View Full Version : Caution Signals for High Speed Rail
Eric Stoner
03-14-2011, 10:36 AM
Yes
Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes. Congress can place a tax (fine) on all licensed drivers that don't buy a Volt. They could pass a tax on parents with school age children that don't buy a computer or musical instrument. Just because Congress can do something, doesn't mean they are going to. They are still elected by the people and can be voted out of office by the people.
What was it Reagan said about the Federal government ? : " If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it."
jester214
03-14-2011, 04:54 PM
I have. For tomorrow, Friday March 11, Raleigh to Charlotte. Round trip airfare on USAirways is $597. The shortest non-stop trip only takes forty-five minutes in the air, but parking and security adds about an hour and a half each way so figure an 2:15 each way. And no internet service for the forty-five minutes in the air.
Amtrak is $52 round trip, I get a $5.00 discount for being a member of NARP. Time is 3:25 each way, but it's an easy trip and I can work the whole way. No standing in line for insane security check, no getting groped by a government agent, no open your laptop crap. Just walk on the train first thing tomorrow morning and the conductor just scans my ticket. Oh, and the internet works the whole way. Sweet deal.
Driving 170 miles on the interstate, 2:20 each way if I don't get stuck in traffic. Cost, $.51 per mile, 340 miles total (170 each way) $173.40. Can't work at all in the car unless I hire a driver. (Which I would consider if Amtrak wasn't available.)
My pick, even NC's slow old Amtrak trains. They are slow, but they're cheap and work as a rolling office. Double bonus, I can get a latte in the cafe` car. Triple bonus, no groping in the security line.
Really, it's hard to beat Amtrak.
Z
I've only flown from Raleigh to Charlotte and back, maybe 3 times, but it's never taken me 2:15. I also never paid $525.
The first and last time I tried the Amtrak route it was 45 minutes late getting me there, and the air conditioning in the car they told me to ride in was out the whole way. 8 hours of misery. Worst train ride of my life, including Berlin to Amsterdam overnight with no AC in the summer.
It's pretty easy to beat Amtrak.
jester214
03-14-2011, 05:02 PM
Never say never.
Normally I'm not one to say never, but I'll say it on this one.
Americans in general are not patient people. I can get across the country in a plane faster than I can go a few hundred miles on a Train.
As a long distance mode it is not practical. For short distances people have cars. Not having a car at your destination often destroys the practicality of the train as a short distance mode.
It will never catch on in this country. If it somehow does, air transportation will cheapen and people will move away from trains again.
peachplumpear
03-14-2011, 10:46 PM
But what about when we don't have or cant afford the jet fuel? Isn't that coming in 50 years or less?The infrastructure of HSR will last far beyond peak oil.
Cant these trains be powered by windmills and solar panels? Surely the trains don't run on a resource that isn't renewable...
eagle2
03-15-2011, 07:30 AM
For conservatives, the main basis for their opposition to high-speed rail is their ideology. No matter how many facts they are presented with showing the benefits of high-speed rail, they are going to oppose it because it's against their ideology.
jester214
03-15-2011, 08:37 AM
But what about when we don't have or cant afford the jet fuel? Isn't that coming in 50 years or less?The infrastructure of HSR will last far beyond peak oil.
Cant these trains be powered by windmills and solar panels? Surely the trains don't run on a resource that isn't renewable...
If we can't afford jet fuel we won't be able to afford car fuel. If we don't have an alternative by that point (something that can run cars, planes, whatever) then we're all dead.
For conservatives, the main basis for their opposition to high-speed rail is their ideology. No matter how many facts they are presented with showing the benefits of high-speed rail, they are going to oppose it because it's against their ideology.
You are utterly ridiculous. Plenty of liberal leaning people think trains and high speed rail are worthless and a waste of time and money. Anytime a person you consider "conservative" disagrees with you, you just start claiming they are ignoring facts and following the mythical ever shifting all encompassing ideology. I want some of what you're on.
