Forget High-Speed Rail: Elon Musk Wants to Build Something Far More Awesome

[Berkut]

There are clearly lots to consider when it comes to rail, and perhaps the answer is actually "no, rail won't help enough for the cost".

But the complaint is that the argument seems to mostly revolve around "Will some proposed rail line pay for itself with fairs collected or not?"

[The Minsky Moment]

The point though is that the roads are funded by and large by taxes. Some of those taxes might be targetted at car owners and gas consumers, sure, but nobody says that roads are profitable. They are a cost, and the state collects taxes of various kinds to cover those costs.

Rail is somehow expected to be "profitable" without that kind of support - it is expected that it fund itself, mostly. At least in theory.

Everyone uses roads.
Only fancy pants east coast types use trains.
This is where we are in US politics now.

[The Brain]

I don't follow exactly. Are you saying that 1h air vs 3h high speed rail does or does not mean that high speed rail is competing against air?

Sure it competes- kind of like regular US mail competes against Fedex overnight or DSL competes with cable broadband.

A very common business trip in Sweden is Stockholm-Gothenburg. It's 1h by air or 3h by rail (I would describe Swedish rail as medium speed, they do 125 mph). If you go by air you have to get to and from the airport, go through security, etc. If you go by rail you go city center to city center and have 3h of continuous sit-down time when you can work. Most people I know take the train.

Well I can't speak for Sweden.
I often travel to Boston for work or at least I did before COVID.  These are day trips where I go in for a court hearing and go back same day.  It's a very common route - those trips were usually pretty packed.
The Acela travels that route so its about as high speed as you get in the US.  Its 3.5 hours as opposed to 1 hr by air
I much prefer the train but almost always take the plane because there is a big difference between 7 hours of travels time vs 2 even taking into account TSA annoyances.  It wouldnt really change the math to make it 6 vs 2.
It also happens that Logan Airport is about a 10 minute ride from the federal courthouse - about the same travel time as taking a T (subway) from South Station or Back Bay.
If I had a "rail" option that took 1 hour one-way I'd definitely switch.

And there's certainly still people in Sweden flying between Stockholm and Gothenburg. My only point is that A often competes against B, and may even do it successfully, without completely replacing B (because B still has some advantages over A), and that a "1vs3" situation empirically can make trains competitive in a Western country.

On top of all this, of course, is the climate question, which makes taking a train that runs on largely hydro/nuclear electricity (the Swedish mix) much more preferable than air travel. In Sweden this is a consideration that matters to many people.

[crazy canuck]

My travels on interstate highways.

Do your travels take you near densely populated urban environments that encompass much of the space between cities.

[Duque de Bragança]

I was going to argue...sure, 1 hour in the air, but the logistics of air travel (security, etc) easily make 1-hour in the air over 3 hours.

My understanding is that anything over three hours by rail defeats the purpose of travelling by rail, which is why the US high-speed rail systems are all looking at that time window.

The Japanese high-speed rail system works because it is easier than air travel.  The French system, though, tends to belie that.  It is doing well (where it is doing well) because the trip is so pleasant.  Having taken it I tend to agree.

The only place where air travel in mainland France still makes in France is between Paris and Toulouse (634 km SW by road). Busy line, mostly used by people who can pay up air tickets so it's mostly Airbus executives and engineers (Airbus HQ in Toulouse).
Train between those cities is even slower than in the '70s since the existing line has been left to decay, in part due resources being used to build new high-speed lines elsewhere.
Back in the '70s, 200 kph was a cruise speed on portions of the line, while other portions crossed through rugged terrain but useful as in servicing interior France such as Limoges. I took that train to visit friends in Toulouse sometimes.
7 hours nowadays, unless one takes the TGV through Bordeaux then it's 4h30. Much better, but not enough as per the 3-hour rule of thumb/consensual understanding. Logically pricier than the classic line as well. The night train option is no longer available as well.

Paris-Bordeaux (575 km), the best classic line with 220 kph cruise speeds for the most part, was recently complemented by a new high-speed line so now it's only two hours instead of three, though the threshold was already reached with standard trains. Very expensive line, I don't expect to be paid back in full before some time. Plans were made for an extension to both Toulouse and Spain (a international gauge crossing is sorely needed) but budget constraints postponed it to 2030, at best.

Now that I think of it, Paris-Nice (1000/1100 km) takes 6 hours since the line between Marseille and Nice is in dire need of an upgrade or of a new one so the plane is still popular. Mayor was even pushing for a new high-speed link to Italy (!) since Italian tourists are quite important for the local economy.

PS: inter-provincial travel is mostly done by car or buses (recently) so expensive with gas and tolls with the French rail and plane network centered on Paris.

[Admiral Yi]

Sqeeze, I stand corrected on the statement that you don't know if highways cost money on top of dedicated fees.

I don't stand corrected on marginal scrapings.

