High-Speed Rail in the US: why the hell not

[alfred russel]

By no means am I saying this is always the case, but roads in this country often are financed by their users: through gasoline taxes, licensing fees, ad valorem taxes, and tolls (a frequent way to pay for bridges and other construction projects are to finance through bonds that are paid off with toll revenue). Airports are also paid for by Fed Ex and UPS through their fees to use the airport (which are used to pay off bonds).

In the US there are routes that may make sense on their own: San Fransisco to LA is an example you mentioned. The problem is that those are still 385 miles apart. Are you going to build a station in San Fransisco that can only service LA? The next major city to the north is Portland, and it is 630 miles away. Las Vegas to the southeast is 570 miles away.

For a point of comparison, London and Paris are 292 miles apart.

You wouldn't need a new station if there is already one in existance, you might need to dedicate a track, or possible a platform.

In France some of the TGV stop more frequently, I took it from Disneyland to Charles de Gaule, a mere 15 min ride.

SF could easily service both LA and Vegas or even for that matter Denver. New trains are faster than the TGV, look at the Shangai magnetic rail

It shouls ofc be competitive to air, but in term of waiting and security you ought to factor that into a comparisson btw rail and air. If you had ecological costs most trains wins hands down over air

V

The distance between San Fransisco and Denver is a couple hundred miles less than the distance from London to Budapest.

[DGuller]

The Northeast corridor does look like the best bet for high speed rail in this county, the problem is that there has been rail in those markets and it isn't successful. It may just be a function that our interstate system is so strong and car ownership so prevalent that rail isn't the option of choice when travelling those distances for budget oriented consumers.

The problem for rail is that it generatees a lot of positive externalities, so it can be socially beneficial without being able to make money as a private for-profit enterprise.  People driving on I-95 should be grateful that Amtrak is easing up the traffic considerably, but they're not paying anything for it.  They should also be grateful for cleaner air (well, not on New Jersey Turnpike, but you get the point).  Then there is just the general and hard-to-measure network externality of having cities be connected better.

[grumbler]

We are talking Spain here, not mexico... there are a plenty of cars in Spain, roads enough to make rush hour, even *gasp* people with several cars...

I wager the density of cars in Spain easily is on par with the rest of western europe.

V

  I was asking about Spain because in several European countries in which I have lived or visited extensively, a sizable portion of the population did not own cars, so i was wondering if that was also true of Spain.  If everyone in Spain owns one, then I wager the density of cars in Spain is higher than the rest of Western Europe.

[The Larch]

We are talking Spain here, not mexico... there are a plenty of cars in Spain, roads enough to make rush hour, even *gasp* people with several cars...

I wager the density of cars in Spain easily is on par with the rest of western europe.

V

  I was asking about Spain because in several European countries in which I have lived or visited extensively, a sizable portion of the population did not own cars, so i was wondering if that was also true of Spain.  If everyone in Spain owns one, then I wager the density of cars in Spain is higher than the rest of Western Europe.

Then again, Spain has certain characteristics that put it apart from most of Western Europe regarding transport infrastructure.

[grumbler]

If you think that NIMBY-ism doesn't exist here at a similar level than in the US, you'd be reeeally wrong.

Really?  I never hear about it.  How does the Spanish government achieve funding for these high-speed rail systems given that a substantial percentage of the representatives from the affected areas oppose it (and pretty much all those from areas that do not benefit)?  Doesn't Spain have a representative legislature?

[Josquius]

Americans like cars, they don't recognise the fundamental, unpinnable awesomness of trains.

[alfred russel]

The Northeast corridor does look like the best bet for high speed rail in this county, the problem is that there has been rail in those markets and it isn't successful. It may just be a function that our interstate system is so strong and car ownership so prevalent that rail isn't the option of choice when travelling those distances for budget oriented consumers.

The problem for rail is that it generatees a lot of positive externalities, so it can be socially beneficial without being able to make money as a private for-profit enterprise.  People driving on I-95 should be grateful that Amtrak is easing up the traffic considerably, but they're not paying anything for it.  They should also be grateful for cleaner air (well, not on New Jersey Turnpike, but you get the point).  Then there is just the general and hard-to-measure network externality of having cities be connected better.

I concede on the environmental component, but regarding the other externalities: Amtrak is heavily subsidized--someone posted a billion a year. The comparison shouldn't be how terrible the congestion would be if Amtrak disappeared, but how bad the congestion would be if Amtrak disappeared and the subsidies were put into road construction and maintenance or airport expansion. A billion a year could support a lot of new lanes.

Btw--I'm not advocating nixing Amtrak.

[grumbler]

Then again, Spain has certain characteristics that put it apart from most of Western Europe regarding transport infrastructure.

I don't understand.  Are these characteristics that make it unlikely to achieve the 100% utilization rate for high speed rail that you noted for France, or ones that make it likely?

[DGuller]

The Northeast Corridor is not subsidized, to my knowledge.  It's the parts of Amtrak elsewhere in the country that get the money.

[alfred russel]

The Northeast Corridor is not subsidized, to my knowledge.  It's the parts of Amtrak elsewhere in the country that get the money.

Huh. I did not know that. Actually, I thought Amtrak basically was the Northeast Corridor.

[Iormlund]

Not everyone owns a car here, no - for example I only started driving and bought a car after turning 30 since I needed one for work. But most of the passengers of high-speed links probably do. Poor people use the bus.
A lot of the passengers of high-speed trains are on business to or from Madrid and it's just faster and more relaxing way to get to the city center than in plane or car.

As for how do you get funding, bribes are fairly efficient. Which is basically the same as what happens in the US Senate. Remember that you don't have to bribe everyone. Usually just a small party or two will do ... and if you party has a sizable majority (like PP till 2004) not even that.

[Iormlund]

A billion a year could support a lot of new lanes.

Are you kidding? A billion is peanuts when it comes to road building and maintenance.

[Strix]

The Northeast Corridor is not subsidized, to my knowledge.  It's the parts of Amtrak elsewhere in the country that get the money.

I think that's more a case of internal budgeting. Amtrack as a company is subsidized by the government because of losses. Parts of it probably do make a profit but the sum of whole is less than the parts.

[grumbler]

I concede on the environmental component, but regarding the other externalities: Amtrak is heavily subsidized--someone posted a billion a year. The comparison shouldn't be how terrible the congestion would be if Amtrak disappeared, but how bad the congestion would be if Amtrak disappeared and the subsidies were put into road construction and maintenance or airport expansion. A billion a year could support a lot of new lanes.

Yes, that is the measure.  Given that
(1) constructing a mile of a single lane of highway costs about $2.5 million for materials and labor
(2) constructing each each interchange costs about about $10 million, and
(3) maintaining a mile of an average lane of road costs about $100,000 per year
we can calculate the opportunity cost of AMTRAK, once we include land purchases and planning costs in that total.

[The Larch]

If you think that NIMBY-ism doesn't exist here at a similar level than in the US, you'd be reeeally wrong.

Really?  I never hear about it.  How does the Spanish government achieve funding for these high-speed rail systems given that a substantial percentage of the representatives from the affected areas oppose it (and pretty much all those from areas that do not benefit)?  Doesn't Spain have a representative legislature?

Because our political system doesn't work like that. MPs owe their allegiance first and foremost to their parties, not to the region they "represent". That way, votes are almost always along party lines. It's regional parties the ones that fill that category.