Eric Stoner
03-15-2011, 08:52 AM
For conservatives, the main basis for their opposition to high-speed rail is their ideology. No matter how many facts they are presented with showing the benefits of high-speed rail, they are going to oppose it because it's against their ideology.
Come on Eagle . You know better than that. Legitimate questions have been raised about the ACTUAL costs and REAL benefits of High Speed Rail.
You might call it "ideology" but I prefer to call it what it is : Knowledge of historical facts. Those FACTS include a well documented history of cost overruns and reality failing to live up to projections on many a government funded project.
You, and some others, have made some legitimate points about the energy efficiency of passenger rail. I and some others have questioned whether the actual ridership of HSR justifies A. its cost and B. diversion of funds from improving existing commuter rail lines.
For the most part, HSR caters to either the business traveler or the vacationer. It has a very low level of projected DAILY usage by commuters. Both business and vacation travelers have other options , namely cars and planes and maybe even buses. It just seems to make sense to get more daily commuters out of their cars and into mass transit to save fuel and be "greener".
I don't know how many times I have to say it: Afaic , HSR is a nice thing for us to have. But we live in a time of finite resources and crippling debt. Before pouring hundreds of billions into HSR projects we ought to make as sure as possible that it truly is money well spent. And if it comes down to a choice between commuter and HSR; if we cannot afford to do both, I think the facts weigh heavily in favor of spending the money on commuter lines. I fail to see what my "ideology" has to do with it.
eagle2
03-15-2011, 10:09 PM
If we started planning and building high speed rail lines right now, it will probably be another 20 years before high speed rail is widely available. Our air transportation system is close to capacity right now. If it continues to grow, it will eventually become unmanageable. We're going to have to spend billions of dollars upgrading our air transportation system just to keep up with growth. A significant number of domestic flights are just a few hundred miles long. If we built high speed rail lines, many of these air routes could be replaced by high speed rail.
Right now the cost of fuel isn't that bad, but 10 to 20 years from now, gasoline could go to $10 a gallon. If that does happen, high speed rail will become a far cheaper alternative to flying or driving. In addition, the cost of solar and wind power continues to fall dramatically every year. Twenty year from now they will probably be cheaper than any alternative. High speed rail would be in the best position to take advantage of these energy sources for transportation.
Eric Stoner
03-16-2011, 10:55 AM
If we started planning and building high speed rail lines right now, it will probably be another 20 years before high speed rail is widely available. Our air transportation system is close to capacity right now. If it continues to grow, it will eventually become unmanageable. We're going to have to spend billions of dollars upgrading our air transportation system just to keep up with growth. A significant number of domestic flights are just a few hundred miles long. If we built high speed rail lines, many of these air routes could be replaced by high speed rail.
Right now the cost of fuel isn't that bad, but 10 to 20 years from now, gasoline could go to $10 a gallon. If that does happen, high speed rail will become a far cheaper alternative to flying or driving. In addition, the cost of solar and wind power continues to fall dramatically every year. Twenty year from now they will probably be cheaper than any alternative. High speed rail would be in the best position to take advantage of these energy sources for transportation.
Thank you. Now THAT was a sensible, fact based and well reasoned argument in favor of HSR. I'm serious. There is genuine food for thought in what you posted.
The larger issue, which you also raise, is the dramatic underinvestment we've made in our overall transportation infrastructure. Which is why I think we ought to be cautious and careful about how much we spend on what.
Hopper
03-18-2011, 04:08 AM
Uh, I thought one of the main arguments for HSR was that it would create jobs.
Creating jobs alone is not justification for anything, it has to have a genuine benefit and purpose. To create jobs, it would be cheaper and less wasteful of resources if the government paid the same number of people to shovel a truckload of horseshit from one end of a stadium to the other.
Moreover, it would help a lot of underprivileged folks who are very geographically limited as to where they can work because they can't afford a car and have no access to adequate public transportation.