And something you might not be aware of is that during the US's westward expansion, railroad companies were given large tracts of land adjacent to their tracks as a subsidy for railroad construction.

Neither do we expect railroads to make a profit.  We expect Amtrack to break even.

[chipwich]

I don't have evidence but I've speculated that when a subsidized rail network reaches a critical mass of coverage it drains business and population to the nexus of the system e.g. London and Tokyo draining the rest of the country. That's speculation, I don't know nearly enough about economics to say that as fact.

[viper37]

On top of all this, of course, is the climate question, which makes taking a train that runs on largely hydro/nuclear electricity (the Swedish mix) much more preferable than air travel. In Sweden this is a consideration that matters to many people.

In parts of the US, there are race truck shows where the goal is to modify your big truck so that the anti-pollution system is rendered nil and you make as much smoke as you can by rejecting all kind of pollutants in the atmosphere.

Do these people, who seem to love this nearly as much as NASCAR, look like people using train to commute between large cities?

[Josquius]

Ah the Nirvana fallacy.
You're never going to get this extreme group using a train thus there's no point trying with trains at all.

Posts: 514
View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Forget High-Speed Rail: Elon Musk Wants to Build Something Far More Awesome
« Reply #111 on: November 14, 2020, 04:51:29 pm »
Quote
I don't have evidence but I've speculated that when a subsidized rail network reaches a critical mass of coverage it drains business and population to the nexus of the system e.g. London and Tokyo draining the rest of the country. That's speculation, I don't know nearly enough about economics to say that as fact.

In Japan you're right. This is a well observed phenomena known as the straw effect

https://www.rieti.go.jp/en/publications/summary/15070029.html#:~:text=The%20straw%20effect%20specifically%20in,foundation%20of%20the%20local%20areas.

Though I'd take it with a huge pinch of salt. Cities that have the shinkansen are today far more populace and lively than those without. Comparing kofu and shizuoka for instance, the former was historically a fairly significant city whilst the latter.. Wasn't. Its quite inversed with the shinkansen however.

Also this effect has been talked about in Korea but not elsewhere. In Germany for instance no way has it happened.
I strongly suspect its mostly untrue and a big case of correlation doesn't equal causation due to the east Asian culture of going up to the city and much later urbanisation also being at play in the same period.

[viper37]

Ah the Nirvana fallacy.
You're never going to get this extreme group using a train thus there's no point trying with trains at all.

No, but you need to consider that there is a group who will never use public rail transit or bus and adjust for that.  Even if it's there, even it's efficient and reliable, some people don't want it.  It's useless to think of them when planning deployment.

[The Brain]

On top of all this, of course, is the climate question, which makes taking a train that runs on largely hydro/nuclear electricity (the Swedish mix) much more preferable than air travel. In Sweden this is a consideration that matters to many people.

In parts of the US, there are race truck shows where the goal is to modify your big truck so that the anti-pollution system is rendered nil and you make as much smoke as you can by rejecting all kind of pollutants in the atmosphere.

Do these people, who seem to love this nearly as much as NASCAR, look like people using train to commute between large cities?

Those people will never travel between two major cities on any seaboard.

[Eddie Teach]

No, no. Viper is the author so his characters travel wherever he wants them to.

[viper37]

Those people will never travel between two major cities on any seaboard.

they don't need to.  they elect people who will travel in their stead and block any kind of improvement that does not directly benefit them.

[The Brain]

Those people will never travel between two major cities on any seaboard.

they don't need to.  they elect people who will travel in their stead and block any kind of improvement that does not directly benefit them.

AFAIK Flyover, Missouri isn't a heavy decision-maker regarding California's infrastructure.

[Sheilbh]

I don't have evidence but I've speculated that when a subsidized rail network reaches a critical mass of coverage it drains business and population to the nexus of the system e.g. London and Tokyo draining the rest of the country. That's speculation, I don't know nearly enough about economics to say that as fact.

UK rail is privatised. The bits that turn a big profit are in the South-East and London - other rail companies make some profit and some need to be subsidise or even nationalised because they can't turn a profit. My understanding is it's more or less a wash in terms of overall cost between the money the government makes auctioning the franchise for the profitable bits of the network v the subsidies and cost of maintaining the network.

You might be right, I'm not sure. The big issue with rail in the UK - as Tyr says - is that it's running out of capacity on a lot of key lines. Unfortunately the emphasis of the "pitch" for expanding the network was that it's "high-speed", when it should have been "high capacity".

I think rail is definitely part of the solution for short-haul flights. Certainly in London the big issue with air travel is that most of the airports are quite significantly out of the city - which is an issue if you're traveling from or to work. The exception is London City Airport which specialises in short-haul business flights, it's also a very small airport so it's quite quick to get through security etc. If you're going for the day I think my limit would probably be about a 3-3.5 hour train journey, which is about Manchester/Liverpool/Leeds, but would also include Glasgow after HS2.