The pricing mentioned in the article interests me. It seems like this really wouldn't be worth the money.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/reports/beyond-the-motor-city/report-high-speed-rail-america/898/
QuoteBeyond the Motor City
High-Speed Rail America
A national high-speed rail plan was put forward by President Barack Obama in April 2009, just months after he set aside $8 billion in stimulus funds to begin such an undertaking.
Following the announcement, forty states and the District of Columbia requested over $100 billion for high-speed train projects.
At the end of January this year, however, the White House selected 13 passenger rail corridors in 31 states to receive stimulus funding. High-speed rail projects in California, Florida and Illinois were the big winners.
— California: $2.3 billion to begin work on an 800-mile-long, high-speed rail line tying Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay area to Los Angeles and San Diego.
— Florida: $1.25 billion to build a rail line connecting Tampa on the West Coast with Orlando in the middle of the state, eventually going south to Miami.
— Illinois-Missouri: $1.1 billion to improve a rail line between Chicago and St. Louis so that trains travel up to 110 mph.
— Wisconsin: $810 million to upgrade and refurbish train stations and install safety equipment on the Madison-to-Milwaukee leg of a line that stretches from Minneapolis to Chicago.
— Washington-Oregon: $590 million to upgrade a rail line from Seattle to Portland, Ore.
— North Carolina: $520 million for projects that will increase top speeds to 90 mph on trains between Raleigh and Charlotte and double the number of round trips.
Though any state could ask for federal funding for projects, the administration identified 10 potential high-speed rail corridors: California, the Pacific Northwest, Texas, the Gulf Coast,
The Obama High-Speed Rail Plan || Image: White House
Florida, a Southeast corridor, the Northeast Corridor, the "Keystone Corridor" through Pennsylvania, the "Empire Corridor" through New York, and a Midwest hub centered in Chicago. Anyone outside these regions will be hard-pressed for high-speed rail dollars.
That $8 billion is going to have to go a long way as, for example, building a system in California — the state furthest along in high-speed rail planning with construction set to start as soon as next year — will cost $42.6 billion alone (up from $33.6 billion just a year ago).
In addition to the stimulus investment, Congress has approved $2.5 billion more in high-speed rail funding for the annual federal budget this year. Still, that is budget to budget, year to year support for projects that take 10 to 20 years to build. And, if a system is implemented nationally, it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars — not counting inflation over the decades it will take to build.
By spreading the $8 billion among so many states (31), President Obama ignored calls from transportation experts and high-speed rail advocates who maintained that the only way to build support for the program would be to concentrate funding on only two or three projects — to not only accelerate construction, but also get those high-speed lines up and running to be seen as an example of success throughout the country. In the end, only the line in Florida (Tampa to Orlando), which received $1.25 billion on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars in local private and public funds already raised, is expected to be finished in the next five years.
HIGH–ER SPEED RAIL
Rep. John Mica of Florida, the ranking Republican on the House Transportation and Infrastructure committee, complained that the Midwest lines awarded stimulus funds will achieve top speeds of only 110 mph and were "selected more for political reasons than for high-speed service."
Still, "high-speed" has been a loosely used phrase in America.
Between Washington, D.C., New York and Boston, the Acela Express — Amtrak's version of high-speed — can reach 150 mph, but only for short stretches and averages just 80 mph. The definition of "high-speed" in Europe, however, is trains that travel at least 155 mph with speeds that oftentimes exceed 200 mph.
[For more on financing a high-speed rail system, watch The Bank not Built]
Currently, applicants nationwide for the $8 billion in federal high-speed rail funding are planning medium-speeds of 90 to 110 mph and high-speeds of 130 to 150 mph. That said, as early as the 1930s in America, trains routinely reached speeds of 120 mph and higher.
California is the only state so far to propose a high-speed rail network with trains traveling up to 220 mph. A trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco, for example, will take about 2.5 hours.
BY PLANE OR BY TRAIN
Still, that 2.5 hour train ride is just over an hour by air. Then again, the train will take you to San Francisco's city center from Los Angeles' city center — connecting directly with mass-transit. Also, you will not have to owe your brother-in-law any more favors for picking you up from the airport.
The most likely determinate if people will get off planes and onto trains: cost.
Already, a one-way, rush-hour train ticket (purchased a week in advance) on the Acela Express from New York-Penn Station to Washington, D.C.-Union Station costs upwards of $155 for the 2.75 hour ride. That same route by air ranges in cost from $103 to $200 — roundtrip — for the 1.5 hour flight. Although, the Acela Express line was one of only three Amtrak lines to turn a profit in 2008.
But, if California is the bellwether for the future costs of riding high-speed rail, then it will be only slightly cheaper than the Acela Express. The projected average ticket on the high-speed train from San Francisco to Los Angeles is $105, or 83 percent of comparable airfare. Last year, the state said prices would be set at 50 percent of comparable airfare and predicted a ticket from San Francisco to Los Angeles would cost $55.
Still, much of America's high-speed rail plan is just lines on a map. It is 2010, and ground has yet to be broken anywhere.
Depending on how much it costs to maintain I think high speed railways can be a good idea. It could solve a lot of congestion issues around some of the major cities in the US. And it would also allow people to live farther away from those cities and still commute.
Once the track systems are built maybe Obama plans on cutting subsidies to the airline industry, then raising the ticket price?
Also, on a train you can bring a bottle of water in your carry on without getting arrested.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 04, 2010, 09:26:57 AM
Also, on a train you can bring a bottle of water in your carry on without getting arrested.
For now.
Can't derail a train & crash it into the WTC.
Quote from: Strix on February 04, 2010, 09:19:54 AM
Depending on how much it costs to maintain I think high speed railways can be a good idea. It could solve a lot of congestion issues around some of the major cities in the US. And it would also allow people to live farther away from those cities and still commute.
The problem is that it doesn't seem like this high speed rail is meant to cut congestion around cities, but rather connect large metro areas to other large metro areas.
Which perhaps is fine - but why? Why does the Bay Area need high speed rail connecting it to Sacramento? What is the gain there?
Certainly there is one, but I don't really know what it is. Right now if you want to make the trip it is a pretty straighforward drive in a car on excellent roads. Not much in the way of traffic, except actually within the metro areas themselves.
Or if you want to go faster, you take a plane.
High speed rail would obviously fall in between, but is there really that much demand? I don't really think people commute from Sacramento to San Jose, for example, so who is going to be using this rail?
I don't think cost is the only factor that matters in the decision to take a train or not. Trains are rather convenient and comfortable compared to aircraft. If the travel time is just slightly longer, I would always take the train.
High speed rail is rather expensive though. I just had a look at some German figures and even in flat terrain, you are looking at 10 million Euro per kilometer. In hilly terrain you are looking at twice that or more.
A track from SF to LA would thus probably cost at least 20 billion USD.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 04, 2010, 09:34:35 AM
Can't derail a train & crash it into the WTC.
There have been various (attempted and successful) terror attacks on trains. But usually it is much easier to attack the track than the train, so there is really no point in checking the passengers.
Quote from: Berkut on February 04, 2010, 09:34:55 AM
High speed rail would obviously fall in between, but is there really that much demand? I don't really think people commute from Sacramento to San Jose, for example, so who is going to be using this rail?
