Congress wants Amtrak to turn a profit while at the same time requiring it to travel places that make no sense. (Chicago to San Antonio, for example).
The need to profit is a bit silly, as Amtrak exists because private companies all got out of the passenger rail business because they couldn't make it profitable. Even high speed rail will need a constant operating subsidy, just as it gets everywhere it exists. That was kind of the point of what I posted previously, though I wasn't as clear as I should have been. Congress doesn't want to appropriate money to a service year after year, because unlike a bridge or a highway, it can't be named after them.
Long-distance train runs (more than about 500 miles) will almost never make sense, because as you rightly point out, a plane is cheaper as well as faster - faster even than HSR. (I personally think a 700+-mile NYC-Chicago could work, but I think I'm alone on that.) Yet Congressmen insist on rail service in their district because it . . . . well, I'm not sure what it really does, but it looks good on paper.
I just looked it up and it
I just looked it up and it was $157 traveling today. You didn't buy any coach seat one way to D.C. from Miami for $400. You must have bought a roomette. A private mini sleeping compartment. Nice try.
Hey, you're famous! Atrios
Hey, you're famous! Atrios called you a douchebag. Atrios thinks being twice as expensive as an airline ticket is reasonable.
I'm all for high speed rail, but Atrios and others have to realize it's never going anywhere if the prices aren't competitive.
I assume Atrios flies first class everywhere and never looks for the cheap tickets.
trains vs airplane
Atrios' point is that at over 1,000 miles, the trip no longer has the time savings for going by train, even with HSR. He said...
Atrios is wrong as is often
Atrios is wrong as is often the case, because he likes to deal in simplisticity.
Atrios posited a 200mph train vs. airline over 1000 miles.
That's a 7 hour trip downtown to downtown (he claimed) vs. what? A 3 hour trip + 2 hour checkin + 1 hour get to the airport + parking + 1 hour get luggage get rental car drive to destination.
Seems close to competitive to me.
Well, as air travel becomes
Well, as air travel becomes more and more like the 8th circle of hell, there may be an opportunity. The times I've discounted train travel had to do with time, not cost. 11 hours to get from LA to San Fran? Uh, no. I might as well drive myself. (not to mention, the train only takes you to Oakland, you still have to pay to get to San Fran proper.)
If a train could drop you right in downtown San Fran with 6 hours of travel time from Los Angeles, as much baggage as you want to bring and no endless round of surprise fees - then price becomes less of an object. Sure, travel by air is 1.5 hours. But you also have another 1.5 hours at the airport pre-flight, baggage restrictions, security, food that you need a trust fund to buy, outrageous parking costs, Airlines doing everything short of walking down the aisles with donation plates and cramped quarters in the cabin. Then figure another 30 - 40 minutes to travel into San Fran proper by cab, shuttle or subway.
I'd pay more for train if it were more convenient and faster.
...
Yeah, and as long as Amtrak has to pay for access on rails and trains can be delayed endlessly by cargo, they aren't going to be on time.
Do you think airports pay for themselves via ticket prices? Hardly.
I only Wish
People who think like anomaly at 6:17 weren't anomalous. Instead we phantasize about sexy high speed trains, which are megaexpensive, and require a huge amount of energy to build and operate. I would go one step further. I'm not at all convinced about the value of passenger rail. That is a huge amount of mass we are moving per passenger, one person per Hummer is probably less mass to move around. Rail makes sense for moving freight, but the way we coddle passengers which generous space and accomodations means we just can't stuff enough of them on a train car to make it pay off. Meanwhile our relative neglect of (admittedly unsexy) rail for shipping means we have many more trucks on the road than we should have.
Proper priorities for any energy (and especially oil) constrained future: more freight by rail, and electrification of the freight rail lines.
A Check on the numbers
According to Wikipedia - FL's Tri-Rail commuter system is usually configured as a F40PH engine car weighing 260,000# and two Bombardier Bi-level coaches at 132,000 each. The coaches are designed to fit 360 passengers each, but lets use a more realistic level of 560 total as a normal ridership (cited elsewhere in the wiki). The total mass of the train would be approximately 640,000# (assuming each passenger plus their baggage at 200#). This, divided by 560 gives us 1142 #/passenger for the rail service. That's the rough equivalent of 3 people in a Hummer, not one. Add to that the fact that the system is run on B99 Biodiesel and it all gets that much more attractive from a conservation status. Now, as far as I'm concerned, you could still use these numbers to make your point, but let's use more realistic ones. Spending $1B/mile on a rail system that will not be much better than carpooling in Hummers still sounds outrageous, it's just more accurately outrageous now.
...
Humans don't weigh more just because they're on a train. A ton of cargo hauled is the same as a ton of a passenger jet hauled; it's still cheaper per fuel unit to run a train than an airline than a fleet of cars.
Coddle passengers? Commuter trains do not coddle.
"I looked up a ticket on
"I looked up a ticket on Amtrak from Miami to DC and it was almost $400. I could have hopped a cheap commuter airline for half that."
Look it up again. I just did and one way coach to D.C. from Miami is $157, traveling today.
Booked in advance it was 205. Ticket prices vary greatly on Amtrak
$400? The guy must have
$400? The guy must have booked a roomette. That's a mini private sleeping compartment. Nice try, bucko. You think people here are that dumb? Shame on you.