As the OP indicated, HSR only benefits a minority of relatively wealthy or professional people.
LMAO @ your comment Eric that liberals want to get people into trains to "control" them. Are you serious?
When you refute all the claimed reasons, what's left? The only real difference between government transport (trains, buses, ferries) and private transport (automobiles) is that autos allow free, convenient personal travel and greater mobility and government mass transit is controlled by the government and allows less mobility.
Whether or not the government is influencing more people to use government mass transit with the AIM of controlling them, the fact remains that those people's travel WILL be under far greater government control, simply because government mass transit IS controlled by the government.
But the government of course knows this and of course does want to have more control over people, so it is not at all silly to speculate that the government is influencing more people to use it's mass transit with that aim. The natural tendency of any government is to expand it's power.
You probably are serious, I'm sure you think Michelle Obama reminding us to eat our vegetables is an example of LIBERAL SOCIALIST FOOD CONTROL.
No, that's just typical elite patronization. Like when Barry told us we could reduce oil imports by keeping our tyres inflated and keeping out engines tuned. Or when Alan Greenspan, during the Ford administration as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, campaigned against inflation by telling people to finish the food on their plates and housewives to spend as little as possible on groceries. Perhaps elites, who don't need to do any of this for themselves, don't realize that this is what the common man routinely does out of necessity. But I forgot - Michelle is "one of us", because she's pals with Oprah.
Hopper
03-18-2011, 04:18 AM
What you ignore is highways and airlines are more heavily subsidized than rail. For that matter transit is far more heavily subsidized than rail.
Z
Highways are not subsidized, they are paid for from "user fees" exacted for the purpose. Much of the subsidization of rail is redirected highway user fees. Also, the cost per passenger mile is less for highways than for rail. You are merely comparing the total cost amounts of each, ignoring the difference in amount of use or benefit. You are comparing the costs of building a house and an office block to claim that the house is more economical.
Hopper
03-18-2011, 04:41 AM
But what about when we don't have or cant afford the jet fuel? Isn't that coming in 50 years or less?The infrastructure of HSR will last far beyond peak oil.
Cant these trains be powered by windmills and solar panels? Surely the trains don't run on a resource that isn't renewable...
The oil peak was between 1965 and 1070 (as predicted in 1956), before it was moved to 50 or 100 years from the present, another 55 years on.
The replacement cycle of rail infrastructure is about 30 years, i.e. every 30 years infrastructure is effectively paid for all over again in maintenance, renovation and refurbishment costs. Peak oil is farther away than that. (Far, far away.) No HSR cannot be economically powered by renewables.
Melonie
03-18-2011, 06:50 AM
Much of the subsidization of rail is redirected highway user fees.
Thank you for pointing out this seldom publicized fact. While HSR is a 'special case' of mass rail transit, there's not much reason to assume that the subsidy policies are likely to also be a 'special case'. The famous example of such subsidy policies is New York's subway, where the gov't sets the 'ticket price' at $2.25 / $2.50 but the actual 'all in' cost of paying NYC transit personnel, maintaining track and rolling stock etc. is closer to a $6.00 'ticket price'. Part of this 'shortfall' in self-funding is made up for by taxes imposed on US federal / NY / NYC residents that eventually find their way to the NY Transit Authority. Another part of this 'shortfall' is made up for by dedicated NY motor fuel tax on gasoline and diesel fuel ( the vast majority of which must be paid for by suburban and rural NY residents who don't have access to the NY Subway or any gov't mass transit system).
HSR faces a similar public policy dilemma. If HSR were to be operated on a break even self-funding basis, the ticket prices would have to be so high that they could not successfully compete with commercial air or private vehicle costs - meaning that America would have a shiny new high speed train that virtually nobody can 'afford' to ride. If HRS were to be operated in typical subsidized fashion, fares would be reduced to economically competitive levels ( in fact the Acela just lowered fares due to declining passengers ) but the shortfall in ticket revenues versus actual operating costs and payroll costs would have to be made up for by US taxpayer subsidies on a permanent basis.