Right. I am trying to figure hout who's travelling between Orlando and Florida, say. And why they wouldn't be better served by a cheaper bus service, which is something that most states are sorely lacking.
Quote from: Berkut on February 04, 2010, 09:34:55 AM
.......
Or if you want to go faster, you take a plane.
High speed rail would obviously fall in between, but is there really that much demand? I don't really think people commute from Sacramento to San Jose, for example, so who is going to be using this rail?
If the environmentalists are raising as much flak about airplane greenhouse gas emissions in America as they are over here in Britain, then I can quite easily see the attraction of high speed rail-links to a populist government. I notice that the one true high speed rail link is being proposed in California. I seem to recall that California is a major centre of the Green movement in America, isn't it?
How highly are domestic airlines subsidised in America?
Quote from: Faeelin on February 04, 2010, 09:41:11 AM
Right. I am trying to figure hout who's travelling between Orlando and Florida, say. And why they wouldn't be better served by a cheaper bus service, which is something that most states are sorely lacking.
Presumably Greenhouse gas emissions. Isn't the chain rail < car < air?
High speed rail will NEVER catch on in the United States until the price of fuel (aviation/automobile/both) gets prohibitively expensive.
You can't put a price on cool
Quote from: Caliga on February 04, 2010, 09:49:25 AM
High speed rail will NEVER catch on in the United States until the price of fuel (aviation/automobile/both) gets prohibitively expensive.
Competing with Air. A train going at 300 kph compared to a plane going at 800 kph. Basically a train will take 2.5 hours to move as far as a plane will in 1 hour. If you add in the travel time to and from airports, time for check in and security checks means that the two journeys can take approximately the same time (depending on travel times to airports/train stations). So the train will be competitive with short haul flights. While it might not make sense to compete with transcontinental flights (e.g. New York-Los Angeles), but it can compete well on short routs like Detroit-Chicago or St. Louis-Kansas City or Houston-Dallas.
Competing with Cars. So you work in a city and your commute is about 1 hour. Well in that case, assuming your workplace is in the downtown area, you might as well live in a nearby city rather than in the suburbs. Just imagine, detroit housing costs with a chicago job?
As much as I love the car, I wouldn't mind hopping on a high speed rail to Columbus or Cleveland. Anything to avoid the orange barrels on the Interstates.
As long as I don't turn into a Eurofag while doing it.
There's a few good arguments both pro and con for the Tampa-Orlando high speed rail project, which will be the 1st true high speed rail in the US. The planned stops are downtown Tampa, Lakeland, Disney World, Orlando International Airport, and the Orlando Convention Center.
Pros-
Shovel ready. All the major right of ways have been acquired, the environmental impact studies have been done, Florida has been planning this for years.
Relatively quick to construct. Since the line will only be 87 miles, and much of the planning is already complete, the line could be constructed by sometime in 2014, assuming no delays.
Interstate 4, which the HSR would more or less follow exactly, is very congested. Expanding the highway could be just as costly as building this rail line.
Tons of tourists come to FL and would use the rail.
Negatives-
Line is only 87 miles- distance is way too short to be more convenient than driving. The rail will supposedly cut a 90 minute journey by car into a 60 minute journey by rail. That really isn't very significant. Rail works best with medium length distances where it is cheaper and faster than driving and flying.
Both the Orlando and the Tampa areas are highly decentralized with very poor mass transit. It is unlikely most commuters will be able to use this at all, unless they live and work near one of the stations. Downtown Tampa is a fairly big job hub, as is Disney, but most commuters come in from outlying suburbs. For most people, it will probably be cheaper and faster and more convienent to drive.
The tourist argument isn't even as strong as it initially appears. Disney already has buses that go from OIA to Disney- why build a multi billion dollar rail system when you have something that is almost as good? Also, if tourists want to visit Tampa(to go to the beach) from Orlando, they will need to get cars once they get here. The line ends near downtown Tampa, which is a 45 minute drive away from the beach, and no public transit to get there. Might as well rent a car in Orlando.
Now, while I think the project is foolish in the short term, in the long term, it could turn out well. The next leg that is going to be built is from Orlando to Miami. Orlando to Miami is a way better fit for rail than Tampa-Orlando. Also, both the Tampa and Orlando areas are planning on building mass transit light rail systems, which would make the HSR line more useful.
They're supposed to begin work on the high speed line from LA to Las Vegas in a few months. Unfortunately it was too expense to have the train actually go through the mountains in to LA, so you have to drive out in the middle of the desert first to get on the train to Vegas. Supposedly will also be buses to take people to the station. Will later build expansions to link up with the San Diego-LA-SF-Sacramento line but it currently doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fc%2Fc5%2FCahsr_map.svg%2F586px-Cahsr_map.svg.png&hash=f8e1ca733d42c5216c2c5d28bc9ce4b97e5c1431)
I've always wanted to visit Bakersfield.
Quote from: Berkut on February 04, 2010, 09:34:55 AM
Quote from: Strix on February 04, 2010, 09:19:54 AM
Depending on how much it costs to maintain I think high speed railways can be a good idea. It could solve a lot of congestion issues around some of the major cities in the US. And it would also allow people to live farther away from those cities and still commute.
The problem is that it doesn't seem like this high speed rail is meant to cut congestion around cities, but rather connect large metro areas to other large metro areas.
Bingo. There's already plenty of good ways to get from one major city to another, and if you choose to drive in a car, congestion on the highways between metropolitan areas is not a problem. The problems are lack of good public transportation
within many major cities, and badly congested urban roadways.
There is a (moderately) high speed train already on the NE corridor and it is very useful. No one in their right mind would drive from NY to DC if they could avoid it; and while the shuttle is an option, it involves going through Laguardia which I enjoy about as much as having my fingernails pulled out. The train is very roomy, has outlets, is very easy to get work done while travelling. I always take it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 04, 2010, 11:18:29 AM
There is a (moderately) high speed train already on the NE corridor and it is very useful. No one in their right mind would drive from NY to DC if they could avoid it; and while the shuttle is an option, it involves going through Laguardia which I enjoy about as much as having my fingernails pulled out. The train is very roomy, has outlets, is very easy to get work done while travelling. I always take it.
But you're a Communist. Americans in general are not.
I agree with TMM that trains can be particularly attractive to business people. They deliver travellers from the centre of one town to the destination's centre. Also, trains can provide a good working environment; the trains to London from Preston, for example, have wi-fi broadband and tables on them; so the travelling time can be spent working.
It's "wanking".
Doesn't Amtrak already provide some similar, though slower, service? They do have some high speed trains, though I don't know if similar to these being proposed. And it isn't making money. Govt subsidized and there have been some calls to end Amtrak, right? Which I don't agree with ending it. As much as I like the idea of rail travel, is this going to be a money maker, or forever subsidized by govt, our taxes, or even be a boondoggle? I'd like to think it'll work well as an alternative to air travel between cities, but if existing Amtrak doesn't do the job, how will this much more expensive service get the job done?
I also can't put too much faith in the proposed ticket prices, costs of running the system, and certainly not the cost of building any of these. Such estimates are always low and/or just plain wrong, or low ball priced to get initial support. And technically, I'm in favor of rail travel!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 04, 2010, 11:18:29 AM
There is a (moderately) high speed train already on the NE corridor and it is very useful. No one in their right mind would drive from NY to DC if they could avoid it; and while the shuttle is an option, it involves going through Laguardia which I enjoy about as much as having my fingernails pulled out. The train is very roomy, has outlets, is very easy to get work done while travelling. I always take it.