Three tries, eh?
I'll save my comment about people here being dumb.
Addressing my original point - you admitted yourself that a pre-booked ticket was $205 each way. That's MORE than $400. Thanks for making my point for me. Spirit Air will get me there and back for $203 plus fees (probably around @$250 total) and I don't have to lose a day of my life on a train as the flight takes only 2 hours, 20 minutes.
Not quite, dumb person. You
Not quite, dumb person. You said nothing about round trip. Your comment was dishonest.
"I looked up a ticket on Amtrak from Miami to DC and it was almost $400. I could have hopped a cheap commuter airline for half that. Until passenger rail is cheaper than air travel, its hopes for becoming popular are doomed."
It was $157 if I traveled one way today. You figure the round trip. Frankly, "your time" and a "day of your life" is of little value to anyone but perhaps the dog. Your wife and kids may act like you are something special now, but wait until the divorce. Then the dog will probably go with them.
My comment was dishonest?
Sorry, I suppose I'm the only person in America who likes to come home after traveling somewhere. You inferred what you wanted to read because you want me to be some Redstate troll but that is sadly just not true.
And frankly "my time" and "a day of my life" is important to ME, the person who is buying (or in this case not buying) a train ticket!
I don't understand why you're being so willfully obtuse. Even considering the time wasted in TSA Kabuki, I can get to the same place in less than half the time for not much more than half the price. If we can't fix the time part (and even long distance HSR won't be faster than a 727), then we'd better fix the price part if there is an interest in increasing commuter rail usage.
It's a pointless battle anyway, because as noted below, freight transportation via rail is the best way to focus on getting a more efficent transportation system in the US.
"And frankly "my time" and
"And frankly "my time" and "a day of my life" is important to ME"
As I said,( but you were apparently too obtuse to read between the lines), you are just not that important. And you aren't honest, or even that clever. You are so sharp you cut yourself.
I understood what you were insinuating...
However, to the train company that would like to sell me a ticket, my opinion is a little more important than you would like to admit. But hey, if it makes your dick feel bigger to put me in my place, have fun with that.
I'm still blown away that you think I'm dishonest (unless that's just an ad hominem for the sake of "scoring a point"). It's perfectly reasonable to assume that a trip somewhere (particularly one that is time constrained) will include a return trip. Also, in my comparison to the airline ticket, I used a round trip ticket so as to compare apples to apples.
Lastly "You are so sharp you cut yourself" means what exactly? Either I'm smart or I'm dumb, but you can't have it both ways (Don't bother telling me which you'd prefer to believe. I already know the answer).
...
Did anyone point out to you that the 'airport' doesn't run at a profit, while the 'rail' that Amtrak runs on, does?
...
HSR would be faster than airline between shorter points. It also wouldn't have the problem that current Amtrak does: They have no guarantee to the rails. So they're often delayed for other trains to go first. Amtrak north and south in this state is usually hours behind schedule because they don't get priority on the rails.
You all need to take a flight alright!
Only, instead of going from Miami to DC, try Europe; they were not so STUPID as to destroy their extensive Rail Systems (like WE did after WW2, solely because GM bought up - and tore up - all of the rail lines, so that they could turn all of those battleships and tanks into Automobiles; it was all about Corporate Domination of our Country {aka: "Facism"} in the name of making sure that all - or nearly all - of the personal transportion out there would be being done in Buicks and Pontiacs. And where, by the way, has that led us? GM is going to shutter Pontiac!!!), and so it's really, really NICE!
It goes everywhere, you can take your Bike with you for post-debarkation short connects, it's very safe and not outrageously expensive.
If this is the 'Greatest Country' then why do I remember being so SHOCKED by how dirty, weedstrewn, and un-manicured America looked, when my familly rerturned from our European tour of duty (USAF) in 1971?
Where were the Trains, the Street Cars, the Bicycles that were everywhere, I said; why do Americans litter - and not plant flowers along every mile of Highway? Why don't the shopkeepers sweep the sidewalks every morning?
Anyway - the fact is that having a Good Rail System, rather than the Laughable one we now have, will benefit everyone; you just don't stand a chance of realizing it, until it's all in place; and that's going to take some time.
I live in Portland, Or., where we have ever more European-style Public Transport, Bike Lanes, Bike-on-Bus, etc.; and, like in most American Cities, when they tore up the streets to put in the 'new' light rail and street car rails, they found the OLD Rails that had been paved over in the 40's and 50's still in place.
Hindsight is 20/20.
JimRinX
Not in our lifetimes
"My doubts aside, hopefully the LA-SF line will be great when it's finally up and running."
And when will that be?
Blasting a highspeed rail line through the Transverse Ranges that run for 60 miles north of LA will be an environmental nightmare. Look at UC Merced in the flat, boring Central Valley. That took 17 years to open because environmentalists discovered some tiny fish on the original site and the whole place had to be relocated.
Governator says....
.....commuter rail for WIMPY Man; Bullet Train.......aaaaah, BULLET and Train in one phrase! Bullet Train is for HE Men!
Do you want California to be Wimpy Men State?
No? I not think so; so let us all say - Eat Me, Wimpy Man Hippies!
JimRinX