Hopper
03-18-2011, 07:46 AM
^ Correctamundo. Generally fares pay for something like a quarter of the cost of government transit. If it were funded by fares alone, they would be unjustifiable to most people and the "underprivileged" would be driving, cycling or walking. As it is though, the general population do pay for it all. Transit users, a small percentage of the population, have the remainder of the real, full cost of their rides paid for by all taxpayers. If everyone were to use transit, however, everyone would be paying the full cost or their rides in fares plus tax. The more people who use transit, the closer we approach this situation.
BTW Randal O'Toole, the Cato Institute researcher mentioned in the OP, has a website and a blog and has published some good books on the subject of autos and transit.
http://ti.org/
http://ti.org/antiplanner/
http://www.cato.org/people/randal-otoole
Eric Stoner
03-18-2011, 09:10 AM
NYC Subways and commuter rail lines like Metro - North and the L.I.R.R. are heavily subsidized by bridge and tunnel tolls. Cars and trucks using the VN and other TBTA bridges and tunnels subsidize rail riders. There are also direct Federal , State and City subsidies for rail systems.
While I still like trains (and Eagle has raised some legit points in favor of HSR) on balance I am very leery of spending hundreds of billions on such a system. To date, nobody has been able to show that such a system could possibly show a profit. Except for the existing Acela served corridor.
Now a subsidized system, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. If , and ONLY if , there are demonstrable and tangible corollary benefits. What are they ?
Job creation ? Questionable and once the system is in place, then what ?
Energy efficiency ? Maybe and ONLY if enough people actually USE the system. They will do so ONLY if the costs are competitive with other modes of travel.
Less pollution ? Yes. Trains are greener than cars , buses and planes. But again that is dependent on enough people forgoing plane and auto travel in favor of switching to HSR.
Now when these nebulous and questionable benefits are stacked against the enormous cost, the wisdom of such an investment becomes highly questionable at best. COMMUTER rail still gives a much better bang for the buck. Reducing traffic in and to major cities has a demonstrable impact on both fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. As I see it, it just makes much more sense to put our limited resources into improving existing commuter rail.
bem401
03-20-2011, 07:35 AM
Somewhat related to the topic at hand. How ironic is this?
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/03/19/joe-biden-train-station/
Melonie
03-20-2011, 10:26 AM
^^^ yup, a mere 5.7 million ( = 14%, which is less than similar gov't projects ) over budget, and with 20 million in US federal taxpayer money already in hand the state of Delaware taxpayers now being on the hook for both the 4.7 mill cost overrun plus the states original 20 mill match to the federal funds. The construction contractors have already received their 'prevailing wage' payment, and the gov't employee Amtrak and TSA workers will continue to receive their $100,000 a year pay + benefit packages forever.
As to Acela, the ONLY profitable semi-high speed rail line in the USA, for a fact it is no longer profitable. The reason for this is that Amtrak has chosen to reduce Acela fares from ~$160 to ~$100 in an effort to counteract declining passengers.
eagle2
03-20-2011, 10:06 PM
Highways are not subsidized, they are paid for from "user fees" exacted for the purpose. Much of the subsidization of rail is redirected highway user fees. Also, the cost per passenger mile is less for highways than for rail. You are merely comparing the total cost amounts of each, ignoring the difference in amount of use or benefit. You are comparing the costs of building a house and an office block to claim that the house is more economical.
Highways are subsidized.
http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/highways/funding/
Using Federal Highway Administration statistics, Subsidyscope has calculated that in 2007, 51 percent of the nation's $193 billion set aside for highway construction and maintenance was generated through user fees—down from 10 years earlier when user fees made up 61 percent of total spending on roads. The rest came from other sources, including revenue generated by income, sales and property taxes, as well as bond issues.
eagle2
03-20-2011, 10:09 PM
HSR faces a similar public policy dilemma. If HSR were to be operated on a break even self-funding basis, the ticket prices would have to be so high that they could not successfully compete with commercial air or private vehicle costs - meaning that America would have a shiny new high speed train that virtually nobody can 'afford' to ride. If HRS were to be operated in typical subsidized fashion, fares would be reduced to economically competitive levels ( in fact the Acela just lowered fares due to declining passengers ) but the shortfall in ticket revenues versus actual operating costs and payroll costs would have to be made up for by US taxpayer subsidies on a permanent basis.