...which is why there is such a train already. Lots of people traveling from NY to DC - is that the case for SF to SAC? Or LA to SF?
Perhaps it would be if such a thing existed?
I dunno. Certainly I can see how the NE corridor could (and does to some extent already) benefit from this, but that is pretty much the exception that proves the rule, as there really isn't anything else in the US like that.
Quote from: KRonn on February 04, 2010, 12:41:05 PM
Doesn't Amtrak already provide some similar, though slower, service? They do have some high speed trains, though I don't know if similar to these being proposed. And it isn't making money. Govt subsidized and there have been some calls to end Amtrak, right? Which I don't agree with ending it. As much as I like the idea of rail travel, is this going to be a money maker, or forever subsidized by govt, our taxes, or even be a boondoggle? I'd like to think it'll work well as an alternative to air travel between cities, but if existing Amtrak doesn't do the job, how will this much more expensive service get the job done?
I also can't put too much faith in the proposed ticket prices, costs of running the system, and certainly not the cost of building any of these. Such estimates are always low and/or just plain wrong, or low ball priced to get initial support. And technically, I'm in favor of rail travel!
The current Detroit to Chicago line runs at over 100 MPH at points; but the trip still takes over 6 hours (it takes roughly five hours to drive and under an hour to fly.) Amtrak trains run slow through cities, freight trains always take priority (so the train is usually delayed) and union rules are stringent (so they usually start late.)
Quote from: Caliga on February 04, 2010, 09:49:25 AM
High speed rail will NEVER catch on in the United States until the price of fuel (aviation/automobile/both) gets prohibitively expensive.
Or needs to be nearly as fast/convenient.
Maglev or nothing.
Quote from: KRonn on February 04, 2010, 12:41:05 PM
Doesn't Amtrak already provide some similar, though slower, service? They do have some high speed trains, though I don't know if similar to these being proposed. And it isn't making money. Govt subsidized and there have been some calls to end Amtrak, right? Which I don't agree with ending it. As much as I like the idea of rail travel, is this going to be a money maker, or forever subsidized by govt, our taxes, or even be a boondoggle? I'd like to think it'll work well as an alternative to air travel between cities, but if existing Amtrak doesn't do the job, how will this much more expensive service get the job done?
I also can't put too much faith in the proposed ticket prices, costs of running the system, and certainly not the cost of building any of these. Such estimates are always low and/or just plain wrong, or low ball priced to get initial support. And technically, I'm in favor of rail travel!
Why should the rail pay for itself? Do interstates pay for themselves? Building rail is improving the infrastructure, and improving the infrastructure raises the tax base. It's not illogical or economically inefficient to subsidize such projects forever to some extent.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 04, 2010, 11:18:29 AM
There is a (moderately) high speed train already on the NE corridor and it is very useful. No one in their right mind would drive from NY to DC if they could avoid it; and while the shuttle is an option, it involves going through Laguardia which I enjoy about as much as having my fingernails pulled out. The train is very roomy, has outlets, is very easy to get work done while travelling. I always take it.
I think the NE Corridor works because it connects cities that are highly developed metro areas. That is, they're not like suburbs, only sprawled wider, they're cities designed to be navigated without cars. I'm not sure I see the point of connecting by rail the cities where being carless handicaps your mobility tremendously.
Quote from: DGuller on February 04, 2010, 01:18:31 PM
Why should the rail pay for itself? Do interstates pay for themselves?
Do people argue that they do not? I think most people think the interstate system has been a very effective investment.
Quote
Building rail is improving the infrastructure, and improving the infrastructure raises the tax base.
Well, it might is what you mean. Whether or not it is a good way to raise the tax base is the question. Whether it will in fact pay for itself (even indirectly, like the interstate system), or whether some other use of that money (or even leaving it unspent/borrowed) would do better. Or even whether some specific portion of the rail system will do these things. I imagine there are parts of the interstate system, for example, where building the road was a mistake and wasteful.
But even at that, we still have to figure out how to actually pay for it, and decide what things we will NOT do instead.
Quote
It's not illogical or economically inefficient to subsidize such projects forever to some extent.
It may or may not be - kind of depends on the project.
Quote from: Savonarola on February 04, 2010, 12:57:15 PM
The current Detroit to Chicago line runs at over 100 MPH at points; but the trip still takes over 6 hours (it takes roughly five hours to drive and under an hour to fly.) Amtrak trains run slow through cities, freight trains always take priority (so the train is usually delayed) and union rules are stringent (so they usually start late.)
Under an hour to fly?
I'm somehow doubting that. Even with domestic flights check in and waiting normally takes quite a bit.
Aren't federal highway dollars generated through the gasoline tax? I'm not sure the percent, but to at least an extent highways do pay for themselves.
Rather than spend the money on trains of dubious value, why not spend the money developing public transportation in cities that have terrible systems?
Quote from: Tyr on February 04, 2010, 01:23:26 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on February 04, 2010, 12:57:15 PM
The current Detroit to Chicago line runs at over 100 MPH at points; but the trip still takes over 6 hours (it takes roughly five hours to drive and under an hour to fly.) Amtrak trains run slow through cities, freight trains always take priority (so the train is usually delayed) and union rules are stringent (so they usually start late.)
Under an hour to fly?
I'm somehow doubting that. Even with domestic flights check in and waiting normally takes quite a bit.
I meant flight time specifically; not time spent in the airport or on the tarmack. In the United States the airports recommend that one arrives two hours early.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 04, 2010, 01:28:24 PM
Rather than spend the money on trains of dubious value, why not spend the money developing public transportation in cities that have terrible systems?
I think it's a very good investment if it's practical. However, I wonder if it's too late for most cities. If the city never had effective mass transit, then it probably sprawled when developing. If the city is sprawling, then can you still have an effective mass transit system? Don't they generally require a certain population density before being useful?
Quote from: alfred russel on February 04, 2010, 01:28:24 PM
Rather than spend the money on trains of dubious value, why not spend the money developing public transportation in cities that have terrible systems?
A problem with this approach is that cities that currently have poor public transportation may not have means of maintaining the new public transportation once it has been built for them. In Detroit we just built a 22.5 million dollar bus shelter with Federal and State Grants. So far it's given muggers a warmer working environment.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 04, 2010, 01:28:24 PM
Rather than spend the money on trains of dubious value, why not spend the money developing public transportation in cities that have terrible systems?
The suburban sprawl needs to be razed to the ground first
I wonder if the way to un-sprawl the cities is to develop a very effective mass transit system in the downtown as a loss-leader, and hoping that it would serve as a catalyst for urbanization due to increasing land values. Here in Jersey City, we had a light rail line built, and new developments are springing up along the light rail stops where previously there was nothing much.
Quote from: DGuller on February 04, 2010, 01:18:31 PM
Quote from: KRonn on February 04, 2010, 12:41:05 PM
Doesn't Amtrak already provide some similar, though slower, service? They do have some high speed trains, though I don't know if similar to these being proposed. And it isn't making money. Govt subsidized and there have been some calls to end Amtrak, right? Which I don't agree with ending it. As much as I like the idea of rail travel, is this going to be a money maker, or forever subsidized by govt, our taxes, or even be a boondoggle? I'd like to think it'll work well as an alternative to air travel between cities, but if existing Amtrak doesn't do the job, how will this much more expensive service get the job done?
