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

[The Larch]

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?

They're characteristics that make building such an infrastructure more difficult for Spain, in comparison with other countries such as France or Germany. It's about the relatively difficult geography of some parts of the country, the low population density, coupled with big cities being relatively far away and not too concentrated, and the fact that the construction of such projects uses to rely heavily on EU funding.

[Syt]

Btw, the point that the article makes about getting behind in the tech race is kinda valid. Germany has been eagerly developing a maglev train, but so far the only buyer has been China - attempts to build a German track failed, mostly due to budgetary reasons, but also because of environmentalist and security concerns.

The message broadcast to the world: "Yeah, we'd like you to buy this stuff, but NO WAY IN HELL will we build one in OUR country!"

[DisturbedPervert]

New trains are faster than the TGV, look at the Shangai magnetic rail

Yeap, the Shanghai maglev train has reached 500km/h.  It's a shame they've decided to cancel the Shanghai-Beijing maglev route and go with conventional high speed trains.

[DGuller]

I actually thought that point was weak.  "We need high speed rail so that other countries would by trains from us" is a really, really stupid argument for high speed rail.

[Duque de Bragança]

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.

Exception, not the rule. A convenience for tourists. There are some direct TGVs to Bordeaux from Paris without stops, not even one.

[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?

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.

So NIMBYism doesn't exist in Spain at a similar level to that of the US. 

[grumbler]

They're characteristics that make building such an infrastructure more difficult for Spain, in comparison with other countries such as France or Germany. It's about the relatively difficult geography of some parts of the country, the low population density, coupled with big cities being relatively far away and not too concentrated, and the fact that the construction of such projects uses to rely heavily on EU funding.

Thanks for the summary.  It makes a case for Spain being a better model for the US than, say, France, which is what the OP was kinda suggesting. 

[Syt]

There was a time when the RR companies knew how to convince people that the railroad was a good thing, NIMBY or not.

[Duque de Bragança]

Basically everyone, that's not the issue. High speed trains has a niche in medium range transportation, in distances that are too short for a plane, but too long for a car. FI, in France there aren't almost any internal flights, everybody takes TGV to travel inside the country, and when they have to take international flights everybody busses to Paris' airports.

It's more or less true, except when there is no REAL i.e high speed line not just TGVs rolling in standard lines.
Actually, the difference lies in the near absence of coach services between main cities.

Medium range niche i.e up to 1000 km (bit more than 3 hours) yes but IF the line is all high speed not like Germany where there aren't that many high speed lines and when there is it's not 300 kph cruise speed.
FYI, the ICE has its highest cruise speed in France, between Lorraine and Île-de-France whereas in the German part it only travels at  200 kph (not considered as high speed in France) between Frankfurt and Mannheim during 40 min or so.


As for the densities, I am not really convinced since the density in France is not that high, compared to Germany and not that much over Spain.

[alfred russel]

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.

If that is the way we are going to compare things, and those are the correct values, then Amtrak is going to have a hard time justifying its subsidy.

I did some research into passenger miles to compare the New Jersey turnpike to Amtrak (yeah, I know I'm wasting my time):

1998 data: New Jersey Turnpike passenger miles: 5 billion

http://knowledge.fhwa.dot.gov/cops/hcx.nsf/0/ba2414ce1eac182685256dc500674090/$FILE/NJTA%20proposal%20-FINAL-%205-22-01.pdf

2003 data: Amtrak Passenger miles: 5.7 billion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak

The New Jersey turnpike is 122 miles long, and is between 4 and 14 lanes wide. So using grumbler's figures, and assuming lane additions equal to the New Jersey turnpike will accomodate the traffic from Amtrak, it seems like it would be more cost effective to add lanes rather than support Amtrak.

[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.

So NIMBYism doesn't exist in Spain at a similar level to that of the US. 

It exists, but is more expressed through citizen movements aimed at the government in general rather than political pressure at the particular representatives.

[Duque de Bragança]

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.

So NIMBYism doesn't exist in Spain at a similar level to that of the US. 

It exists, but is more expressed through citizen movements aimed at the government in general rather than political pressure at the particular representatives.

Not to mention terrorists, cf. ETA's current campaign agains the Basque Y-shaped high-speed network...

[Syt]

It exists, but is more expressed through citizen movements aimed at the government in general rather than political pressure at the particular representatives.

Similar in Germany.

[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.

So NIMBYism doesn't exist in Spain at a similar level to that of the US. 

It exists, but is more expressed through citizen movements aimed at the government in general rather than political pressure at the particular representatives.

Not to mention terrorists, cf. ETA's current campaign agains the Basque Y-shaped high-speed network...

That's a very particular situation, it's not fair to extrapolate based on that.

[DGuller]

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.

If that is the way we are going to compare things, and those are the correct values, then Amtrak is going to have a hard time justifying its subsidy.

I did some research into passenger miles to compare the New Jersey turnpike to Amtrak (yeah, I know I'm wasting my time):

1998 data: New Jersey Turnpike passenger miles: 5 billion

http://knowledge.fhwa.dot.gov/cops/hcx.nsf/0/ba2414ce1eac182685256dc500674090/$FILE/NJTA%20proposal%20-FINAL-%205-22-01.pdf

2003 data: Amtrak Passenger miles: 5.7 billion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak

The New Jersey turnpike is 122 miles long, and is between 4 and 14 lanes wide. So using grumbler's figures, and assuming lane additions equal to the New Jersey turnpike will accomodate the traffic from Amtrak, it seems like it would be more cost effective to add lanes rather than support Amtrak.

I don't think grumbler's figures would apply to New Jersey.  Let's take Garden State Parkway widening project as an example, which is going on right now, and is sorely needed.  It's going to turn GSP from 2 lanes in each direction to 3, from exit 30 to exit 80, at a total cost of $900 million dollars.  That's about $9 million per lane-mile, although I ignored the cost of interchanges that are also affected.