You're making stuff up again. Acela is more than able to break even. If Acela can, there is no reason why new high speed rail lines couldn't. This would be especially true if the price of oil increases significantly, which it probably will over the next decade.
jester214
03-21-2011, 12:11 AM
If Acela can, there is no reason why new high speed rail lines couldn't. This would be especially true if the price of oil increases significantly, which it probably will over the next decade.
Go look at a population density map and then tell me this same thing with a straight face.
Melonie
03-21-2011, 02:37 AM
(snip)Amtrak is temporarily cutting fares on the Acela Express in response to the sagging economy, which has driven ridership down as people travel less on the service that connects Boston and Washington, D.C.
The company is offering a 25-percent reduction on its lowest one-way fares for travel starting March 3. Travelers will now be able to book business-class tickets on the Acela Express between Boston and New York for as low as $79 and between Washington and New York for $99. The tickets must be booked 14 days in advance. They are nonrefundable, though they can be exchanged.
Amtrak also cut the price of a one-way business-class ticket on the Acela Express from Providence to New York to $74.
Amtrak’s nationwide ticket sales haven’t dropped significantly during the economic downturn. They were down only 0.4 percent this past January compared with January 2008.
But sales of tickets on the Acela Express, the company’s high-end service on the Northeast Corridor that includes Rhode Island, have been substantially affected. In the four-month period since the end of Amtrak’s last fiscal year, from October to January, the number of travelers dropped 10.3 percent.
And the decline may be accelerating. Ridership this past January was 13.8 percent lower than it was in January 2008.
Amtrak spokesman Clifford Cole attributed the drop to the economic recession. Companies are slashing their travel budgets and reducing payroll.
“We’re seeing companies either cutting that out of their operating budgets or having people laid off,” Cole said.
The Acela Express was hit so hard because it relies heavily on business travelers moving between Boston, New York and Washington. (snip)
from
- point one unless Acela was previously operating with a 25%+ profit margin it is now losing money under the reduced fare structure
- point two the vast majority of Acela's actual ticket buyers were / are inter-city business travellers ... where shorter travel times versus higher ticket prices is a 'cost of doing business' ( and thus deductible as a legitimate business expense tax deduction i.e. a quasi-subsidy ).
Eric Stoner
03-21-2011, 07:09 AM
(snip)Amtrak is temporarily cutting fares on the Acela Express in response to the sagging economy, which has driven ridership down as people travel less on the service that connects Boston and Washington, D.C.
The company is offering a 25-percent reduction on its lowest one-way fares for travel starting March 3. Travelers will now be able to book business-class tickets on the Acela Express between Boston and New York for as low as $79 and between Washington and New York for $99. The tickets must be booked 14 days in advance. They are nonrefundable, though they can be exchanged.
Amtrak also cut the price of a one-way business-class ticket on the Acela Express from Providence to New York to $74.
Amtrak’s nationwide ticket sales haven’t dropped significantly during the economic downturn. They were down only 0.4 percent this past January compared with January 2008.
But sales of tickets on the Acela Express, the company’s high-end service on the Northeast Corridor that includes Rhode Island, have been substantially affected. In the four-month period since the end of Amtrak’s last fiscal year, from October to January, the number of travelers dropped 10.3 percent.
And the decline may be accelerating. Ridership this past January was 13.8 percent lower than it was in January 2008.
Amtrak spokesman Clifford Cole attributed the drop to the economic recession. Companies are slashing their travel budgets and reducing payroll.