I also can't put too much faith in the proposed ticket prices, costs of running the system, and certainly not the cost of building any of these. Such estimates are always low and/or just plain wrong, or low ball priced to get initial support. And technically, I'm in favor of rail travel!
Why should the rail pay for itself? Do interstates pay for themselves? Building rail is improving the infrastructure, and improving the infrastructure raises the tax base. It's not illogical or economically inefficient to subsidize such projects forever to some extent.
If it can be shown to be a benefit besides faster travel, to maybe improve the tax base, bring business in, then it's good or even better. Highways definitely improve commerce hugely, allow people to travel for jobs, industry expansion, as do freight rails also for that matter. Just to build high speed rail without getting a good payoff on it in some way is the question. I don't know if we get one, or if we should want to get some strong financial benefits.
Quote from: DGuller on February 04, 2010, 01:20:38 PM
I'm not sure I see the point of connecting by rail the cities where being carless handicaps your mobility tremendously.
And this will certainly be an issue in California.
Yes I agree that metro-area transportation systems need to be improved before high-volume inter-city rail becomes feasible. However getting the infrastructure in place will take years and billions of dollars. It makes a certain amount of sense to get it in motion before it is actually needed provided that you can be reasonably certain that: a) it will become essential at some point and b) it won't be obsolete before then.
In other words, while I am in favour of shifting more of our transportation to rail. I think the money would be better spent in the immediate future on metro rail as well as R&D so that when we're ready for high speed inter-city rail we can go all the way to maglev(or even magtube) lines.
Quote from: DGuller on February 04, 2010, 01:38:30 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 04, 2010, 01:28:24 PM
Rather than spend the money on trains of dubious value, why not spend the money developing public transportation in cities that have terrible systems?
I think it's a very good investment if it's practical. However, I wonder if it's too late for most cities. If the city never had effective mass transit, then it probably sprawled when developing. If the city is sprawling, then can you still have an effective mass transit system? Don't they generally require a certain population density before being useful?
It depends what your goal is. If your goal is to have well off people go without a car, like in Manhattan, that is probably not feasible. If the goal is to have a substantial number commute to work and enter the city through mass transit, it is very feasible. Cities like Atlanta, Houston, and the Miami metro area really could use a significant upgrade in public transport. But that might mean focusing the spending in a few cities, versus spreading it out over a wide region the way intercity rail does.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 04, 2010, 04:14:43 PM
It depends what your goal is. If your goal is to have well off people go without a car, like in Manhattan, that is probably not feasible. If the goal is to have a substantial number commute to work and enter the city through mass transit, it is very feasible. Cities like Atlanta, Houston, and the Miami metro area really could use a significant upgrade in public transport. But that might mean focusing the spending in a few cities, versus spreading it out over a wide region the way intercity rail does.
The point is, how do you commute to work when just getting to and from bus/train stations is already a long walk through streets designed for cars? Transit stops need to be densely spaced for them to be effective, and those densely-spaced stops should be in densely populated areas to be cost-effective.
We don't have high speed rail in Sweden and we manage.
We don't have any rail in Whitehorse, and we manage. :Canuck:
Quote from: DGuller on February 04, 2010, 04:36:51 PM
The point is, how do you commute to work when just getting to and from bus/train stations is already a long walk through streets designed for cars? Transit stops need to be densely spaced for them to be effective, and those densely-spaced stops should be in densely populated areas to be cost-effective.
You drive to them. It isn't easy getting around in the downtowns of a lot of cities that are based on the car. Or getting to the downtowns at rush hour.
Berk's argument is why a LA-LV line makes sense I believe it's got a lot of short-haul flights that would be perfectly suited for high-speed rail. For myself I'd take a train over a plane any time if it's (as it normally is) same price or cheaper and not too much more time travelling. It's far more comfortable.
Quote from: Berkut on February 04, 2010, 09:34:55 AM
Quote from: Strix on February 04, 2010, 09:19:54 AM
Depending on how much it costs to maintain I think high speed railways can be a good idea. It could solve a lot of congestion issues around some of the major cities in the US. And it would also allow people to live farther away from those cities and still commute.
The problem is that it doesn't seem like this high speed rail is meant to cut congestion around cities, but rather connect large metro areas to other large metro areas.
Which perhaps is fine - but why? Why does the Bay Area need high speed rail connecting it to Sacramento? What is the gain there?
Certainly there is one, but I don't really know what it is. Right now if you want to make the trip it is a pretty straighforward drive in a car on excellent roads. Not much in the way of traffic, except actually within the metro areas themselves.
Or if you want to go faster, you take a plane.
High speed rail would obviously fall in between, but is there really that much demand? I don't really think people commute from Sacramento to San Jose, for example, so who is going to be using this rail?
Cost and speed aren't the only criteria taken into account when choosing a means of transport. There are others, such as convenience (trains are better than the other two), ability to work (you can't work while driving a car; you cant use your mobile or wifi on a plane), fuel consumption (you want to reduce your reliance on Saudi oil, remember?)
Plus in terms of speed, fast trains are way more efficient on medium-short distances than planes - just look at connections in Western Europe - anyone in their right mind traveling between London and Paris for example would choose a train over a plane because the wait associated with plane travel exceeds any delay due to trains traveling at a slower speed.
Quote from: Barrister on February 04, 2010, 04:40:54 PM
We don't have any rail in Whitehorse, and we manage. :Canuck:
Sled dog traffic is easy to manage.
Quote from: The Brain on February 04, 2010, 04:37:47 PM
We don't have high speed rail in Sweden and we manage.
Leave your beloved animals for a while
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_2000)
It's still faster than what passes for high speed in the US.
Quote from: Maximus on February 04, 2010, 03:09:27 PMR&D so that when we're ready for high speed inter-city rail we can go all the way to maglev(or even magtube) lines.
There is already a maglev rail in Shanghai (built to our great shame with German technology that was never implemented here).
Quote from: DGuller on February 04, 2010, 01:38:30 PMI think it's a very good investment if it's practical. However, I wonder if it's too late for most cities. If the city never had effective mass transit, then it probably sprawled when developing. If the city is sprawling, then can you still have an effective mass transit system? Don't they generally require a certain population density before being useful?
Yes. That's actually a considerable problem for European cities. Population density is sinking in quite a few areas as space per person increases whereas household size decreases. A lot of singles living in an area means that public transport is less efficient.
Quote from: Barrister on February 04, 2010, 04:40:54 PM
We don't have any rail in Whitehorse, and we manage. :Canuck:
You wouldn't manage without the Iceroads tho. Well, whitehorse might. Yellowknife would be inexistant.
Quote from: Martinus on February 04, 2010, 04:54:58 PM
Plus in terms of speed, fast trains are way more efficient on medium-short distances than planes - just look at connections in Western Europe - anyone in their right mind traveling between London and Paris for example would choose a train over a plane because the wait associated with plane travel exceeds any delay due to trains traveling at a slower speed.
Fair enough, but I assume there is an amount of routine travel between Paris and London (two of the larger cities in the world, and both destinations for work and liesure in their own rights) to warrant such a connection. How many people travel between those two cities each day?
How many people travel between the Bay Area and Sacramento each day?
I don't think the two really compare.
Quote from: Berkut on February 05, 2010, 07:59:54 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 04, 2010, 04:54:58 PM
Plus in terms of speed, fast trains are way more efficient on medium-short distances than planes - just look at connections in Western Europe - anyone in their right mind traveling between London and Paris for example would choose a train over a plane because the wait associated with plane travel exceeds any delay due to trains traveling at a slower speed.
Fair enough, but I assume there is an amount of routine travel between Paris and London (two of the larger cities in the world, and both destinations for work and liesure in their own rights) to warrant such a connection. How many people travel between those two cities each day?
How many people travel between the Bay Area and Sacramento each day?
I don't think the two really compare.
Fair enough, but the thing is that high speed rail is worthwhile even between smaller cities. It's not just between Paris and London or Barcelona and Madrid or Lyon and Paris or Milan and Rome with 500 or so flights per day, but also say Trondheim - Oslo (over/through the Dovre Mountains) and Oslo - Stockholm with 30 flights per day.
Shorter distances are even more economical, since at shorter distances the train is quicker than the plane and faster than the car.
Quote from: Viking on February 05, 2010, 08:09:11 AM
Fair enough, but the thing is that high speed rail is worthwhile even between smaller cities. It's not just between Paris and London or Barcelona and Madrid or Lyon and Paris or Milan and Rome with 500 or so flights per day, but also say Trondheim - Oslo (over/through the Dovre Mountains) and Oslo - Stockholm with 30 flights per day.
Shorter distances are even more economical, since at shorter distances the train is quicker than the plane and faster than the car.
There's enough daily traffic between Oslo and Stockholm to make line self-sustaining?
Quote from: Savonarola on February 04, 2010, 01:41:03 PM
A problem with this approach is that cities that currently have poor public transportation may not have means of maintaining the new public transportation once it has been built for them. In Detroit we just built a 22.5 million dollar bus shelter with Federal and State Grants. So far it's given muggers a warmer working environment.
This is a tremendous problem with many government spending initiatives.
Case in point: The government via a grant from FEMA or DHS or some other related agency bought a number of brand new mobile disaster response command vehicles for southern Indiana a few years back, deployed to counties which have had nearly annual flooding issues.
But they didn't establish any kind of budget to support those vehicles in any way. Most of the county governments, which are already strapped for cash, refused to allocate budget money for the vehicles, which they didn't even lobby for in the first place.
Result: Most of the county governments have a pool of command vehicles that have broken communications equipment that nobody knows how to fix, or have no budget to retain employees to actually operate the vehicles, or retrain existing employees on them. So most of these vehicles are sitting around in municipal parking lots taking up space, and were not used in any way in the August 2009 floods that devastated three southern Indiana counties. Oh, and the area got no FEMA disaster relief money because the county emergency managers didn't bother to file a claim on behalf of their constituents--Louisville had flooding issues on a smaller scale, but bothered to apply, so got abundant recovery funding.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2010, 08:17:51 AM
Quote from: Viking on February 05, 2010, 08:09:11 AM
Fair enough, but the thing is that high speed rail is worthwhile even between smaller cities. It's not just between Paris and London or Barcelona and Madrid or Lyon and Paris or Milan and Rome with 500 or so flights per day, but also say Trondheim - Oslo (over/through the Dovre Mountains) and Oslo - Stockholm with 30 flights per day.
Shorter distances are even more economical, since at shorter distances the train is quicker than the plane and faster than the car.
There's enough daily traffic between Oslo and Stockholm to make line self-sustaining?
The main problem with the Oslo Stockholm line is the inability of the Norwegian State and Swedish State Rail Companies to cooperate. They have two different standards on fast strains (not the true high speed, but rather the modified high speed like the X2000). Furthermore, economic nationalism in norway prevents cooperating with swedish companies (who seem to want to do business) and thus results in less traffic. If anything flight traffic oslo-stockholm would be less than oslo-stavanger, oslo-bergen, oslo-trondheim or even oslo-bodø or oslo-tromsø in the far north
Just checked
Oslo-Trondheim 11+9 = 20
Oslo-Stockholm 5+9 = 14
on this coming monday.
It should be priority one in Canada. More and faster (and cheaper!) trains would make Canada that much more awesome. we have room for it, and the resources. But our rail as is is stuck in the mindset of 40 years ago. probably never happen. :(
There are only two profitable rail lines in the entire world. Tokyo-Osaka and Paris-Lyons. So the idea that new rail lines being discussed could ever make a return on investment is nonsense even under the most optimistic scenarios. And since you'll still need a car at both ends of the trip in most circumstances means that it isn't even practical for most people even if the tickets are subsidized.
Indeed, the lefts fascination with mass transit has an aspect of religious fanaticism, they tend to believe in its efficacy despite all evidence to the contrary. Mass transit is only sensibly in very limited environments.
If we want some automated transit system to compete with the automobile the only sensible one would be an individual rail transit. elevated rail lines connecting neighborhoods to commercial districts along already existing streets with customers ordering individual cars as needed via cell phone to the nearest stop in their neighborhood. Top speed of about 35 mph would suffice. It would be much more useful at a similar price.
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 05, 2010, 01:43:46 PM
There are only two profitable rail lines in the entire world.
Source?
Quote from: The Brain on February 05, 2010, 01:45:46 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 05, 2010, 01:43:46 PM
There are only two profitable rail lines in the entire world.
Source?
Sorry, I just read an article on that a few days ago, but I don't remember where. I found it interesting that those two particular routes would be profitable.
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 05, 2010, 01:52:40 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 05, 2010, 01:45:46 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 05, 2010, 01:43:46 PM
There are only two profitable rail lines in the entire world.
Source?
Sorry, I just read an article on that a few days ago, but I don't remember where. I found it interesting that those two particular routes would be profitable.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703389004575033672230734364.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
Note that it is actually only two successful high-speed rail lines. Traditional rail is, of course, profitable in many places.
Quote from: Habbaku on February 05, 2010, 01:56:02 PM
Note that it is actually only two successful high-speed rail lines. Traditional rail is, of course, profitable in many places.
That's better.
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 05, 2010, 01:43:46 PM
If we want some automated transit system to compete with the automobile the only sensible one would be an individual rail transit. elevated rail lines connecting neighborhoods to commercial districts along already existing streets with customers ordering individual cars as needed via cell phone to the nearest stop in their neighborhood. Top speed of about 35 mph would suffice. It would be much more useful at a similar price.
The first part is predictable blah-blah, but this sounds interesting. Just yesterday I ran into the PRT concept on the Wiki as I was reading up on mass transit due to this thread. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit It sounds like an interesting concept, and it's a shame that such public works are not pursued more aggressively.
Quote from: The Brain on February 05, 2010, 01:56:58 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on February 05, 2010, 01:56:02 PM
Note that it is actually only two successful high-speed rail lines. Traditional rail is, of course, profitable in many places.
That's better.
Oh and this also means that X2000 isn't considered high speed rail. IN YOUR FACE DUQUE
Quote from: Habbaku on February 05, 2010, 01:56:02 PM
Note that it is actually only two successful high-speed rail lines. Traditional rail is, of course, profitable in many places.