“We’re seeing companies either cutting that out of their operating budgets or having people laid off,” Cole said.
The Acela Express was hit so hard because it relies heavily on business travelers moving between Boston, New York and Washington. (snip)
from http://www.projo.com/business/content/BZ_ACELA_PRICES_02-23-09_QSDCRF4_v26.3bb43d6.html
- point one unless Acela was previously operating with a 25%+ profit margin it is now losing money under the reduced fare structure
- point two the vast majority of Acela's actual ticket buyers were / are inter-city business travellers ... where shorter travel times versus higher ticket prices is a 'cost of doing business' ( and thus deductible as a legitimate business expense tax deduction i.e. a quasi-subsidy ).
As a semi-frequent rider on the Acela line, my admittedly unscientific observation tells me that the bulk of the riders are business travelers. Students, tourists and vacationers are just as likely to drive or take a bus.
Eric Stoner
06-28-2011, 12:10 PM
Excellent article in today's N.Y. Times about Congressman Mica from Florida securing billions in Federal funds for a rail line that directly benefits CSX and will serve about 2,000 rail passengers per day. This is AFTER Governor Scott turned down Federal funds for a highly questionable HSR project that duplicates an existing Interstate. What the article doesn't say ( preferring to focus on Mica, a Republican and the crony capitalism benefitting CSX ) is WHY Obama's Transportation Dept. and a DEMOCRAT Senate is going along with this spendthrift lunacy ?
Zofia
07-01-2011, 06:43 PM
I've only flown from Raleigh to Charlotte and back, maybe 3 times, but it's never taken me 2:15. I also never paid $525. Then you did not pass through security and you didn't pay the walk up fare. Unfortunately, security eats up time and the walk up fare is the fare. If you travel on short notice, as I did, that's what you'd have to pay. The Amtrak fare is also the walk up fare.
The first and last time I tried the Amtrak route it was 45 minutes late getting me there, and the air conditioning in the car they told me to ride in was out the whole way. My last Amtrak trip was on time and the air conditioning worked well. Further, the lounge had a very nice latte and a cute waiter. We won't discuss the flying grandma's that USAirways calls flight attendants.
Z
Eric Stoner
07-05-2011, 06:54 AM
Then you did not pass through security and you didn't pay the walk up fare. Unfortunately, security eats up time and the walk up fare is the fare. If you travel on short notice, as I did, that's what you'd have to pay. The Amtrak fare is also the walk up fare.
My last Amtrak trip was on time and the air conditioning worked well. Further, the lounge had a very nice latte and a cute waiter. We won't discuss the flying grandma's that USAirways calls flight attendants.
Z
Zofia ! I am shocked, SHOCKED ! that you could ever post such an insensitive and discriminatory remark. "Flying grandma's " ? That's a nasty thing to say about "flying aunties" !
Eric Stoner
08-10-2012, 08:07 AM
Another "I told you so " according to DEMOCRAT State Senator Joe Simitian of California. Although he is a fan of HSR "done right", he is one of four California state senators to have voted against spending $100 billion on a bullet train from San Fran to L.A. In 2008 California voters approved an almost $10 billion bond issue to build a $33 billion HSR project. The original estimate of 44 million riders per year has been radically revised downward. Now it is estimated to cost $100 billion. According to Jerry Brown, it will only cost $68.5 billion. The savings will come from taking away the "bullet" by not building the special high speed roadbed. Rotflmao. God Bless Jerry. I can't make this stuff up. Nobody takes his fiscal estimates seriously. His projection in May of a $15.7 budget deficit is 70 % higher than what his January estimate was.
Obama and the Feds have come up with $3.3 billion for this project. Simitian says it is 5 % of the cost "if the project stays on budget". Who thinks that will ever happen ? He notes further that the $3.3 billion plus $ 2.7 from the state are supposed to finance a 130 mile stretch through the Central Valley. A train from and to NOWHERE. It will NOT be high speed , will not be electrified and there is no private funding or dedicated funding source of any kind. And the 2008 ballot measure authorizing the bonds specifically prohibited state operating subsidies. Smarter than their governor, 59% of California voters who originally voted "Yes" would now vote "No" on this project.