Yeah, I scratched my head at the initial statement, as I know some freight rail lines are enormously profitable. The clarification makes sense though.
Quote from: Habbaku on February 05, 2010, 01:56:02 PM
Note that it is actually only two successful high-speed rail lines. Traditional rail is, of course, profitable in many places.
Thanks, that's the problem with quoting from memory. Since we're talking about high-speed rail in the US it is safe to assume that these proposals, if carried out, would just create another huge fiscal hole.
Quote from: Barrister on February 05, 2010, 02:03:10 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on February 05, 2010, 01:56:02 PM
Note that it is actually only two successful high-speed rail lines. Traditional rail is, of course, profitable in many places.
Yeah, I scratched my head at the initial statement, as I know some freight rail lines are enormously profitable. The clarification makes sense though.
Freight lines are not passenger lines. Of course freight-lines are often very profitable. There aren't any profitable passenger rail lines in the US, the only one approaching the break-even point is the northeast corridor from Boston to DC. the rest are incredibly wealth-destroying entities.
If anyone is really interested in Swedish rail and its profits check out this link: http://www.sj.se/content/1/c6/11/42/61/SJ%20Eng_Financial%20report.pdf
:zzz
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 05, 2010, 01:43:46 PM
Indeed, the lefts fascination with mass transit has an aspect of religious fanaticism
What is with the trend of conservatives saying their opponents' beliefs have religious characteristics? Is this new or did I just not notice before?
I do find Han's sudden willingness to look abroad for examples interesting. Quick, somebody find out how much European countries spend on health care, and its effectiveness compared to the American system.
Quote from: The Brain on February 05, 2010, 02:00:39 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 05, 2010, 01:56:58 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on February 05, 2010, 01:56:02 PM
Note that it is actually only two successful high-speed rail lines. Traditional rail is, of course, profitable in many places.
That's better.
Oh and this also means that X2000 isn't considered high speed rail. IN YOUR FACE DUQUE
For the US, it is :smarty: Not France :D
Only 2 high-speed rail lines profitable ? Really ?
On the other hand, it's a WSJ opinion piece about a plan by a Democrat president so it shouldn't take at face value...
I honestly cannot believe the Paris-Londres/Bruxelles links are not making a profit. TGV Est between Paris and Strasbourg quickly became popular and the high-speed line does not reach Strasbourg yet.
Maybe he meant by "have ever broken even" saturated because that's the problem between Paris and Lyon (bi level carriages have been used to increase capacity). I wouldn't be surprised if the Tokyo-Osaka is saturated as well.
"The LGV Sud-Est from Paris to Lyon is the busiest high-speed line in France, and since its opening in 1981 it has rapidly reached capacity. The mitigation of this problem was to run two trainsets coupled together in multiple-unit (MU) configuration, but even this has not provided enough capacity, and has the added disadvantage of requiring very long station platforms. If you can't make a train longer or wider, then the remaining option is to make it taller; hence the TGV Duplex, with passenger seating on two levels, and 45% more passenger capacity than an equivalent single-level TGV."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF_TGV_Duplex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF_TGV_Duplex)
Running at full capacity does not mean that the TGV is profitable. It could still run at a loss.
In fact, if SNCF was not government-owned, the reasonable thing to do would be to rise prices so much that they can sell exactly as many tickets as they have seats available. That would increase their income after all.
Quote from: Zanza on February 08, 2010, 07:24:44 AM
Running at full capacity does not mean that the TGV is profitable. It could still run at a loss.
In fact, if SNCF was not government-owned, the reasonable thing to do would be to rise prices so much that they can sell exactly as many tickets as they have seats available. That would increase their income after all.
It sure helps though and they have been increasing prices don't worry. TGV is their money maker and Paris-Lyon/Marseille is the number one...
When the prices were too high and the new high speed track not that long i.e only to Tours instead of going till Bordeaux or even Spain, guess what happened...
The TGV Atlantique was not that popular.
Things changed though and a new high-speed line will be build til Bordeaux and Toulouse and eventually Spain to connect to the local high-speed network and to disenclave the Iberian Peninsula.
FYI, The SNCF loses money with some provincial interregional trains (Corail like your IC) and local trains in older tracks (all money goes to TGV...) but they are subsidised by the regions.
PS: Besides, even the WSJ guy recognised Paris-Lyon was breaking even :D
It's interesting how the TGV network is like a Kraken with Paris in its middle. Is there anything in France that is not completely centralized? What if I want to go from Bordeaux to Marseille?
Quote from: Habbaku on February 05, 2010, 01:55:06 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 05, 2010, 01:52:40 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 05, 2010, 01:45:46 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 05, 2010, 01:43:46 PM
There are only two profitable rail lines in the entire world.
Source?
Sorry, I just read an article on that a few days ago, but I don't remember where. I found it interesting that those two particular routes would be profitable.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703389004575033672230734364.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
That's actually a mere affirmation in an article, made without dates, sources, quotes, evidence or base... and plainly *wrong*. Just the fact that it doesn't even mention the lines Paris-London or Madrid-Barcelona, or several others in Japan makes the article so highly dubious that it borders the ludicrous...
Actually most, if not all HS lines make a decent operating profit. Things change, of course, if you define 'profit' as an amount high enough to finance building costs, but then pretty much all roads are awfully unprofitable, not to mention harbors and airports...
Quote from: Zanza on February 08, 2010, 08:03:19 AM
It's interesting how the TGV network is like a Kraken with Paris in its middle. Is there anything in France that is not completely centralized? What if I want to go from Bordeaux to Marseille?
That's the biggest disadvantage of the French network.
Wait for a couple more HSLs to shorten the trip :D (Bordeaux-Toulouse and Narbonne-Nîmes bypass ).
Because right now, it takes an awful lot of time (5h40 at the minimum) :bleeding:
But then even the ICE takes two hours to go from Frankfurt to Saarbrücken...
Quote from: Zanza on February 08, 2010, 08:03:19 AM
It's interesting how the TGV network is like a Kraken with Paris in its middle. Is there anything in France that is not completely centralized? What if I want to go from Bordeaux to Marseille?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fz.about.com%2Fd%2Fgoeurope%2F1%2F0%2FB%2Fx%2F1%2Ffrance-rail-map-600.png&hash=b95594cc050f68d185dbefcf2cdafe85042d3d17)
Mind you, these are planned lines. That rail in red between Bordeaux and Marseilles isn't a TGV line today and won't be for quite a few years...
Quote from: Alatriste on February 08, 2010, 08:25:08 AM
Mind you, these are planned lines. That rail in red between Bordeaux and Marseilles isn't a TGV line today and won't be for quite a few years...
The part between Toulouse and Narbonne is not yet scheduled. However, remember that the TGV can use the classic line since it's the same gauge.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 08, 2010, 08:31:55 AM
The part between Toulouse and Narbonne is not yet scheduled. However, remember that the TGV can use the classic line since it's the same gauge.
True, but high speed trains requires very gentle slopes and curves. Without extensive modification TGV can use existing lines only at a much reduced speed.
We went through the same thing here with our Acela Express "high speed" trains. They look real neat like a TGV, but at least when they debuted they couldn't get anywhere near top speed because most of the lines in the Northeast Corridor (Washington D.C. -> Boston) were in such poor shape. I think they've since done a bit of improvement work, but I don't know if they are done or what.
Quote from: Alatriste on February 08, 2010, 08:16:17 AM
Actually most, if not all HS lines make a decent operating profit. Things change, of course, if you define 'profit' as an amount high enough to finance building costs, but then pretty much all roads are awfully unprofitable, not to mention harbors and airports...
It should be how it's defined. Capital has costs; just because the gov't covers them doesn't mean that they're not there. I would agree, though, that evaluating infrastructure projects based on direct return on investment alone is idiotic, and a recipe for economic stagnation.
Quote from: Zanza on February 08, 2010, 08:03:19 AM
It's interesting how the TGV network is like a Kraken with Paris in its middle. Is there anything in France that is not completely centralized? What if I want to go from Bordeaux to Marseille?
Isn't that how French rail worked since Nappy III's time?
Quote from: Zanza on February 08, 2010, 08:03:19 AM
It's interesting how the TGV network is like a Kraken with Paris in its middle. Is there anything in France that is not completely centralized? What if I want to go from Bordeaux to Marseille?
Paris is a natural transport hub; it has a central location that links it both to the Channel and the north european plain.
Geographically, the heart of the France is a bit of a no-man's land; dominated by the sparsely-settled volcanic Auvergne with the forbidding Massif Central. The terrain is quite challenging for infranstructure, and over centuries of history, this area has been one of the least settled parts of Western Europe. The current and planned TGV lines reflect this quite well.
Paris is pretty much the center-point of France, 7th Century wise. Like London, Berlin and Stockholm it combines a fording spot of a major "river" with a port for seagoing ships. You can sail up the Seine and with a short trip overland reach the headwaters of the Loire and the Rhone. You can sail down the Seine and reach the entire Normandie, Brittany and Gascogny. Gascogny has the Garonne which allows you to sail to Tolouse. Which is pretty much all of France.
It's not surprising the Gascogny remained English for so long, it was just as close to Paris as it was to London. It's not surprising that France remained weak when both ends of the Seine (Normandy and Burgundy) were in enemy hands.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 08, 2010, 08:22:15 AMBut then even the ICE takes two hours to go from Frankfurt to Saarbrücken...
That's not even the biggest issue with the German rail network. The main problem is that Germany is a federation and every state wants to have its share of the federal railway. That's why the ICE between Cologne and Frankfurt stops at the world-famous 30,000 inhabitants town of Montabaur. Montabaur happens to be in Rhineland-Palatinate and as the track crosses that state, they wanted their own stop. So now the train stops in this town and can't just go the entire way at maximum speed.
Stuff like bypassing Lyon to get faster to Marsaille from Paris would never work in Germany.
I think you guys need to find some guy to unite all those fragmented states into a great country.
Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2010, 11:04:20 AM
I think you guys need to find some guy to unite all those fragmented states into a great country.
Angela von Bismarck?
Quote from: Zanza on February 08, 2010, 10:58:26 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 08, 2010, 08:22:15 AMBut then even the ICE takes two hours to go from Frankfurt to Saarbrücken...
That's not even the biggest issue with the German rail network. The main problem is that Germany is a federation and every state wants to have its share of the federal railway. That's why the ICE between Cologne and Frankfurt stops at the world-famous 30,000 inhabitants town of Montabaur. Montabaur happens to be in Rhineland-Palatinate and as the track crosses that state, they wanted their own stop. So now the train stops in this town and can't just go the entire way at maximum speed.
Stuff like bypassing Lyon to get faster to Marsaille from Paris would never work in Germany.
Same in Norway, roads have to go through every single little shithole village along the way, slowing the highway down to 50 kph from 80 kph just as the road veers from the straight and level to go up and around some hill just to go through som shithole little village with 15 houses a gas station and a small grocery store.
Quote from: Zanza on February 08, 2010, 10:58:26 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 08, 2010, 08:22:15 AMBut then even the ICE takes two hours to go from Frankfurt to Saarbrücken...
That's not even the biggest issue with the German rail network. The main problem is that Germany is a federation and every state wants to have its share of the federal railway. That's why the ICE between Cologne and Frankfurt stops at the world-famous 30,000 inhabitants town of Montabaur. Montabaur happens to be in Rhineland-Palatinate and as the track crosses that state, they wanted their own stop. So now the train stops in this town and can't just go the entire way at maximum speed.
Stuff like bypassing Lyon to get faster to Marsaille from Paris would never work in Germany.
Between Frankfurt and Saarbrücken it could be easiled improved, at a price though but then Frankfurt-Mannheim is close to saturation (200 kph section "only").
We've discussed this before but there are worse examples in France with beetroot stations such as Lorraine TGV, even Forbach just after Saarbrücken is better, or Haute Picardie TGV which serve 0 inhabitant :D
Not all TGVs or ICEs stop there though, fortunately.
Quote from: Zanza on February 08, 2010, 08:03:19 AM
It's interesting how the TGV network is like a Kraken with Paris in its middle. Is there anything in France that is not completely centralized? What if I want to go from Bordeaux to Marseille?
You should see England's high speed rail network:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greengauge21.net%2Fassets%2Freseau_railteam.jpg&hash=094eafcf253dba3d2afa3721209fce3b14887987)
:sadblush: :weep:
Britain's narrowness really should make for having high speed rail two routes- a westerly one up to Manchester via Birmingham and a easterly one to Edinburgh via Newcastle and Leeds. And I suppose Cardiff via Bristol if we must.
Its really bizarre how there are flights from the northern cities down to London and Bristol.
*sigh*
And here I am dreaming of a London-Dublin railway and we can't even get stuff in Britain done...
If we had a high speed train connecting Vancouver with Seattle I would take it regularly.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2010, 06:49:28 PM
If we had a high speed train connecting Vancouver with Seattle I would take it regularly.
It's the border, not the speed of transportation, that's the delay there...
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2010, 06:53:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2010, 06:49:28 PM
If we had a high speed train connecting Vancouver with Seattle I would take it regularly.
It's the border, not the speed of transportation, that's the delay there...
exactly. Just go and precheck before boarding and sail over the border without the hour long line ups. By the time I would be pulling up to a grumpy border guard I could be chilling in Jazz Alley.
Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2010, 10:16:38 AM
I would agree, though, that evaluating infrastructure projects based on direct return on investment alone is idiotic, and a recipe for economic stagnation.
The externalities of travel and transport are not totally obvious to me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2010, 07:05:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2010, 10:16:38 AM
I would agree, though, that evaluating infrastructure projects based on direct return on investment alone is idiotic, and a recipe for economic stagnation.
The externalities of travel and transport are not totally obvious to me.
It's less obvious the grander the scale is, and I can't explain it in proper terminology. I'll try to explain how I intuitively perceive the externalities involved, and hopefully won't make any blunders in my reasoning.
In general, the world is richer on the whole when it's better connected. Transportation costs are a drain on the trade activity of all kinds, and thus mutually beneficial trades may fail to happen because the costs due to geographical distances are prohibitive. The better the connections are between all points, the more effectively supply can meet demand for various trade activities.
Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2010, 07:23:50 PM
It's less obvious the grander the scale is, and I can't explain it in proper terminology. I'll try to explain how I intuitively perceive the externalities involved, and hopefully won't make any blunders in my reasoning.
In general, the world is richer on the whole when it's better connected. Transportation costs are a drain on the trade activity of all kinds, and thus mutually beneficial trades may fail to happen because the costs due to geographical distances are prohibitive. The better the connections are between all points, the more effectively supply can meet demand for various trade activities.
That's true of any kind of subsidy, the activity will increase. Still not apparent to me a new port, for example, will have benefits to society higher than the charges levied on the ships that dock there.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2010, 07:30:44 PM
That's true of any kind of subsidy, the activity will increase. Still not apparent to me a new port, for example, will have benefits to society higher than the charges levied on the ships that dock there.
I wasn't talking about subsidies, I was talking about the general economic benefits of improved connectedness. Improving transportation by itself will promote more economic activity, due to lower natural barriers to trade. The subsidies don't enter the picture yet, I'm just trying to explain the positive externalities generated.
Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2010, 07:41:37 PM
I wasn't talking about subsidies, I was talking about the general economic benefits of improved connectedness. Improving transportation by itself will promote more economic activity, due to lower natural barriers to trade. The subsidies don't enter the picture yet, I'm just trying to explain the positive externalities generated.
If we're talking about the societal benefit of infrastructure projects that don't generate a profit, we're talking about de facto subsidies.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2010, 08:10:43 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2010, 07:41:37 PM
I wasn't talking about subsidies, I was talking about the general economic benefits of improved connectedness. Improving transportation by itself will promote more economic activity, due to lower natural barriers to trade. The subsidies don't enter the picture yet, I'm just trying to explain the positive externalities generated.
If we're talking about the societal benefit of infrastructure projects that don't generate a profit, we're talking about de facto subsidies.
I'm talking about the societal benefits of infrastructure, period. The externalities are there whether those projects generate profits on their own or not.
Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2010, 08:35:47 PM
I'm talking about the societal benefits of infrastructure, period. The externalities are there whether those projects generate profits on their own or not.
OK, tell me more about them.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2010, 06:55:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2010, 06:53:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2010, 06:49:28 PM
If we had a high speed train connecting Vancouver with Seattle I would take it regularly.
It's the border, not the speed of transportation, that's the delay there...
exactly. Just go and precheck before boarding and sail over the border without the hour long line ups. By the time I would be pulling up to a grumpy border guard I could be chilling in Jazz Alley.
:beatnik:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 08, 2010, 04:10:44 PM
Quote from: Zanza on February 08, 2010, 08:03:19 AM
It's interesting how the TGV network is like a Kraken with Paris in its middle. Is there anything in France that is not completely centralized? What if I want to go from Bordeaux to Marseille?
You should see England's high speed rail network:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greengauge21.net%2Fassets%2Freseau_railteam.jpg&hash=094eafcf253dba3d2afa3721209fce3b14887987)
:sadblush: :weep:
Well, the map is a bit misleading since it includes TGV/ICE services on conventional lines whereas the British HSL is a real one from the Tunnel to London.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2010, 07:30:44 PM
[
That's true of any kind of subsidy, the activity will increase. Still not apparent to me a new port, for example, will have benefits to society higher than the charges levied on the ships that dock there.
Employment for dock workers, construction workers and others increased tax take from employees and companies that benefit are the most obvious.
If the port allows for the cheaper movement of goods then this will tend to reduce prices.
I'm less convinced on the externalities for high speed train routes. Generally, new train lines can assist in the regeneration of urban areas but this applies only where they provide public transport where there was none before. An extreme example is the Docklands Light Railway in London which allowed for the creation of a whole new financial district. The benefits of that (pretty inexpensive) infrastructure must have repaid its costs hundreds of times over. For high speed, whcih is city to city and generally utilising existing mainline stations, it's harder to see any regeneration.
Quote from: Gups on February 09, 2010, 07:07:04 AM
Employment for dock workers, construction workers and others increased tax take from employees and companies that benefit are the most obvious.
If the port allows for the cheaper movement of goods then this will tend to reduce prices.
I'm less convinced on the externalities for high speed train routes. Generally, new train lines can assist in the regeneration of urban areas but this applies only where they provide public transport where there was none before. An extreme example is the Docklands Light Railway in London which allowed for the creation of a whole new financial district. The benefits of that (pretty inexpensive) infrastructure must have repaid its costs hundreds of times over. For high speed, whcih is city to city and generally utilising existing mainline stations, it's harder to see any regeneration.
Pretty sure those direct participants you mention don't count as externalities. A container ship docks in Long Beach, pays a market fee, unloads and delivers a brand new made in China Nike shoe to DGuller. DGuller gets the direct benefit of the shoe, everyone else gets the benefit of money. What do you and I get out of the fact that DGuller is wearing new shoes?
The port delivers more than one pair of shoes, surely? Most of the population consumes products. If the transport costs of those products are reduced and if the savings are at least partially passed on to us, we benefit. A lot of "ifs", I know.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 09, 2010, 08:05:03 AM
Quote from: Gups on February 09, 2010, 07:07:04 AM
Employment for dock workers, construction workers and others increased tax take from employees and companies that benefit are the most obvious.
If the port allows for the cheaper movement of goods then this will tend to reduce prices.
I'm less convinced on the externalities for high speed train routes. Generally, new train lines can assist in the regeneration of urban areas but this applies only where they provide public transport where there was none before. An extreme example is the Docklands Light Railway in London which allowed for the creation of a whole new financial district. The benefits of that (pretty inexpensive) infrastructure must have repaid its costs hundreds of times over. For high speed, whcih is city to city and generally utilising existing mainline stations, it's harder to see any regeneration.
Pretty sure those direct participants you mention don't count as externalities. A container ship docks in Long Beach, pays a market fee, unloads and delivers a brand new made in China Nike shoe to DGuller. DGuller gets the direct benefit of the shoe, everyone else gets the benefit of money. What do you and I get out of the fact that DGuller is wearing new shoes?
Because there are ports, cotton growers, Nike factories, and the little Asian children working there, all got to specialize more in their trade. It's hard to quantify, I'm a PhD or two short to be able to do that, but I strongly feel intuitively that all this increase in specialization has more winners than losers, and that the net win exceeds the port fees.
Quote from: Gups on February 09, 2010, 09:25:27 AM
The port delivers more than one pair of shoes, surely? Most of the population consumes products. If the transport costs of those products are reduced and if the savings are at least partially passed on to us, we benefit. A lot of "ifs", I know.
The question is whether we benefit net of the cost of building and operating the port.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 09, 2010, 06:38:26 PM
Quote from: Gups on February 09, 2010, 09:25:27 AM
The port delivers more than one pair of shoes, surely? Most of the population consumes products. If the transport costs of those products are reduced and if the savings are at least partially passed on to us, we benefit. A lot of "ifs", I know.
The question is whether we benefit net of the cost of building and operating the port.
And that depends on the demand for that particular trade route. It may be that a new port will be better placed then older ports. For example the new port being constructed on the Central BC coast will cut shipping times from Japan considerably and it is well contected by Rail to Chicago making it a guarranteed success.
On the other hand it makes little sense to build a new port between Seattle and Vancouver. Those ports already adequately handle the demand to the rail links those ports already service.