In contrast to "Dum Dum Brown", who failed to recognize what voters clearly see ( that the Federal $3.3 billion was designed to let California commit itself to much bigger future spending ) the Governors of Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida and arguably New Jersey dodged and rejected this Federal "honeypot". Scott Walker rejected $810 million for a 78 mile HSR project parallel to I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee. Less than 1 1/2 hours by car or bus. In Ohio, Kasich rejected $400 million for a rail line traveling at automobile speed between Cleveland and Cincinatti. The best one was what Rick Scott rejected in Florida: $2.4 billion for 90 miles of HSR between Tampa and Orlando. A completely unknown number of hypothetical travelers were supposed to park their cars in Tampa, take the train and then rent another car in Orlando. A 90 mile trip by car that can be covered in 75 minutes ! Obviously this was some sort of "faith based" transportation policy lol. What Christie did in N.J. was somewhat different. What he rejected was not a HSR project. However he wisely refused to commit the N.J. taxpayers to an open-ended rail tunnel project with no protection against cost overruns and nebulous contributions from NYC and N.Y. State.
Returning to California, "Dum Dum" Brwon has not budgeted a nickel to cover the inevitable environmental litigation. Califonia is sown thicker than any other state with environmental laws and regulations and of course has more than its share of lawyers. A HSR project without anything resembling an EIS is an open invitation to decades of litigation.
All this posted by a train buff who likes train travel and prefers it to flying. But as I have posted, why would anyone take a train when they can drive to the same place just as cheaply, maybe cheaper. Or take a train from San Fran to L.A. when flying is faster and cheaper. Before Eagle says that my "ideology" is out of control , what does he say to Senator Simitian and his fellow Dems who object to this type of boondoggling ?
Eric Stoner
10-01-2012, 11:43 AM
Some food for thought based on a very recent travel experience : HSR can work if ( it's a big "IF" ) it's done right. Just got back from a trip from NYC to D.C. It was MUCH cheaper and did not cost a measurably amount of additional time for me to take the train instead of flying. The train ( Northeast Regional formerly called the Metroliner ) took 3 hours from downtown to downtown. Flying takes about an hour BUT when you add in the security screening and getting to and from the airport, the travel times were fairly equivalent. Both trains I took were full. Sold out. I spoke to a few folks who told me they were "regular riders " and they told me "nobody flies anymore ". Too expensive. The days of the $49 and then $99 "D.C. Shuttle " are long over. Airline tickets START at $500 round trip ! And there aren't that many direct flights. Most have hours long stopovers in BOSTON of all places lol. Nothing against Boston btw.
Acela ( the high speed rail sic. ) is a joke. To save 1/2 an hour ( AT MOST ) it is 3 times as expensive. It tops out at 120 mph for relatively short stretches vs. 90 mph for the cheaper alternative.
The point is that IF routes are carefully and very selectively chosen they can compete on price with flying and beat driving on time. Unfortunately we have seen a LOT of wishful thinking in several high profile HSR projects. California ( San Fran to L.A. ) and Florida ( Tampa to Orlando ) being the best ( worst ? ) examples.
My question is : Are we necessarily limited to the Northeast Corridor for viable routes ? What about L.A. to Vegas ? L.A. to Palm Springs ? D.C. to Richmond ? Springfield to Chicago ? I don't know. I am asking.
Eric Stoner
02-15-2019, 08:14 AM
I told you so. I told you so. Cali Governor Gavin Newsom has cancelled California's HSR boondoggle. The original estimate of $33 billion ballooned to ( at last count ) $117 billion and California doesn't have the money.
The kicker is Newsom is desperate to try and avoid repaying the Federal grant received from Obama of $3.3 billion.
Stay tuned.